Ethics of Relative Position vs Universal Gain?

[Jolly_Penguin]

Toni's back and forth on the Transgender Bathroom thread brought out an interesting underlying moral question in the context of unisex bathrooms and whether or not urinals should be in them, and so not to derail that thread I would like to explore the underlying ethical principle here.

Is giving a person a benefit another doesn't get or can't use unfair and unjust? Is it still unfair and unjust if the advantage indirectly benefits the second person so that both are better off?

What should we value more: relative position or how far along we all go?

Psych research can't answer what we should value, but it has answered what we DO value, and that is relative position, so I can see why Toni was saying what she was saying despite cutting her own nose to spite the other's face. I recall a psych experiment they did on something similar many years ago. It showed that equalization matters to people more than personal benefit. They have some money to one participant and told that participant to give some of it to the 2nd participant. The 2nd was given the option to keep what they got or declare it all null so that they didn't get anything but neither did the first participant. If the split was deemed unequal and unfair, they would exercise this option, to their own detriment.

Is that social psychological rule justifiable in reason and ethics or is it a misfiring?

 

[Jarhyn]

Toni's back and forth on the Transgender Bathroom thread brought out an interesting underlying moral question in the context of unisex bathrooms and whether or not urinals should be in them, and so not to derail that thread I would like to explore the underlying ethical principle here.

Is giving a person a benefit another doesn't get or can't use unfair and unjust? Is it still unfair and unjust if the advantage indirectly benefits the second person so that both are better off?

What should we value more: relative position or how far along we all go?

Psych research has can't answer what we should value, but it has answered what we DO value, and that is relative position, so I can see why Toni was saying what she was saying despite cutting her own nose to spite the other's face. I recall a psych experiment they did on something similar many years ago. It showed that equalization matters to people more than personal benefit. They have some money to one participant and told that participant to give some of it to the 2nd participant. The 2nd was given the option to keep what they got or declare it all null so that they didn't get anything but neither did the first participant. If the split was deemed unequal and unfair, they would exercise this option, to their own detriment.

Is that social psychological rule justifiable in reason and ethics or is it a misfiring?

My personal understanding is that this is a common behavior we see in many different species, and it fits well within a Darwinian model. This is NOT to say it is ethical, but merely that it is emergent under Darwinian pressures in various species

The rationalization and expected benefit is that by leveling away the benefits of others, by preventing others from having access to adaptation, they and their children will not prevail against you and your children.

However, it is not adaptive in the sort of evolution that has made humanity successful over the last 200,000 years. Ethics is, in my best estimation dependent on what best serves the survival of a population, and this prisoner's dilemma of lack of compromise for the benefit of the group and instead for a perceived leveling leads to clear loss of utility. In the utilitarian mode it is unethical, and by teaching adherence to the best outcome and overcoming our emotions leading, as others have said, 'cutting off your nose to spite their face', we would all have more and be happier with the results, if not at the time where we must war against our emotional Darwinian pressures.

As I pointed out before, there is an underlying problem with the virtue ethics model which accepts without question purely Darwinian imperatives: from whence comes virtue?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My take on it is that while the desired outcome is an equal benefit to all but that an unequal benefit is better than no benefit when equality isn't possible.

 

[Bronzeage]

This seems like a dilemma for an only child.

We live in groups and must have the cooperation of the group to survive. Any consideration of self and personal needs must always be tempered with the effect on our group.

The strange psych experiment of "If I can't have what I want, nobody can have anything," seems prearranged to come to it's conclusion.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Is giving a person a benefit another doesn't get or can't use unfair and unjust? Is it still unfair and unjust if the advantage indirectly benefits the second person so that both are better off?

Let's say a company figures out how to make a vaccine (or a cure) for HIV (or for Ebola, or whatever), which is safe and effective for females, but ineffective for males.
Would it be unfair and unjust for the state to make the vaccine available in public hospitals?
Would it be unfair and unjust for the company to sell it at a low price?
I think the answers are negative.

 

[Bronzeage]

Is giving a person a benefit another doesn't get or can't use unfair and unjust? Is it still unfair and unjust if the advantage indirectly benefits the second person so that both are better off?

