Ethics HypotheticalFollow

It's unethical for the same reason that torturing animals and watching child **** is unethical....

not because it causes direct harm to a thing or individual; rather it helps perpetuate such emotions or actions in one's mode of thinking.

Edited, Aug 15th 2007 3:27:53pm by Kelvyquayo

Yes it would still have been wrong that you punched her.

It would also be wrong for you to go back in time and not punch her as maybe for you or her that could be life changing moment in a very possitive sence.

Maybe because you punched her she would have a CT scan that reveals a cancer that could be treated but if left would kill her. Or you would fall madly in love with the arresting policewoman and live happily ever after.

who knows who knows.

Now, if i could go back in time an hour i would cook more noodles, they where really nice but i didn't do enough.

Most likely not. An hour isn't enough time to really get into any major trouble.

There is always the chance that it might not work that one time that would keep me acting pretty much the same.

Is it any different from say having the ability to magically make people forget the harm you caused them and erase the signs of it?

I could spend an hour beating the ever living **** out of someone then magically make it 'not happen'. Just because I erased the signs of the action doesn't mean it didn't happen. Also there is the idea that toying with the time line to satisfy your own needs is kind of a unethical act in itself.

Well if you could somehow hold the ethics constant under this circumstance, I would say yes, it's still unethical.

Ethics is all about choosing to do the right thing. It's about the means and not the end. Because you can simply undo the outcome of your actions doesnt really change anything...ethically.

Taking your example; you feel like punching my mom because she's a ***** and therefore you want to cause her pain. Wanting to cause her pain is not unethical. Punching her is. If you go back in time, you will have removed the pain you caused her, but not at all changed the fact that you punched her or your decision to act (although as I alluded to at the start..just the ability to 'undo' stuff would really skew anyones judgement on what's ethical and what's not).

Practically, probably not. If you want to go all Kelv, I could guess there's a metaphysical difference in that, my way, it "didn't happen" to the person.

The genesis for this was a thread elsewhere where someone asked what you'd do if you could rewind time, at will, five seconds. Someone (jokingly, I assume) said they'd grab random boobies on the street and that opened the question of ethics.

I dunno.. the board went down after the question was raised. I decided to elaborate upon it and ask it here.

Well that brings my old question: What is really unethical about torturing animals? They don't have feelings.. right? Sure they make noises when they are in pain.. but hasn't nature shown that this is simply a reflex rather than an emotional expression..

and with the Child ****.. the case was watching it (which is still unethical) however it in itself causes no direct harm to the victim as the harm is already done.

Seems to me that all of the harm done in both of these cases is on a personal level... harm to one's psyche (soul).

In the same point with punching your mother and then changing time or whatever to make it never happen... except YOU know that it happened; thus the harm is to yourself.

Say what?

I should probably look up the definition of Ethics

but to continue...

I'm saying exactly That.. When you Harm something... it has a relexive action... yelling and feeling pain... ect...

But still.. my question is Why is Torturing animals unethical?
They feel pain.... but So? Why should we care? Is it personification?

Now you say that doing such a deed can cause the animal to be dangerous to Humans.... which really is just a grape-vine way of saying that still that causing the harm in Humans is Bad.... thus the notion of the ethics of harming animals is superceded..


but still... animals.. Why? we slaughter cows and chickens and pigs... and they live in torturous conditions... yet we have this double standard with other animals like dogs and cats because we have arbitrarily assigned these emotional attributes to them....

so the way I see it, still, the only thing unethical about torturing an animal is that is can cause indirect harm to a Human... either physcial harm from that animal attacking a human.... or emotional harm in a person knowing that an animal was tortured...
Animals don't really have functional lives that can be ruined, causing them to be counter-productive members of society... they are NOT members of any society... save for the personal emotional contructs that we have chosen to apply to them... which is a fallacy... they are just animated meat...

Can you tell I'm REALLy bored? I'm seriously not trying to hi-jack your thread with ramblings about animal ethics...

Edited, Aug 15th 2007 4:24:03pm by Kelvyquayo

you're just biased toward mammals.

When a Dog cures a disease, I'll concider torturing them unethical.
(not including the harm that it would do to one's psyche, that is the unethical portion... rather than the act itself)




PS: I really love all animals and would never stand for harming one, this is all for arguments sake... for the next 45 minutes til I GTFO of here.

Edited, Aug 15th 2007 4:14:59pm by Kelvyquayo

Unethical. Period.

The conditions you've set really are addressing the issue of whether or not you get caught, not whether the action itself is wrong. You still choose to do that action. At that time, that action was unethical (assuming that your ethical rules normally would define the action as such). The fact that you can erase it does not change that, and even knowing that you can erase it does not change that.


Let's present it another way. How often has the "alternate timeline" plot been used in science fiction? Does the fact that the heroes are going to change the timeline and erase the evil actions of the nasty bad guy make the nasty bad guy any less evil? Interestingly, in those plots typically no one retains any knowledge of the events (other then the audience), but we clearly know who the bad guy was. Ethics doesn't change just because the effects can be erased after the fact.

IMO, giving any other answer leads one down a path of further questions that ultimately will box anyone taking that position into a corner.