Is it really wrong to influence people

[RussWilde]

Hello there, I'm new to these forums today; I'll start with a little about myself and how I fit in here. Then I’ll get on to the questions. Please feel free to point me at other posts that I haven't stumbled across yet, a beginner has to learn right?

My name is Russ Wilde, I'm 23 and have just started studying Hyp, NLP and Suggestion for Magical / Mentalism applications. I originally got interested in all this through a Mentalists manuscript entitled Kentonism after its author Kenton Knepper. This gave me some interest in the areas of suggestion and, eventually, led me to invest in a copy of Kneppers "Wonder Words". At this point I decided:

”Everything here makes sense, but I really want to know WHY it all works and how else it has been applied, to better understand the tools I'm using.”

From then I have been reading a mass of books, chatting and writing to local Hypnotherapists and like-minded Magicians and generally harvesting as much information as my meagre student budget will allow.

Since I observed that the lines drawn between some parts of HYP, NLP and "The power Suggestion" I have been mixing and matching patterns, methods and systems to achieve varying results.

I should point out that, since I have no qualification in any of these area's, everything I experiment with is tested mostly on myself, although language patterns I use often creep into everyday conversation, which is usually when I measure effectiveness against my own personal experience.

I signed up to these forums to try and share idea's and concepts with professionals in these areas and people with similar interests.

==================================================

My question is;

If I communicate idea's to people in such a way that they are not aware that I have asked them for something, a request they then proceed to fulfil presumably out of their own free will; is that ethically "bad practice" or is it just good communication?

"Hypnotism cannot make anyone do anything that they personally would not consciously do, or break personal boundaries, which they would normally adhere to.
But then; we don't know what these peoples boundaries are, do we?"
-- I forget who said that, (it's a paraphrase anyway). I'll be sure to add credit when I find the book..

A good example of this is when I recently took my Partner to a local Burger King, I had structured a question to her as we approached the counter which lead to us discussing portion sizes as our turn to order arrived.
Since it was a quiet night in Burger King, and I was particularly about some suggestion work I had been doing that day, I slipped in a couple of simple suggestions as I made my order.

When the girl behind the counter collected the food, she consciously added two extra drinks (four in total) and fries to the order without charge.

Just to clarify; we ordered two chicken burger thingies and two drinks; we received four drinks, two burgers and two portions of fries.

Am I wrong to do this? Would it make things better if I told you the fries were somewhat past their best anyway?

RW

=================================================

In addition to anyone’s views on this, I would be interested to get-in-touch with anyone who can assist me in my study of NLP, I have not yet had the opportunity to chat with anyone qualified and practicing in NLP and would very much like to discuss what I am reading on the subject with someone with a proper understanding of it all.

[solaris152000]

What you have done is definatley not illegal, because the woman gave them to you. But I dont belive it to be unethical either as burger king destroy the rainforest and grave cattle upoun it, so I support stealing from it.


But if it was owned by a local merchant and it was the villege store then I would say otherwise. "Just because no-one found out doesn't mean you didn't do anything wrong".

Ps. I am a NLP newbie (well kinda) and please could you point out how you made these suggestions (did you use emmbeded commands?) please explain as fully as possible as I really want to learn this stuff.

[j0hnny#]

Russ man, you are at the wrong forum if you want a real answer to this question.... if you want a lot of reasoned answers to the question you need a philosophy forum... there are one or two that seem ok e.g. http://www.ephilosopher.com/phpBB_14-action-viewforum-forum-4.html seems to have some good threads and participants

My suspicion is that many or some of the main posters here will consider your complaint unethical... since it may be analysed as tantamount to theft... still I'm not so sure what you did was unethical. It is a difficult question to draw out a difinitive answer to.

1st, is it theft? In your eyes you took something without paying for it, In the assistants eyes well she apparently acted of her own free will - you could say it was her mistake. Undoubtedly there is some responsibility that lies with her. She has to take responsibility for her actions. Her susceptibility to influence is not entirely an excuse for her actions, though some might argue otherwise. Seems she probably doesn't care enough about what she is doing in BK. I doubt you would have been able to make her kick her boss in the nuts, for example (though who knows - if you can please let me know how you do that + that would be pretty scary knowledge to have so..... well) - point is she may be to a certain extent responsible. She doesn't know why she is doing it - i.e. not aware she is doing something against 'the rules'. You are aware that she has effectively carried out your express wishes. And you didn't inform her of the mistake. Seems she made a mistake with 'your food order' which you influenced her to make and which you also knew she had made, while she did not. She was blissfully ignorant to her mistake, you were opposite. Still her mistake.... your dishonesty. If she is partly responsible then you didn't entirely steal it, althought arguably you did not entirely not steal it... if you hadn't of influenced her you might not have got the extras. not clear cut this is theft... so if theft is unethical, not entirely clear your actions were unethical on that basis.