Let's say a company figures out how to make a vaccine (or a cure) for HIV (or for Ebola, or whatever), which is safe and effective for females, but ineffective for males.
Would it be unfair and unjust for the state to make the vaccine available in public hospitals?
Would it be unfair and unjust for the company to sell it at a low price?
I think the answers are negative.

Are you saying it should not be available because it is only efficacious for women?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Let's say a company figures out how to make a vaccine (or a cure) for HIV (or for Ebola, or whatever), which is safe and effective for females, but ineffective for males.
Would it be unfair and unjust for the state to make the vaccine available in public hospitals?
Would it be unfair and unjust for the company to sell it at a low price?
I think the answers are negative.

Are you saying it should not be available because it is only efficacious for women?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying the answers are negative.

 

[Bronzeage]

Are you saying it should not be available because it is only efficacious for women?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying the answers are negative.

Just checking for clarification.
A negative response to "Would it be unfair and unjust for the company to sell it at a low price?" would be, "It is not unfair and unjust...", or "no".

A positive response would be, "It is unfair..." or, "yes."

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Good example. Would anybody say we shouldn't distribute it? Does making it the undoing of negative instead of the creation of a positive change the dynamic?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying the answers are negative.

Just checking for clarification.
A negative response to "Would it be unfair and unjust for the company to sell it at a low price?" would be, "It is not unfair and unjust...", or "no".

A positive response would be, "It is unfair..." or, "yes."

When I said the answers are negative, I meant that the answer to each of the questions is "No".

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Good example. Would anybody say we shouldn't distribute it? Does making it the undoing of negative instead of the creation of a positive change the dynamic?

In some poor neighborhoods in the province of Buenos Aires, there is no drinking water, or a public sewer system.
If the government of the province builds them (as it's planning to), will that be unfair and unjust (it doesn't benefit most inhabitants of the province directly)?
I think it won't.
Does that count as the creation of a positive, or undoing a negative?
If that's the creation of a positive, it works as a counterexample.

If it's the undoing of a negative, I would need more info on what counts as the creation of a positive, but still, we may think of other cases.

Also, are we talking about government action only, or actions by private citizens count too? Is it unfair and unjust to do something to benefit your children, but not other children?

 

[fromderinside]

Is giving a person a benefit another doesn't get or can't use unfair and unjust? Is it still unfair and unjust if the advantage indirectly benefits the second person so that both are better off?

Let's say a company figures out how to make a vaccine (or a cure) for HIV (or for Ebola, or whatever), which is safe and effective for females, but ineffective for males.
Would it be unfair and unjust for the state to make the vaccine available in public hospitals?
Would it be unfair and unjust for the company to sell it at a low price?
I think the answers are negative.

Its pretty clear you are saying the hypothesized actions of the entities would be just.

Its irrelevant to consider whether the actions good or bad policy. They, as you say, would be just activity. By this I guessed you are saying their actions would be ethical.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Let's say a company figures out how to make a vaccine (or a cure) for HIV (or for Ebola, or whatever), which is safe and effective for females, but ineffective for males.
Would it be unfair and unjust for the state to make the vaccine available in public hospitals?
Would it be unfair and unjust for the company to sell it at a low price?
I think the answers are negative.

Its pretty clear you are saying the hypothesized actions of the entities would be just.

Its irrelevant to consider whether the actions good or bad policy. They, as you say, would be just activity. By this I guessed you are saying their actions would be ethical.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I was considering whether they would be unfair and unjust, on the basis of that information alone, and also taking into consideration an "all other things equal" clause.
For example, in the case of the state, it would be bad policy (and unjust) if, say, the vaccine in question is very expensive and it requires raising taxes, and also someone else at the same time made a much less expensive vaccine that works for both males and females and is just as safe, effective, easy to manufacture, etc., but the state either provides the vaccine that works only for females giving no justification for the choice.
You can find other reasons why it would be bad policy in some scenarios, but I didn't mean to cover every possible case; an "all other things equal" clause is usually implicit, and good enough to make the point.

Still, I can just say that at least, it would not always be unfair and unjust for the state to provide the vaccine in my example, and that's good enough to make the point.

 

[fromderinside]

Its pretty clear you are saying the hypothesized actions of the entities would be just.

