Feel like wrestling with some uncomfortable questions?

[Big RR]

You do raise an interesting point there Meade, which I will liken to an actual situation I was witness to. A friend worked for an early telecommunications company (kind of like a very early internet information service) run by two orthodox jews; one time over Yom Kippur there was a problem and one came in and worked on it for many hours to keep the service up and running. When the other came in the next morning he was livid and the other defended himself by saying they had a duty to their customers, while the first man said it was immoral for anyone to benefit from an immoral act. I don't t recall exactly what happened, but the guy who did not do the work did something to reverse all the work and take the network (or whatever they called it then) down and then they had to redo all the work. Now, although I am not certain of morality in this case, I imagine many jews would consider working on Yom Kippur immoral (anyone who knows more than I can weigh in), so was it immoral to use the benefit. The absolutist would take that position, while the relativist would balance the harm with the value (however perceived) of the benefit, maybe even having a sliding scale to assess the harm of the immoral act versus the benefit conferred. Others might also say that it is immoral to ignore the benefit, even if it was the result of an immoral act. But if relativism is "junk", as you say, is it improper to divorce the two acts and say the morality must be judged independently.

In his teachings Jesus appears to do this saying it is not immoral to heal on the Sabbath, while not disputing that working on the Sabbath is the breaking of a commandment. He uses the example to save a person or animal as being a defensible reason to do the immoral act and break a commandment. But what he does not tell us is whether we need to look at this in a relative way (comparing the damage and the benefit) or should just consider the two separately. But, in any event, he does not reject using the benefit because it was the result of an immoral act. So I would think he would not reject the public benefit of the immoral act.

I can understand how some would not be comfortable with this, and I would hope people would not use it to justify the immoral behavior (although i am certain some would), but I don't think we should ever ignore the benefit or not use it for the benefit of all.

[Sue U]

You do raise an interesting point there Meade, which I will liken to an actual situation I was witness to. A friend worked for an early telecommunications company (kind of like a very early internet information service) run by two orthodox jews; one time over Yom Kippur there was a problem and one came in and worked on it for many hours to keep the service up and running. When the other came in the next morning he was livid and the other defended himself by saying they had a duty to their customers, while the first man said it was immoral for anyone to benefit from an immoral act. I don't t recall exactly what happened, but the guy who did not do the work did something to reverse all the work and take the network (or whatever they called it then) down and then they had to redo all the work. Now, although I am not certain of morality in this case, I imagine many jews would consider working on Yom Kippur immoral (anyone who knows more than I can weigh in), so was it immoral to use the benefit. The absolutist would take that position, while the relativist would balance the harm with the value (however perceived) of the benefit, maybe even having a sliding scale to assess the harm of the immoral act versus the benefit conferred. Others might also say that it is immoral to ignore the benefit, even if it was the result of an immoral act. But if relativism is "junk", as you say, is it improper to divorce the two acts and say the morality must be judged independently.

In his teachings Jesus appears to do this saying it is not immoral to heal on the Sabbath, while not disputing that working on the Sabbath is the breaking of a commandment. He uses the example to save a person or animal as being a defensible reason to do the immoral act and break a commandment. But what he does not tell us is whether we need to look at this in a relative way (comparing the damage and the benefit) or should just consider the two separately. But, in any event, he does not reject using the benefit because it was the result of an immoral act. So I would think he would not reject the public benefit of the immoral act.

I can understand how some would not be comfortable with this, and I would hope people would not use it to justify the immoral behavior (although i am certain some would), but I don't think we should ever ignore the benefit or not use it for the benefit of all.

I highly doubt most Jews -- even Orthodox Jews -- would undo the work done in this situation. Generally, our tradition holds that there are two kinds of moral obligations (i.e., mitzvot, "commandments"): those between the individual and the deity, and those between the individual and other people. Any violation of the former is solely a matter between the individual and his/her God or conscience or whatever, and not subject to anyone else's judgment, whereas violations of obligations between people require repentance and making amends (whatever that might look like). Providing network service is probably not a moral obligation (unless it had some impact on medical or other life-sustaining services) so the only violation at issue is the one between the person who did the work and his conception of the divine decree to rest on the Sabbath and other prescribed holy days. So benefiting from someone else's "immorality" in this case would fall roughly under Meade's policy of "what's done is done." And certainly, as you pointed out, any obligation may be discarded in the service of saving a life or alleviating suffering.

