Applied Morality: A Concrete Example

Ed,

Re: Post #0.

I surmised early on that nearly all solicitations in public are some kind of con. I simply look them in the eye and say "Not interested". I have been known to give money when asked, after sizing the person up. I do not do exchanges.

The principle is: these people either are con men [or women], or they are acting irrationally out of desperation or they are mentally ill. I don't want to get involved with strangers in any of these situations.

Post 21

Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 4:56pm

Mike,

Thanks for the explicit validation of my gut reaction in this concrete case. I suppose we can go on and on about how it is that I could have "milked" the situation to forward my financial aims -- but at the end of the day, I find myself dealing with those with which I'm "comfortable" dealing. And that is the crucial point -- that we deal with others comfortably.

The point is not to try to see how each and every interaction with another can be "capitalized upon." The point is to find and trade with others who are "capitalizable" per se. It's to find trading partners who can be trusted -- and to build up a relationship with them. Trading with folks with whom you would rather have nothing to do with for your entire life is a compromise on value. It might be rational if your personal need is great but, if given the choice, it is not rational to deal with earth's non-producers (assuming this man was one of them).

Ed

Post 22

Monday, November 13, 2006 - 4:20am

Ted,

====================
I don't see how it follows that one should seek out making margin on welfare blackmarkets. I want the argument limited to your original example. In that case, his actions are none of your business, and whether you choose to deal with him afterwards per Aaron's suggestion is again, optional.
====================

Let us agree to disagree here. While it's true that his actions aren't my business, my business with him IS. And of course you are right in that no simple syllogism will guide a man's action in this concrete case. Perhaps it appears that I'm being defensive and merely rationalizing a justification of my intuitive and negative response to this man. Nevertheless, as you said earlier, if you're rational, go with the gut. I did and it's done.

In this thread I was seeking out the morally optimal response to folks who are on the dole and offering deals to the producers of this world. Perhaps I should have rephrased the question as WWRD (What would Rand do?). My guess is that she'd act like I did, but I posed the question because I was not sure.

Ed

Post 23

Monday, November 13, 2006 - 2:34pm

Is every person who receives food stamps a non-producer?

Ed, if the man had not smelled and had been wearing clean clothes, was clean shaven and so forth, would you have felt differently?

Post 24

Monday, November 13, 2006 - 9:59pm

Deanna, you ask ...

======================
Is every person who receives food stamps a non-producer?
======================

Most certainly not. And this very fact is the reason that I added the qualifier "(assuming this man was one of them)."

======================
Ed, if the man had not smelled and had been wearing clean clothes, was clean shaven and so forth, would you have felt differently?
======================

Well, yes, actually. But if what you are really asking is whether I'm "prejudiced" against bargaining with smelly, unshaven strangers in dirty clothes well ... well ... well, I guess I am, come to think of it. In this short exchange, I had been given little more to go on than this man's appearance and demeanor -- and yet I had to judge him (as either worthy of personally engaging or not).

We do this sort of thing all the time. One of my favorite hypotheticals is of a large man in a trenchcoat who shows up at your front door at 2am -- asking to borrow a cup of sugar. Do you judge him first (ie. "pre-judge" him) and refuse to let him in -- or do you suspend judgment until after you've had more of a conversation, so that you could get to know him better before judging him?

:-)

Ed

Post 25

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 1:35am

I most certainly refuse to agree to disagree with you, since I do not believe that we disagree on what you had said up to post 22.

But perhaps we disagree here, you seem to feel that it is immoral to deal with those who take state handouts. I would argue that while those people may be personally irresponsible, so long as the dole exists, taking advantage of it without fraud is not the problem. The fact that the dole exists is the problem.

I second Deanna's question. But more to the point, I went to Rutgers on full state scholarship. Should we stop dealing with each other on that basis, or at least in so far as our discussions deal with such matters as biology, philosophy, the classics, and so forth, which I studied at taxpayer expense? I don't think you will go this far. I liked your original question, but as you have been challenged, you have been backing away from it towards abstractions which were not necessarily implied by your question. My answers will have to vary to meet your questions, but I enjoy answering them. I could also be reading Seneca or Oscar Wilde, but have followed my whim by choosing to answer you.

Ted

Post 26

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 1:38am

And the man who wants the sugar should be given it if you have more than you need, are happy to risk not being repaid, and you can put it in an envelope and slide it under the door.

Post 27

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 9:16am

"The fact that the dole exists is the problem."

