Mustachianism just saved a life; or: would you kill a mouse for 131$?

[Phil]

I just had the strangest money experience ever. Every now and then I take part in experiments at the institute for economic science at my university. These experiments usually involve answering questions and collaborating with anonymus strangers and are rewarded with 10-20€ for around 1 hour of participation. The amount of money you walk away with depends largely on the decisions you make during the experiment, so if you’re clever and you make the right decisions you get more bucks.

Today I participated in an experiment in which you had to decide between two quizzes: In quiz A you got a small amount of money for every right answer. In quiz B you got a significantly larger amount of money for each right answer BUT they would kill a mouse at the end of the quiz. That’s right they would literally kill a mouse with some sort of toxic gas, no BS (so they told us). To make things more scientific you had to decide for increasingly larger amounts of money whether you would play quiz B to get that amount or play quiz A and save the mouse’s life. At the end they would randomly choose one of the offered amounts. The largest amount was 100€ (=131$).

I briefly hesitated but then chose quiz A for every amount they offered me but I don’t want to brag about my morality. Sure, 100€ would make a nice addition  to the stash, yet I noticed that with a mustachian attitude you can feel more detached from money. Yes you'll lose some money but you saved a life and the purity of your conscience. You just wait a little longer until you quit your day job, so what! I didn’t feel like I need the money, because I have to get that new smartphone.

Still, I feel bad about the experiment. As I went home I heard some of the other participants joke about the little mice’s «bad luck» and that nearly everyone would have killed the mouse for 100€. This made me wonder how many mice were killed that evening :(. I just wrote an email to the experiment conductors to express my resentment about using animal experiments in economic science studies.

I should mention that they offered us to assure ourselves that there were really killing mice during the experiment, but I was too pissed off to do so.

[Eristheunorganized]

That's sad.

[carolinakaren]

I hope they didn't really kill any mice....that's awful.  I wouldn't want to know the other people in the study who chose to kill the mouse.

[arebelspy]

I have a snake as a pet.  I'd ask for all the dead mice for free pet food.

That aside, this is really awkward.  I don't like the idea either.

Is that an ethical study?

[Bakari]

That's quiet bizarre.
What exactly are they testing?  How does the dead mouse for money question relate to the quiz?
What were some of the questions?

Even though they assured you they were really killing mice, they might not have been.  They have done plenty of experiments on morality where the person being electrocuted is an actor or equivalent.

But its funny how context changes our ethics.  When I first read the title of this post, I thought it was going to be about how you called an exterminator, and they said it would be $131 to kill one mouse in your home, and you decided it wasn't worth that much, thus your mustachianism saved the mouses life.
I was going to suggest borrowing a cat from a friend or neighbor.

I'm vegetarian, but I still always root for my cat's victory when a mouse gets inside.

[arebelspy]

I'm vegetarian, but I still always root for my cat's victory when a mouse gets inside.

Exactly.  I'd set out traps to catch one in my house.  I'll feed dead ones to my snake.

But choosing to have one killed for money? The idea bothers me.

And I love eating meat.

[kolorado]

I've read studies similar to this one. Context is very important. I'm no mouse lover but mice breed just to furnish a death experiment is completely different than pests in a home. Their death in a human ethics study serves no useful purpose from the participant's choice/standpoint not even justice(as in exterminating them from a home).
But, I guess it could be said that it does have a useful purpose in death, to furnish a participant with more money.
I wonder if they'll repeat this experiment with any other critters? I wonder if anyone would choose test A, for example, if they substituted spiders, anthills or fish? Would anyone choose test B if the critters were cats or butterflies? Perception of the critter itself is very important and an easy way to skew results one way or the other.
Mice are already well known to be expendable so I'm not sure how accurate the results of the study will be in terms of personal ethics.

[Guitarist]

They should have made it an endangered animal. I wonder if the results would change.

My guess is they are trying to correlate how far people would go for money. This seems like a morality test more then anything.

[sol]

Normally experiments involving live animals have to go through extensive paperwork to justify their use, and I don't see how the experimenter could justify that the animal's death furthers the science in this case. 

I did a lot of econ experiments in college, usually involving earning or trading various resources as part of various market structures.  Some of them paid quite well.