As to immorality/evil imposed on humans, it is just bad moral policy to allow any benefit from such acts generally, as it inevitably justifies more such behavior. However, where a public benefit has been derived, at a minimum it should be necessary to make restitution to the victims and for the society as a whole to do the work of recognition and repentance, so that such wrongs are never repeated. My opinion is that not every product of evil must be excluded from human use as "fruit of the poisonous tree," but such uses should be rare and at a high price.

ETA:

And by the way, Josef Mengele lived pretty comfortably in South America following the war, even using his own name, and died in 1979 while on vacation (drowning after suffering a stroke while swimming).

[Big RR]

As to immorality/evil imposed on humans, it is just bad moral policy to allow any benefit from such acts generally, as it inevitably justifies more such behavior.

I think that may have been the crux of the argument; the other owner felt he was deriving a benefit (having the work complete for that morning) from the arguably immoral act of his partner, and he rejected the benefit by deleting the work.

Your other points are well taken and I do tend to agree with you, although if we do decide to accept some benefit and reject others, I guess it would have to be on some sort of sliding scale, but I am not sure what compensation could be provided to the victims of barbarism could be provided; I do agree the brutality, however, should be condemned and those most responsible should be appropriately punished; ignoring it ony encourages rationalizations of the behavior and ultimate repeats.

[Sue U]

Your other points are well taken and I do tend to agree with you, although if we do decide to accept some benefit and reject others, I guess it would have to be on some sort of sliding scale, but I am not sure what compensation could be provided to the victims of barbarism could be provided; I do agree the brutality, however, should be condemned and those most responsible should be appropriately punished; ignoring it ony encourages rationalizations of the behavior and ultimate repeats.

Compensation to the victims of barbarism is, to borrow legal phrasing, a pretty fact-sensitive issue and depends on the societal demands relevant in each case. It's the underlying issue for the question of reparations for slavery in the U.S. It's been addressed in a variety of contexts from Nazi Germany to Rwanda, I guess with varying degrees of "success."

[Big RR]

Well in that case, I would guess "compensation" is the best we can do, but it in ow way really compensates the victims for their suffering or loss. but, IMHO, if there is a societal benefit, the value of that benefit should be factored in as well since their suffering is the basis of the benefit, and soiety should not obtain the benefit for nothing.

[Sue U]

I agree, and what constitutes "compensation" may not necessarily be monetary remuneration to individuals but other kinds of social supports, "truth and reconciliation" and/or other types of social justice-oriented remediations. One of the things I always told juries at trial is that money is a pretty shitty way to compensate someone for bodily injuries, pain and suffering, but that's what our civil justice system allows. In these cases, though, there is an opportunity to think bigger.

Also, FWIW and maybe to make the irony gods smile, Josef Mengele's bones are being used as teaching aids in a Brazilian medical school.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Very interesting discussion. Informative too. Briefly re Mengele, I think his name came up because, unlike Ishi, he remained an undesirable criminal and was NOT accepted by the Allies (OK let's face it, America) as a provider of data sufficient to cancel war crimes trial. [Edwin Hill, the Chief of Fort Detrick, . . . stated that the information was "absolutely invaluable”; it "could never have been obtained in the United States because of scruples attached to experiments on humans" and "the information was obtained fairly cheaply"]. OK

Sue, I guess I've always seen that bi-level issue as being more of morality (immutable, external and always true) and ethics (arbitrary rules or agreements for societal living and expectations). Clearly, 45 in a 25mph zone is illegal but the level of the speed limit is not a universal - so the violation is surely one of ethics? Equally surely, individuals do choose to do not do X or Y (or Z) whether the issue is moral (between God and humankind, as I read you) or between two or more humans (an ethical issue as I'd see it).

If the occasion arises when I must choose between denying Christ and being killed . . . even I cannot know what my decision will be, though I doubt that saving my own life is of more value than maintaining faith. Makes me wonder indeed what I might do in the hypothetical "will you kill these people" or be killed yourself?

As to compensation, thorny issue indeed. I tend to think that it should only be for people alive at this time who personally suffered whatever was handed out to them in terms of indignity, theft, wounding, and so on. Perhaps it could go back one generation (using generation as the ten-year definition) or even two. But past that - what's done is done and can't be undone.