Its irrelevant to consider whether the actions good or bad policy. They, as you say, would be just activity. By this I guessed you are saying their actions would be ethical.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I was considering whether they would be unfair and unjust, on the basis of that information alone, and also taking into consideration an "all other things equal" clause.
For example, in the case of the state, it would be bad policy (and unjust) if, say, the vaccine in question is very expensive and it requires raising taxes, and also someone else at the same time made a much less expensive vaccine that works for both males and females and is just as safe, effective, easy to manufacture, etc., but the state either provides the vaccine that works only for females giving no justification for the choice.
You can find other reasons why it would be bad policy in some scenarios, but I didn't mean to cover every possible case; an "all other things equal" clause is usually implicit, and good enough to make the point.

Still, I can just say that at least, it would not always be unfair and unjust for the state to provide the vaccine in my example, and that's good enough to make the point.

I just danced past the unnecessary detail and arrived at you believe such actions would be ethical.

 

[Perspicuo]

My take on it is that while the desired outcome is an equal benefit to all but that an unequal benefit is better than no benefit when equality isn't possible.

I believe we are all interested in the self-centered position... and we attempt to argue towards ourselves and others in a more universalist tone because that is how we make our arguments convincing.

"I want to be left alone to do what I prefer" is less convincing than "It's unfair to impose injurious rules upon others". The second argument helps the audience imagine themselves in the receiver's place... again, the egocentric position. We don't care about other people the more we see them as not belonging to our own "tribe". If it can happen to our own kith and kin, it is liable to happen to ego (me).

One of the successful strategies of fundamentalist churches (even if they themselves don't know they're doing it) is separate gays and other queers are as a radical other, and not our sons, daughters and uncles. Also, dark-colored people are "another race" as if they were another species. Laws against miscegenation were directed against seeing African-Americans as part of the same species (even if they didn't word it the same way).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My take on it is that while the desired outcome is an equal benefit to all but that an unequal benefit is better than no benefit when equality isn't possible.

I believe we are all interested in the self-centered position... and we attempt to argue towards ourselves and others in a more universalist tone because that is how we make our arguments convincing.

"I want to be left alone to do what I prefer" is less convincing than "It's unfair to impose injurious rules upon others". The second argument helps the audience imagine themselves in the receiver's place... again, the egocentric position. We don't care about other people the more we see them as not belonging to our own "tribe". If it can happen to our own kith and kin, it is liable to happen to ego (me).

One of the successful strategies of fundamentalist churches (even if they themselves don't know they're doing it) is separate gays and other queers are as a radical other, and not our sons, daughters and uncles. Also, dark-colored people are "another race" as if they were another species. Laws against miscegenation were directed against seeing African-Americans as part of the same species (even if they didn't word it the same way).

I don't really see how you are addressing my point. I'm specifically addressing the case where something can't be done in an equal fashion. In case you missed it the origin of this thread was Toni objecting to urinals in unisex bathrooms because women can't use them--but the reality is that if there are urinals there will be less competition for the stalls and thus a benefit to the women, just not as much of a benefit as to the men.

 

[ronburgundy]

My take on it is that while the desired outcome is an equal benefit to all but that an unequal benefit is better than no benefit when equality isn't possible.

I agree with clarification. It isn't so much that "equality isn't possible" but that it isn't possible while also improving everyone's lot. It is a matter of mature compromise among multiple values that often cannot be simultaneously maximized. Getting back to the urinal example, urinals are by far the most efficient way to increase available places for both men and women within unisex bathrooms. Both genders suffer worse results without them. Inequality is not so harmful in that situation that preserving it is more important than benefiting all people. OTOH, inequality of some things is more harmful, such as inequality of opportunities to improve oneself. It isn't the inequality per se, but the long term impacts the inequality can have on well being that determine how important it is to guard against it.

Where the left goes wrong is when they hold preserving equality as the most important value, even if all must be harmed to do so. That is the "chop all trees down to their trunk to make them equal height" approach (credit to Rush "Trees")
Where the right goes wrong is in presuming that inequality is always acceptable because it is "natural" and caused by inequality in ability/deservingness, thus they ignore that inequality is not only often the result of unfair rules designed to create it but that it can itself often have harmful effects on society in general (such as effects of extreme income inequality on social stability, crime, etc.).