I also knew a kid in college who had a work study job killing mice.  They were dissecting part of the brain and couldn't use chemicals, so his job was to pick them up and break their little necks and then stack them for surgery prep.  He said some days he'd do over a hundred.  In the interest of curing Parkinson's disease or something, he said he didn't mind too much.

[shedinator]

It was most likely a Milgram-esque experiment, in which folks were assured the mouse would die, but really didn't. I don't see an actual mass mouse murder passing an ethics board. But I gotta say, given the lengths people will go and the money they will spend to kill mice, I wouldn't have too much of a problem being paid a little bit of money to cause a mouse's death, but I'd want to know more about the process. Can I give the mouse to my friend's cat? Is the gas being used to kill it environmentally friendly? etc.

[gooki]

It was most likely a Milgram-esque experiment, in which folks were assured the mouse would die, but really didn't.

This is 100% right. A common thing with psych experiments. They really do have to make you believe a mouse will die as not to skew the results.

[tooqk4u22]

Mice are inconsequential, nobody really cares as they would just as likely stomp on them in their house.  They should try it with a dog or cat and see what the repsponse is, I bet it would be vastly different.   

[Bakari]

I've read studies similar to this one. Context is very important. I'm no mouse lover but mice breed just to furnish a death experiment is completely different than pests in a home. Their death in a human ethics study serves no useful purpose from the participant's choice/standpoint not even justice(as in exterminating them from a home).
But, I guess it could be said that it does have a useful purpose in death, to furnish a participant with more money.
I wonder if they'll repeat this experiment with any other critters? I wonder if anyone would choose test A, for example, if they substituted spiders, anthills or fish? Would anyone choose test B if the critters were cats or butterflies? Perception of the critter itself is very important and an easy way to skew results one way or the other.
Mice are already well known to be expendable so I'm not sure how accurate the results of the study will be in terms of personal ethics.

If you are the mouse, though, that context doesn't change it at all.
I mean, would you rather be killed for money, or because someone considers your home to be their home? 

And its (hypothetical) death isn't serving no purpose, it is serving science and greater understanding of human psychology.  We have no idea what they are actually studying.  Experiments like this frequently have parts thrown in just to distract the participant to keep them from being biased.
If the study is of perception of different critters than it wouldn't "skew" the results, it would BE the results.  It is an accurate look at human ethics because this is a part of what defines them.

[BenDarDunDat]

I've read studies similar to this one. Context is very important. I'm no mouse lover but mice breed just to furnish a death experiment is completely different than pests in a home. Their death in a human ethics study serves no useful purpose from the participant's choice/standpoint not even justice(as in exterminating them from a home).
But, I guess it could be said that it does have a useful purpose in death, to furnish a participant with more money.
I wonder if they'll repeat this experiment with any other critters? I wonder if anyone would choose test A, for example, if they substituted spiders, anthills or fish? Would anyone choose test B if the critters were cats or butterflies? Perception of the critter itself is very important and an easy way to skew results one way or the other.
Mice are already well known to be expendable so I'm not sure how accurate the results of the study will be in terms of personal ethics.

If you are the mouse, though, that context doesn't change it at all.
I mean, would you rather be killed for money, or because someone considers your home to be their home? 

And its (hypothetical) death isn't serving no purpose, it is serving science and greater understanding of human psychology.  We have no idea what they are actually studying.  Experiments like this frequently have parts thrown in just to distract the participant to keep them from being biased.
If the study is of perception of different critters than it wouldn't "skew" the results, it would BE the results.  It is an accurate look at human ethics because this is a part of what defines them.

Yes, they did a study where they offered a 6 month bonus to employees.  Yes, they actually would give a 6 month bonus and could afford to do so in India. It turns out the 6 month bonus had a negative impact on the work to be done because of the stress of such a large bonus.  I can imagine that even with the higher payout per question, the stress of knowing a mouse would die would negatively impact the amount earned.  At some level test A will have a higher payout than test B in relation to stress.

[James]

I know just enough about tests like this that I wouldn't judge this particular test without knowing more info...


Participants are not given every bit of info in any test, much less one studying psychology or whatever this one was studying.


If the results are worth having, then I don't see how the mouse dying is different than enjoying a steak.  Both are not strictly necessary, but both deaths serve a purpose.


