h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Two features of reality point any rational, self-preserving social agent in a moral direction. And they could provide a benchmark for determining when the judgments of our moral sense are aligned with morality itself."

Article by Steven Pinker

I suppose a link would help

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin

Once again, it's all POV I suppose. Teresa could be lauded by lauded by a humanist or Catholic alike for making the best of a bad situation, Gates could be praised by IT guys who actually like Windows (I've met some) and Borlaug could be considered the father of GMOs and fertilizer pollution. Personally, considering all the pros and cons I can think of, Borlaug is deffinitely the lesser of three weevils.

>>the lesser of three weevils

Do I detect a Patrick O'Brian fan?

...you caught me!

Yes, but only since the film, before that I read and re-read every adventure of Horatio Hornblower that I could find from Mr. Forester (or should I say Mr. Smith) and that started about when he passed.

I like Mr. O'Brian's prose better, though. It has more depth of character than the HH series, I always found Forester almost Victorian in portrayal of relationships. It probably stems from the fact that I read them first as a teenager but only discovered Aubrey and Maturin a few years ago. Being a sailor myself and the son of an RN Lieutenant Commander didn't hurt the attraction as well!

Are you also a fan? (Oh and I won't excuse the pun, if I can find one I'll use one as you Shirley must know by now.)

A fan? I think the word is 'addict'?

There's a lot in them, isn't there? They're not just nautical yarns. In fact...due to his 'total immersion' approach, I'm at a total loss as to what is happening during any naval manoeuvres.

I read 'Clarissa Oakes' after Christmas.

This links into something I was thinking about the other day.
At least some of the criticism of Mother Theresa is that, whilst she helped others, she didn't help as much as she could have done.
I.e. from the link above
"their sick patrons were offered plenty of prayer but harsh conditions, few analgesics and dangerously primitive medical care"

Is it valid to criticise those who help, but don;t help as much as they could? After all, those who have been helped are better off than they were before. But they aren;t as well off as they could be if more had been done by the helper.

Assuming, of course, that the recipient of the help is willing to receive any level of help offered. And also assuming that the reduced level of help given was not dictated by some negative effect on the helper.

My personal thoughts are that this is an area where morality is not binary. Yes it is good that the helper helped, but it isn't good that they did not help as much as they could have done. A sort of gray area of morality if you will.

>>Is it valid to criticise those who help, but don;t help as much as they could?

In the case of Auld Ma T - yes. Her interet was largely in encouraging the poor to give their poverty and suffering as 'gifts to god'. She accepted donations from various dodgy sources (Papa Doc Duvalier; a US embezzler of pension funds) in return for glowing testimonials for the donors. The funds would go not for medical equipment but for convents in her name. And yet when she got ill herself, it was off to Europe for the best treatment money could buy.

That's not an argument about the morality of help though is it? That's about her specific self interest, which doesn't have anything to say about the general morals of helping others, but only a bit.

Except that the 'help' amounted to giving people somewhere to die quietly while praying.

Hell - maybe she meant well.

>>After all, those who have been helped are better off than they were before

Only if we believe they're 'In A Better Place'.

Depends, minimal levels of care, a roof over their head - is this not better than no levels of care and no roof over their head?

Not as good as a proper modern hospital with surgeons and drugs and therapy and so forth. But still better than what they had before?

Fasir enough. Just as long as we don't get the idea she was some sort of saint.

oh hell no!

which is why I was trying to keep this conceptual and about morality, and not discuss any particular person as inevitably it becomes more about the person than the morality.

So. To restate.

Is it OK/acceptable to condemn a person who has helped another for not helping as much as they could have done?

I wonder though is accepting money from those who *sin* a sin unto itself? I never agreed with the whole *sins of the father* and *dirty money* concept, once the deed is done, all the damage is done as well.

As to not doing as much as they could, who's to judge? Again, strictly POV.

"who's to judge?"
God?

Who?

I meant to say that a moral standard for that which has already been judged by the person themselves who did the deed is a difficult thing. If I believe I had done the very best I could do within a legal context, who is to fault me? The moral judgement of a Kalahari bushman would be quite different than by a post office worker but who is to say it's wrong? Our defined framework of law, ethics and morality is just that, OUR framework. Given that there are some absolutes, they are generally described by the legal system and upbringing. Other than causing no harm to others, it's all POV as I said.

sorry, couldn't resist.

I think I may not be explaining myself well, or misunderstanding what I am asking!

OK, lets try a specific then, although I said I didn't want to!

You need, shall we say, an operation which will cost 10,000 groats.
You have no groats.
You come to me and I give you 100 groats. I could afford to give you the whole 10,000 groats without any penalty to myself.

Am I being immoral in not so doing? Could Henry, a third party, rightly look down on me for not giving the whole 10,000?

Or, maybe I can't afford the whole 10,000, but I can afford 9,000 groats. In that situation you still couldn't immediately get the treatment. But you would be much more likely to be able to get the whole 10,000 quickly than if I had given you 100 groats. Again, would it be immoral of me to do so?

is this not a universal morality? if not, why not?
Am I just simplifying the question too much? Should we count into that what the person is then going to do? What the person has done? What else I might do with the many groats I have?

I would say once again that context is the key.

If you give 100 groats and I know of another 90 people that would give an additional 100 groats each (and you also knew it) then you would would be a just, moral and ethical person. If you didn't know it and there was no other reason you gave only 100 groats other than a sense that you shouldn't contribute more (or any other reason that was not selfless) then you could be described as unjust, immoral and unethical.

However,

For the sake of argument let us suppose that the rest of the world doesn't know why you choose to only give 100 groats. No one can then make the judgement as to your moral compass. You yourself can decide if you are a moral person but your POV may be skewed (given that you made that decision you might justify your actions.

Perhaps this was one of the reasons for the invention of a *higher being* as he/she/it could *see what you are doing and why* and thus you should comply to the set of rules layed down by society and/or religion even if you personally don't agree with them. Justice, Morals and Ethics need to be defined but their core is almost like Asimov's Laws of Robotics- harm no one through action or inaction including yourself. The fine print defines each society.

Sooo...if what someone needs is food and medicine, and someone turns up dishing out Bibles...can the Bible-disher said to be doing good? It would probably be well-intentioned an' all.