[Burning Petard]

Was is destructive at every level. The fundamental military skill is blowing things up and killing people. The US Marines is honest enough to admit this and not use Marines as medics or chaplains. They borrow those from the Navy. A major problem for military managers is to change the base attitude of entry personnel and mold them to accept as 'heroic' actions that in civilian circumstances are at least immoral and can extend to behavior that is prohibited by mutual agreement of nations--the rules of war, or the Geneva Agreements as they are popularly known. Sometimes this conflict is not thoroughly accomplished. It also results in such irony as the British military could not use mines in Afghanistan, but the USofA troops could.

For those who are self-aware enough to be directly impacted by this conflict, the US Navy now has an official term -- Moral Wounding.

Some of us outside the military call this PTSD. Some of those so wounded in this way accept personal responsibility for their actions, like my son, and kill themselves.

War is destructive at every level.

snailgate

[Big RR]

Ad but true, BP; and sadly, we still generally encourage and don't try to avoid it. Maybe ut's just the way we are.

[Sue U]

Sue, I guess I've always seen that bi-level issue as being more of morality (immutable, external and always true) and ethics (arbitrary rules or agreements for societal living and expectations). Clearly, 45 in a 25mph zone is illegal but the level of the speed limit is not a universal - so the violation is surely one of ethics? Equally surely, individuals do choose to do not do X or Y (or Z) whether the issue is moral (between God and humankind, as I read you) or between two or more humans (an ethical issue as I'd see it).

I had always though of morality as the principle and ethics as its implementation.

If the occasion arises when I must choose between denying Christ and being killed . . . even I cannot know what my decision will be, though I doubt that saving my own life is of more value than maintaining faith. Makes me wonder indeed what I might do in the hypothetical "will you kill these people" or be killed yourself?

I tend to disfavor martyrdom solely for the sake of "maintaining the faith," as I would consider preservation of life to be the higher imperative. But even in my tradition there are plenty of examples of those who chose death "al kiddush hashem" (for the sanctification of The Name) rather than what they saw as betrayal of the faith.

As to compensation, thorny issue indeed. I tend to think that it should only be for people alive at this time who personally suffered whatever was handed out to them in terms of indignity, theft, wounding, and so on. Perhaps it could go back one generation (using generation as the ten-year definition) or even two. But past that - what's done is done and can't be undone.

And yet the direct consequences of evil may ripple through generations and even centuries, having impacted the very foundations of a society and the development of its social structures (see, e.g., American slavery). My family lost all its property when the Jews of our ancestral village in Poland were shipped to Treblinka in 1942. The Arabs of Palestine lost all their property in the Naqbah/Israeli Independence War of 1948. Are these events too remote to be worthy of compensation?

[Big RR]

Sue--re compensation, I guess the question then comes as to who should be responsible for it; if my grandfather stole your grandfather's property and then oil was discovered, I could see that I should be responsible for compensation on two fronts--the acts of my ancestor and the unjust enrichment based on it; likewise if the torture of some resulted in a significant benefit to the general public (like, say, a vaccine which was sought after), the responsibility of the public to compensate those victimized for the benefit (or their descendants) could be defended, but who should compensate you for atrocities committed against your ancestors and on what theory; those who committed the atrocities are long gone as are those who benefited from it)? Is it always a general public responsibility? These are tough questions.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I had always though of morality as the principle and ethics as its implementation.

Yes, I can see that but believe CP's OP was kinda asking what if morality is situational - or perhaps what if person A's "ought" is incompatible with person B's. Or again, is using something immorally gained excused when put to an ethical use? As you might expect, I believe there is a universal morality (or ought and ought not) which we strive to identify and adhere to more or less. But imperfectly of course. Whereas in ethics . . . situations seem to demand flexibility. What was once shameful is now something to boast about.

I tend to disfavor martyrdom solely for the sake of "maintaining the faith," as I would consider preservation of life to be the higher imperative.

And I very much fear that saving my own life might well outweigh any number of oughts and ought nots, if ever put to the test. The ought not of taking someone else's may not hold. Again, CP's uncomfortable question obtrudes.

Compensation. Well, yes, I can't be too dogmatic about generations. Big RR's question is to the point. Clearly there can't be much sense in seeking damages from Scandinavia for the depredations of those bloody Norsemen committed against my Anglo-Saxon forebears, nor for the Picts and Celts to get all worked up about the Saxon invasions. The Romans presumable will not be compensated by the descendants of sundry Goths, Visigoths, Gauls and what-have-you. Distance - how is it to be measured?