I'm not saying I would kill the mouse or even support this particular study, just that I don't know enough to judge it.

[arebelspy]

Naturally we don't know if the mouse is actually being killed.  Likely not.

My question is: if it is, is this an ethical study?

AND, if it actually is, how do you respond as a participant in the study?

[zinnie]

It was most likely a Milgram-esque experiment, in which folks were assured the mouse would die, but really didn't.

This is 100% right. A common thing with psych experiments. They really do have to make you believe a mouse will die as not to skew the results.

Yeah, it's probably this. Although, after it's over they would usually debrief you and tell you that they weren't really killing mice so you don't stress about it...

[ErikZ]

Sure.

It's a mouse.

You didn't even have to kill it. Others were going to do it for you.

[AJ]

I think it brings up some interesting questions. Many of us wouldn't kill the mouse for $100, but we would eat a steak for -$20. Also, how many people who wouldn't kill the mouse for $100 in a psych study would kill a mouse for $100 if they were employed as an exterminator? And why? What makes it unethical in the study? Or, even if we don't want to go so far as to call it unethical, why to even us omnivores bristle at the thought of it?

[arebelspy]

I think it brings up some interesting questions. Many of us wouldn't kill the mouse for $100, but we would eat a steak for -$20. Also, how many people who wouldn't kill the mouse for $100 in a psych study would kill a mouse for $100 if they were employed as an exterminator? And why? What makes it unethical in the study? Or, even if we don't want to go so far as to call it unethical, why to even us omnivores bristle at the thought of it?

The answer is in the difference between getting paid to eliminate a pest (i.e. exterminator) and getting paid to kill a living thing that isn't harming or bothering anyone.

[Dee]

This reminded me of a book I've heard about and made me want to read it: Some we love, some we hate, some we eat : why it's so hard to think straight about animals by Hal Herzog.

I just went on a mouse hunt in my house and was positively gleeful about catching the little f*cker. But I was completely freaked out at the thought of finding a mouse (dead or alive) and, thankfully, my boyfriend handled the trap for me. I gladly would have paid him $131 for that service. So I think I would have also taken $131 in exchange for a random dead mouse. I don't think I have a particular moral qualm about it. I wouldn't want the mouse to be deliberately tortured, though.

[AJ]

I think it brings up some interesting questions. Many of us wouldn't kill the mouse for $100, but we would eat a steak for -$20. Also, how many people who wouldn't kill the mouse for $100 in a psych study would kill a mouse for $100 if they were employed as an exterminator? And why? What makes it unethical in the study? Or, even if we don't want to go so far as to call it unethical, why to even us omnivores bristle at the thought of it?

The answer is in the difference between getting paid to eliminate a pest (i.e. exterminator) and getting paid to kill a living thing that isn't harming or bothering anyone.

So mild irritation is all it takes to take an unethical action and make it innocuous? That doesn't sound rational.

[arebelspy]

So mild irritation is all it takes to take an unethical action and make it innocuous? That doesn't sound rational.

No, it's not.  And that's not what I said at all.

[James]

Naturally we don't know if the mouse is actually being killed.  Likely not.

My question is: if it is, is this an ethical study?

AND, if it actually is, how do you respond as a participant in the study?

If a qualified ethics committee examined the study ahead of time and determined that the knowledge gained was worth the killing of the mice (or the promise of killing a mouse anyway) I would be fine with the study.  I would have to be presented with the full information the ethics committee examining the study was presented with in order to second guess their decision.  I'm not sure what amount of benefits gained are worth the lives of the mice, but I have no problem saying there are studies involving the killing of mice that I would support to benefits humans.  It's just a matter of degree after that.


If asked to participate in studies like this I'd say no because I don't like being manipulated in order for science to gain whatever info they are after, but I'm glad others are willing to participate in studies and further the knowledge base.

[James]

So mild irritation is all it takes to take an unethical action and make it innocuous? That doesn't sound rational.

Seems like you are trying to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.  Maybe back up and use less hyperbole?  I might be able to figure out the point you are making, but you are making me not want to try.

[Eristheunorganized]

Mice in the home are more than an irritant, they are a potential health hazard. They can also damage your home. Killing is something that shouldn't be done for it's own sake, in my opinion. Sometimes killing is a part of life, like eating a steak. That's a little different than just trading money for life with no other purpose.