Ted,

================
Should we stop dealing with each other on that basis, or at least in so far as our discussions deal with such matters as biology, philosophy, the classics, and so forth, which I studied at taxpayer expense?
================

No (and not just because I've taken state grants for college funding!).

================
I liked your original question, but as you have been challenged, you have been backing away from it towards abstractions which were not necessarily implied by your question.
================

Perhaps true, but is that really all that relevant? For instance, let's say that, instead of attempting to generalize from this concrete experience, that I only wanted to know what kind of reaction was warranted in this one case. My aim would then be only to decide on the level of rational morality that I had displayed, in this single instance. While quenching my curiosity, the new understanding of this single instance would then not be made available for integration into my future moral actions, and I'm more interested in how well I can do with my life -- rather than how well I have done with it so far.

You see, my underlying aim was always to generalize. More to the point, my underlying aim in all theoretical discussion is to generalize, or to integrate (after proper differentiation of the relevant fundamentals). Wouldn't you agree that that is a good thing to do? Or does this seem like even further rationalization and possibly obfuscation on my part?

Thanks for engaging me like this, Ted. I enjoy that.

Ed

Post 28

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 9:24am

I was wondering last night how far down the street I could get if I had to think out all the questions of the type you put. I see people wearing Che TShirts, take a train where there is a new beggar boarding at each stop, so the third beggar gets nothing and then curses people out. I act and rarely regret, those are the ones I think about, and then make a principle.

What have you done that went wrong that you can tell us about?

And wouldn't you slide the sugar under the door?

Post 29

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 9:26am

Newsflash
==============
2:30am: Man in trenchcoat caught walking the streets with envelope containing white powder, police hold him in custody until canine unit arrives
==============

See the point? The point is not judge based on appearances -- unless other information is not available, in which case the point is to judge based on appearances.

;-)

Ed

Post 30

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 9:40am

==================
I was wondering last night how far down the street I could get if I had to think out all the questions of the type you put.
==================

Good point, Ted.

==================
I act and rarely regret, those are the ones I think about, and then make a principle.
==================

I'd like to think that I do the same.

==================
What have you done that went wrong that you can tell us about?
==================

That's a Banter question.

==================
And wouldn't you slide the sugar under the door?
==================

And risk having this poor soul in the trenchcoat accosted and detained by the police???

;-)

Seriously, considering your initial qualification of the particulars (I can spare the sugar, am willing to risk a loss, and can make the transaction without jeopardizing my safety) -- of course I would. But, you see, those key qualifications are so clear as to preclude the possibility of moral dilemma.

My underlying interest is to discover the key qualifications that apply to my own and, by extension, similar apparent dilemmas. In short, I'd like to know what rational methods or tools to use in order to well handle similar situations in the future.

Ed

Post 31

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 11:08am

For once, I agree with Ted Keer. The guy trying to get you to buy him cigarettes could have been some undercover agent. It's not likely, but it's hardly worth taking the risk.

It depends on the state laws, but I think you have to have some type of license to sell cigarettes. It's a little different than selling a candy bar or a ream of paper.

When I worked in the hotel business, some guy wanted to sell me cigarettes so he would have money for a room. I called our bartender to see if he would be willing to buy. He refused to buy, even though he was a smoker. Later he said to me that the guy could have been ATF.

This was how I got my Steelers jacket. I still have the jacket.

Post 32

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 7:16pm

Now come on Ed, if its "banter within the context of a socratic exercsie" then you can post it here unelss your too embarrassed. Here;s one for you, I was waiting to board the E Train in NYC subaway, and was leaning against an I-beam pillar. there was no train in sight, the station was packed. I was facing NE.

Someone came along beside me, sidled me away from the I beam whic I resis'ed, since I was perfetcly placed to get a saet, and then started rubbing my bottom, in a way that seemed like they were rubbing a bag. It was probably butt to butt, but may have been the unknown's hand, I could not turn and face this person without losing position, and its lights approached in the distance, but the bum rubbing continued. What did I do?

Ted

BTW I have walking pneumonia caught from a friend who flew back from apaplachicoala had a tornado their last week. If there are many typos, my apologies.

Post 33

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 8:27pm

"It was probably butt to butt, ... but the bum rubbing continued."

[laughing hysterically] Ted,

You have got to just trust me on THIS one: It's a Banter topic. It really is.

;-)

Ed

Post 34

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 11:43pm