Is destruction of an object of value inherently unethical?
Re: Is destruction of an object of value inherently unethica
Translation: And you, doctor? Why do you want to insult me? I am not that much of a jackass.
Pronouns: Active/Passive/Possessive: They/Them/Their.
Orientation: Asexual
Likes their partners the way they like their coffee: they don't like coffee.
Writes a Homestuck/Worm crossover called Hope Springs Eternal, on Spacebattles.
Orientation: Asexual
Likes their partners the way they like their coffee: they don't like coffee.
Writes a Homestuck/Worm crossover called Hope Springs Eternal, on Spacebattles.
-
Cornhusk dreams
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:29 pm
Re: Is destruction of an object of value inherently unethica
I think there's multiple types of value: Monetary, Utility, and Cultural. It's not unethical to destroy something of high monetary value, provided it belongs to you and not someone else (Burning a thousand dollar bills, for example). On the other hand, it IS HIGHLY unethical to destroy something with a high utility value unless you are replacing it with something of even higher utility value. (Examples: The last of a species of plant that is used in the production of some valuable medical stuff. The cure for cancer. The prototype and plans for a more effective tool of some sort.). High cultural value is not ethically wrong, but still a dickbag move. I wouldn't say that defacing the mona lisa is inherently evil... but it is inherently selfish, and a dick move besides. Destroying some valuable excavation because it didn't match with your vision of the past is a similarly dickbag move.
BTW my ethics have more slots than just good and evil. Dickbag is one of them. A good person is someone who is tolerant, and counts harm done to others as a negative factor in their utility function. Evil people count harm done to others as a positive factor in their utility function, or don't care about harm done to others. Dickbags have a higher threshold on what is considered 'harming' another person than socially normal but still strive to be moral according to their somewhat abnormal views (A dickbag wouldn't kill or torture, but finds it acceptable to, say, get into a bar fight). In truth my categorisation is more complex than that with way more slots and variables. I'm just simplyfying it for the sake of this conversation.
BTW my ethics have more slots than just good and evil. Dickbag is one of them. A good person is someone who is tolerant, and counts harm done to others as a negative factor in their utility function. Evil people count harm done to others as a positive factor in their utility function, or don't care about harm done to others. Dickbags have a higher threshold on what is considered 'harming' another person than socially normal but still strive to be moral according to their somewhat abnormal views (A dickbag wouldn't kill or torture, but finds it acceptable to, say, get into a bar fight). In truth my categorisation is more complex than that with way more slots and variables. I'm just simplyfying it for the sake of this conversation.
Re: Is destruction of an object of value inherently unethica
What about the sort of bar fight where everyone at the bar knows it's coming, knows not to get too serious about it, and is looking forward to the evening's entertainment?Cornhusk dreams wrote:(A dickbag wouldn't kill or torture, but finds it acceptable to, say, get into a bar fight)
Neither a creeper nor a jackass be; if you manage these two things, everything else should work itself out.