[Bakari]

I don't know...

I've been vegetarian my entire life, so I know for an absolute fact that humans do not need to eat animals in order to be in good health and lead happy fulfilling lives.

And, I don't see any way in which a death trap would be any more effective than a live trap, followed by removing the living "pest" to a more suitable habitat.
Besides for which, I don't know of any actual evidence that mice are a health or construction hazard (although feel free to educate me otherwise)
Without either of those, I think AJ may be right - we don't like insects and rodents in our homes just because they are creepy or annoying or ugly or whatever.  Is a mouse any dirtier or more filled with germs than a dog or cat?  Probably not. 

For that matter, is a dog or cat any more or less conscious or intelligent than a cow or a pig?  From what I hear, pigs are actually smarter than either of them.

I don't think we get to have it both ways - either unnecessary killing is wrong, or it isn't.  If we are willing to mentally justify it to ourselves when we have a reason to prefer it, how can we judge others for making that same choice, when they are valuing cold hard cash instead of a tasty meal or a "pest" free home.

Like I said, I've never eaten an animal in my life.  I have a good friend who has pet rats which I've hung out with before, and they are pretty cool.  And I generally either carefully remove insects from the house intact and alive, or I just let them live here (esp spiders, since they catch the flys and I can't stand the sound the flys make)... and yet, I don't really see the moral outrage of this psychology experiment.

[sol]

I don't think we get to have it both ways - either unnecessary killing is wrong, or it isn't.

I think we all know that human psychology is not so simplistic, especially when it comes to killing.

We lock people up for murder, then we murder them for it.

We decry suicide bombers in crowded marketplaces, but we leveled two whole cities in Japan. 

People are easily swayed by context.  Our morality is pliable.

[arebelspy]

Is a mouse any dirtier or more filled with germs than a dog or cat?  Probably not. 

Yes.  See: The Plauge.  And why domesticated cats are so useful.  Rats spread disease much more than cats do.

I don't think we get to have it both ways - either unnecessary killing is wrong, or it isn't.  If we are willing to mentally justify it to ourselves when we have a reason to prefer it, how can we judge others for making that same choice, when they are valuing cold hard cash instead of a tasty meal or a "pest" free home.

You judge those as unnecessary killing.  Others may not.  I think most agree that senseless killing - killing with no point or purpose - is wrong. Thus the qualms about this study.  Most DON'T agree that getting rid of a pest or killing an animal for food is senseless or unnecessary, despite the fact that you personally don't eat meat.

[arebelspy]

I've been vegetarian my entire life, so I know for an absolute fact that humans do not need to eat animals in order to be in good health and lead happy fulfilling lives.

Going off topic from this study to focus on the idea of vegetarian for a moment.. you may not eat meat as a vegetarian (well.. maybe. Plenty of vegetarians I know eat eggs, fish, etc.), but you do eat living things.  Things that may be able to communicate.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/if-peas-can-talk-should-we-eat-them/

This, I think raises an interesting point for the vegetarians who don't eat animals because they are living and can feel, or whatever.

Until humans can photosynthesize energy from sunlight, SOMETHING will be eaten.

You monster!  ;)

[Bakari]

I've been vegetarian my entire life, so I know for an absolute fact that humans do not need to eat animals in order to be in good health and lead happy fulfilling lives.

Going off topic from this study to focus on the idea of vegetarian for a moment.. you may not eat meat as a vegetarian (well.. maybe. Plenty of vegetarians I know eat eggs, fish, etc.), but you do eat living things.  Things that may be able to communicate.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/if-peas-can-talk-should-we-eat-them/
This, I think raises an interesting point for the vegetarians who don't eat animals because they are living and can feel, or whatever.

lol!

I believe sentience is a reasonable line to draw.  The ability to feel pain.  I don't think the peas level of cellular "cognition" qualifies as consciousness.
So, eggs, ok, fish, not so much.

Yes.  See: The Plauge.  And why domesticated cats are so useful.  Rats spread disease much more than cats do.

Granted, the rat flea is a "more effective vector" than the cat flea, however, rodent fleas can be found on pets: http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?c=1+1316&aid=336
and, cat fleas can and do transmit the plague virus as well: http://www.ajtmh.org/content/78/6/949.full
Either way, you could kill the fleas and leave the mammals alone, and still eliminate the risk of plague.