Lincoln's idea of emancipation and compensation was shipping 'em all back to Africa (more or less) - no slave/former slave with any sense wanted that. What needs correcting is the present day objective conditions in which people live, and that seems to be even more difficult than simply giving every black a couple of thousand dollars* to say sorry. Surely the focus must be on improving education, employment and dwelling opportunities. And where's the general agreement on that and has it ever worked for anyone? Ever?

*or whatever number of $$$$

[Burning Petard]

And this moral wounding continues.

https://www.legion.org/news/259373/pent ... ce=Adestra

The number of individuals actively serving who chose to end their service and their own life is increasing. I guess that is another category of collateral damage.

snailgate.

[rubato]

What hyper nellies.

If we have information which reduces human suffering we are going to use it. Only a moron sits around scab-picking about it.

And btw, we were miraculously fortunate that the emporer was still alive so that the empire of Japan was able to surrender and not devolve into 50 years of guerilla warfare just to secure the Japanese “homeland”.

[rubato]

Sue, I guess I've always seen that bi-level issue as being more of morality (immutable, external and always true) and ethics (arbitrary rules or agreements for societal living and expectations). Clearly, 45 in a 25mph zone is illegal but the level of the speed limit is not a universal - so the violation is surely one of ethics? Equally surely, individuals do choose to do not do X or Y (or Z) whether the issue is moral (between God and humankind, as I read you) or between two or more humans (an ethical issue as I'd see it).

I had always though of morality as the principle and ethics as its implementation.


And yet the direct consequences of evil may ripple through generations and even centuries, having impacted the very foundations of a society and the development of its social structures (see, e.g., American slavery). My family lost all its property when the Jews of our ancestral village in Poland were shipped to Treblinka in 1942. The Arabs of Palestine lost all their property in the Naqbah/Israeli Independence War of 1948. Are these events too remote to be worthy of compensation?

Evil ripples through generations when it is not dealt with honestly.

An honest individual, or group, or society must do certain things when they have done wrong:

1. They must admit the act. ( I We, Us,) did it
2. They must admit the act was wrong.
3. They must acknowledge a debt to recompense those harmed.
4. They must offer atonement for the harm done.

Th Germans have, notably done these things with respect to the holocaust. and continue to do so. The American south has not wt respect to the civil rights movement. And Japan has not done so with respect to their staggering atrocities in Asia during WWII.

Yrs, rubato

[rubato]

Sue, I guess I've always seen that bi-level issue as being more of morality (immutable, external and always true) and ethics (arbitrary rules or agreements for societal living and expectations). Clearly, 45 in a 25mph zone is illegal but the level of the speed limit is not a universal - so the violation is surely one of ethics? Equally surely, individuals do choose to do not do X or Y (or Z) whether the issue is moral (between God and humankind, as I read you) or between two or more humans (an ethical issue as I'd see it).

I had always thought of morality as the principle and ethics as its implementation. X. X.


And yet the direct consequences of evil may ripple through generations and even centuries, having impacted the very foundations of a society and the development of its social structures (see, e.g., American slavery). My family lost all its property when the Jews of our ancestral village in Poland were shipped to Treblinka in 1942. The Arabs of Palestine lost all their property in the Naqbah/Israeli Independence War of 1948. Are these events too remote to be worthy of compensation?

Evil ripples through generations when it is not dealt with honestly.

An honest individual, or group, or society must do certain things when they have done wrong:

1. They must admit the act. ( I We, Us,) did it
2. They must admit the act was wrong.
3. They must acknowledge a debt to recompense those harmed.
4. They must offer atonement for the harm done.

Th Germans have, notably done these things with respect to the holocaust. and continue to do so. The American south has not wt respect to the civil rights movement. And Japan has not done so with respect to their staggering atrocities in Asia during WWII.

Yrs, rubato

[BoSoxGal]

Evil ripples through generations when it is not dealt with honestly.

An honest individual, or group, or society must do certain things when they have done wrong:

1. They must admit the act. ( I We, Us,) did it
2. They must admit the act was wrong.
3. They must acknowledge a debt to recompense those harmed.
4. They must offer atonement for the harm done.

Th Germans have, notably done these things with respect to the holocaust. and continue to do so. The American south has not wt respect to the civil rights movement. And Japan has not done so with respect to their staggering atrocities in Asia during WWII.

Yrs, rubato

I hold firm to the notion that atrocities of grammar are not required in this process.

Otherwise I wholeheartedly agree with the post.