You judge those as unnecessary killing.  Others may not.  I think most agree that senseless killing - killing with no point or purpose - is wrong. Thus the qualms about this study.  Most DON'T agree that getting rid of a pest or killing an animal for food is senseless or unnecessary, despite the fact that you personally don't eat meat.

You seem to be using a different definition of the term "necessary" than me.
"senseless" and "unnecessary" are not the same thing.  I never said killing for food was senseless, I said it was unnecessary.  I used myself as an example simply because its proof that it is possible to survive and be healthy without it. 
Removing pests from the home doesn't make killing them necessary either, if trapping and relocation are an option.

[arebelspy]

I believe sentience is a reasonable line to draw.  The ability to feel pain.  I don't think the peas level of cellular "cognition" qualifies as consciousness.
So, eggs, ok, fish, not so much.

Everyone draws lines.  You choose to draw it at some living things, others draw it elsewhere.  I don't know that your way is right, nor do I know theirs.  Especially since you say eggs are okay (I find that hard to fit with a line drawn at sentience, since they will become sentient, if they aren't already).  But as long as you're happy with the line you've drawn, I have no problem with it.

You seem to be using a different definition of the term "necessary" than me.
"senseless" and "unnecessary" are not the same thing.  I never said killing for food was senseless, I said it was unnecessary.  I used myself as an example simply because its proof that it is possible to survive and be healthy without it. 
Removing pests from the home doesn't make killing them necessary either, if trapping and relocation are an option.

I use "senseless" in the definition of "meaningless" - if you agree that the killing of animals for food isn't, in fact, meaningless, then it has some purpose.  You just deem that the drawbacks aren't worth that purpose.

There are lots of things that are "unnecessary" but beneficial and enjoyable.  Sometimes they have drawbacks.  Sometimes they don't.

[Bakari]

I don't think we get to have it both ways - either unnecessary killing is wrong, or it isn't.

I think we all know that human psychology is not so simplistic, especially when it comes to killing.

We lock people up for murder, then we murder them for it.

We decry suicide bombers in crowded marketplaces, but we leveled two whole cities in Japan. 

People are easily swayed by context.  Our morality is pliable.

This is the most interesting thing of all! 
Does this mean that actual "right and wrong" themselves are pliable, or that relativism is the only true morality - or does it imply that we humans are only moral when its convenient?

Certainly religious authorities and secular activists are consistent in saying that capital punishment and war are always immoral.  So the fact of being human doesn't automatically make us all hypocritical.  We as individuals all draw the line somewhere different.  But why?
I think its these sort of questions that make these sort of studies interesting, and potentially valuable.

Studies like the Stanford Prison Experiment, The Milgram Experiment, and Jane Elliott's Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes class project all provided extremely important insights into human psychology and the limits of out so-called "ethics".
They teach us about things like racism and how hundreds of thousands of ordinary Germans participated in the holocaust.

And hopefully the better we understand these things, the better the chances we can avoid  ourselves falling into the same cognitive dissonance that allows them, and maybe even figure out ways to guide society as a whole away from them too.

OK, so this mouse killing for money is probably no where near as profound as any of those, but if we are going to be moral relativists, might not the life  of a mouse be no greater than the psychological trauma that those experiments caused their human participants - not to mention the trauma and even deaths caused by humans moral relativism?

[Bakari]

I use "senseless" in the definition of "meaningless" - if you agree that the killing of animals for food isn't, in fact, meaningless, then it has some purpose.  You just deem that the drawbacks aren't worth that purpose.

There are lots of things that are "unnecessary" but beneficial and enjoyable.  Sometimes they have drawbacks.  Sometimes they don't.

Agreed. 
All I was saying to begin with is that, even if we don't know what it is, this study isn't meaningless.  It has some purpose.

[arebelspy]

I use "senseless" in the definition of "meaningless" - if you agree that the killing of animals for food isn't, in fact, meaningless, then it has some purpose.  You just deem that the drawbacks aren't worth that purpose.

There are lots of things that are "unnecessary" but beneficial and enjoyable.  Sometimes they have drawbacks.  Sometimes they don't.

Agreed. 
All I was saying to begin with is that, even if we don't know what it is, this study isn't meaningless.  It has some purpose.

Yes, you're correct.  The study itself isn't meaningless.   However the killing of the mice might still be senseless.  I.e. the study is to learn something about, let's say, human psychology.

And let's say they actually do kill a mouse.  Being a participant in the study you're faced with a choice: save the mouse or let it senselessly get killed and get paid.  It is killed for no reason, to your perspective.

From the outside perspective, it may have the purpose of trying to learn what the study is focusing on (psych). But from the participant's point of view, it's a senseless killing they have to decide on.   You, as the participant, don't decide "ah, the killing has purpose because it helps us learn about psychology AND I get money!"  You decide "have this mouse killed for no reason, and I get money."

[arebelspy]

This is the most interesting thing of all! 
Does this mean that actual "right and wrong" themselves are pliable, or that relativism is the only true morality - or does it imply that we humans are only moral when its convenient?

Certainly religious authorities and secular activists are consistent in saying that capital punishment and war are always immoral.  So the fact of being human doesn't automatically make us all hypocritical.  We as individuals all draw the line somewhere different.  But why?
I think its these sort of questions that make these sort of studies interesting, and potentially valuable.

Moral relativists aside, I think a large part of these conflicts stem from people being inconsistent with their mortality.

I.e. they sometimes choose a hard and fast line (ala Kant's Categorical Imperative.. 'X' is always wrong) and sometimes choose a line that changes (ala Mill's Greatest Happiness Principal.. minimize pain, maximize happiness.)

Then they mix in their own ideas of "justice" which as well as conflicts between the above ideas (both among each other and within themselves) and come up with conflicting answers.  Some (a large part?) of this may come from not having a clearly defined ethics.

Most (rare?) people that actually have an ethics defined, and stick to it, don't have these ethical paradoxes, if you will, IMO.

[James]

Most (rare?) people that actually have an ethics defined, and stick to it, don't have these ethical paradoxes, if you will, IMO.

They may not be confronted with ethical paradoxes, but I don't think anyone can define their own ethics in a way that ethical paradoxes don't exist.

[James]

OK, so this mouse killing for money is probably no where near as profound as any of those, but if we are going to be moral relativists, might not the life  of a mouse be no greater than the psychological trauma that those experiments caused their human participants - not to mention the trauma and even deaths caused by humans moral relativism?

Exactly.

[James]

I don't think we get to have it both ways - either unnecessary killing is wrong, or it isn't.

I think we all know that human psychology is not so simplistic, especially when it comes to killing.

We lock people up for murder, then we murder them for it.

We decry suicide bombers in crowded marketplaces, but we leveled two whole cities in Japan. 

People are easily swayed by context.  Our morality is pliable.

And I would only add that the pliability of morality is a strength of humanity, not weakness.  Without pliability there would be no strength.  Once shattered morality would cease.  But it doesn't.  Morality bends and shifts and changes, but it has deep strength in whatever inherited bits of coding it resides in, which causes humanity over time to make better decisions than they might otherwise.


This is worth understanding.  If necessary, understanding this is worth killing mice.

[arebelspy]

Most (rare?) people that actually have an ethics defined, and stick to it, don't have these ethical paradoxes, if you will, IMO.

They may not be confronted with ethical paradoxes, but I don't think anyone can define their own ethics in a way that ethical paradoxes don't exist.

Some may be able to.  How about Ethical Egoists?  ;)

That aside, you may be right.  I was specifically referring to the "paradoxes" sol brought up.  I don't think most people that have thought through and have a well defined ethics have any of the issues he mentioned, necessarily.

[James]

I had to look up ethical egoism, I read the wiki on it and found it fascinating...  :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism

[sol]

Without pliability there would be no strength.  Once shattered morality would cease.  But it doesn't.  Morality bends and shifts and changes

Whatever you do, don't ever say this out loud in church.  Most of the world is still taking their cues on morality from old books that condone slavery and stoning your daughters.  The whole notion of religion is predicated on the idea that morality is a universal constant that must be adhered to forever after, the revealed Truth.

Except, you know, for all those modern day folks who think "shall not commit adultery" is a moral imperative but "keep the Sabbath day" was clearly meant to be optional.

I don't think most people that have thought through and have a well defined ethics have any of the issues he mentioned, necessarily.

Anybody who has been through a college level ethics class, in theory, has had the opportunity to resolve these kinds of conflicts.  How many of them still bend the truth on their taxes?

[arebelspy]

I don't think most people that have thought through and have a well defined ethics have any of the issues he mentioned, necessarily.

Anybody who has been through a college level ethics class, in theory, has had the opportunity to resolve these kinds of conflicts.  How many of them still bend the truth on their taxes?

That's only an issue if they've thought through and decided that some sort of categorical imperative is correct; i.e. lying is always wrong.

And then they bend the truth. Then there's a conflict.

But anyone who's been through a college level ethics class doesn't necessarily agree that it's immoral to bend the truth on their taxes.  (They make think it is immortal not to.)  It depends on how they resolved those conflicts.

[arebelspy]

I had to look up ethical egoism, I read the wiki on it and found it fascinating...  :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism

Glad you enjoyed it.  Hobbes (State of Nature guy, and namesake of one title character from Calvin and Hobbes) was a big egoist, as was Ayn Rand, if you've read any of her stuff (Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, etc.) you'll recognize it.

It has some issues, but provides for some interesting thought experiments.

[Bakari]

I love the mustache forums.

[Phil]

wow terrific discussion!

The experimenters replied to my email. They were using redundant mice which were breeded in a lab. It is standard routine that these redundant mice are killed. If one participant of the study decides not to have his / her mouse killed the experimenters buy it from the lab and let it live till it’s natural death. Thus no mouse was killed that wouldn’t have been killed anyway but depending on the decisions of the participants some mice lived that would have been killed otherwise.

[arebelspy]

I love the mustache forums.

Ditto; thanks for the good discussion guys.  Even (and especially) the disagreements.

The experimenters replied to my email. They were using redundant mice which were breeded in a lab. It is standard routine that these redundant mice are killed. If one participant of the study decides not to have his / her mouse killed the experimenters buy it from the lab and let it live till it’s natural death. Thus no mouse was killed that wouldn’t have been killed anyway but depending on the decisions of the participants some mice lived that would have been killed otherwise.

Hmm.  I'm not sure what to think about that.  I certainly have no problems with the ethics of the experiment, because it's not actually them killing mice, it's them saving them or not, basically.

Now how does this affect one as a participant?  Does it matter if they have that knowledge.  And, if so, why?  (Perhaps due to the killing going from "senseless" to perhaps not as much?)

[Eristheunorganized]

As a vegetarian myself, I don't believe my diet is superior as far as animal cruelty goes. Large fields leveled, animals displaced and killed to grow wheat/soy whatever. Monocropping isn't great for the environment. Even certain pesticides are allowed in organic certification if I remember correctly. If you're gardening for yourself you lose crops or have a small garden if you kindly relocate all your pests.

And...I would like to point out mice carry more than bubonic plague, they carry salmonella and other stuff.  Weil's disease, among others.

[James]

I had to look up ethical egoism, I read the wiki on it and found it fascinating...  :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism

Glad you enjoyed it.  Hobbes (State of Nature guy, and namesake of one title character from Calvin and Hobbes) was a big egoist, as was Ayn Rand, if you've read any of her stuff (Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, etc.) you'll recognize it.

It has some issues, but provides for some interesting thought experiments.

I've read Rand, but not Hobbs, except for all the C & H...  :)   I did recognize it.  In the end I find it lacking, but not necessarily more lacking than other ideas.

[James]

Without pliability there would be no strength.  Once shattered morality would cease.  But it doesn't.  Morality bends and shifts and changes

Whatever you do, don't ever say this out loud in church.  Most of the world is still taking their cues on morality from old books that condone slavery and stoning your daughters.  The whole notion of religion is predicated on the idea that morality is a universal constant that must be adhered to forever after, the revealed Truth.

Except, you know, for all those modern day folks who think "shall not commit adultery" is a moral imperative but "keep the Sabbath day" was clearly meant to be optional.

We stopped going to church two years ago, so not much chance we'll get in trouble there...  :)


That fundamentalism isn't restricted to the religious crowd, and I find fundamentalism in other groups just as distasteful.  It must be wired into humanity just as strongly as a sense of morality, etc.