However, it seems that you may have used the assistant as a means to satisfy your own ends - this may be conceived as unethical insofar as it treats that person as a mere function in bringing about your desires. Any thought as to what she would do all things considered were ignored and some sneaky tactics were employed to bring about your preferences at her expense in the sense that she was used as a tool for maximising your outcomes. Though to a certain extent you took advantage of her, still if she had cared a bit more about her job she might not have allowed this. So there is perhaps some responsibility on her part for not being aware of what she was doing. This I am imagining is perhaps because of a lack of real care for her activities (but then it is a fast food takeaway so... who would blame her? .... in some sense).

The big question in this case seems to me to be: why is it wrong to treat someone solely as a means to an end? i.e. as someone whom you treat solely as a function to the satisfaction of your ends.... in some ways I suspect you disrespected her autonomy - in some way she was disrespecting her own autonomy.

Perhaps



?

[RussWilde]

I'm quite amazed anyone is awake at this time and posting such insightful comments, for which I am particularly greatful. So to the answers and additions...

Well, I realy wanted to elicit some interest in my strivings more than anything, as community minded as I am, I'm not sure I really want to debate too much over whether taking advantage of peoples "encouraged mistakes", are particularly wrong or not.

This is the first time I've consciously tried to deceive anyone into doing something which society deems inappropriate although I will admit that the girl at WHSmiths almost always under-charges me, but I have never encouraged or attempted to elicit this behaviour.

Sometimes I ask “Is that right?” but the till and receipt always seem to be accurate, (as in the prices, although cheaper are for the correct products and the prices add up to the lower total). I’ve always thought that questioning would establish doubt in the cashier and make sure they weren’t running some kind of illicit scam.

Having said that I don’t encourage them, I tend go at the same time on the same day and I often comment jokingly that the prices are “great here”… often also to the same cashier.

In terms of the approach I used to do this; Myself and my Girlfriend often stand to one side and discuss the menu for a few minutes before queuing and ordering the same thing we always order. This time, since it was very quiet in the BK, I walked up to the counter and attempted to partially mirror the staff members “waiting” stance while facing and talking to My good lady.

The conversation we had was the usual “well what do you want?” conversation often seen in just about everyone who hasn’t decided before they enter the restaurant, but I quickly and deliberately got onto the
“do you want to make it large?”
[Passive response from my girlfriend]
“I’d love to go large but the price isn’t really right for me. I wish they’d make it cheaper.”
[Agreement from my girlfriend who then mentions she’d like fries]
“yeah, the fries at bk are great but lets not spend that much.
So shall we order now?”

We place our order; again I try to half-mirror the girl behind the counter (the top half obviously) and attempt, to apply all the basics of rapport although she’s using standard “lines” as rehearsed in burger king school and therefore not giving much up about herself.

As she walks off to collect all the parts of our order I engage my girlfriend in a slightly over-amplified discussion about customer service, I tend to glance at the cashier girl as I try to add a few suggestions, something along the lines of that by not adding fries, we’re lightening the girls load, my girlfriend mentions drinks due to the salty nature of the fries and I mention that while she always has too much I tend to find them to be Never Enough. Then my good lady shrugs off the conversation and I don’t want to flog a dead hoarse anymore if the cahier has already consciously picked up on it and blown the whole gaff – so to speak – so I quit there.

The result was, as I posted above, two extra drinks and two free fries from the girl.

I suppose there is half a chance that the girl just felt sorry for us in this case, being an impoverished student I daresay my outward appearance could have had this effect as well.

I have to mention that I go to extreme lengths to be subtle when doing this, although it may not read that way here.

Hope that answers you questions :)

[RussWilde]

Also, because I'm one of those sad camera-phone people, I took a little piccie of the evidence.

http://www.invasion-force.co.uk/tiki/show_image.php?id=42

there.

[Merlin]

Is it right to steal? I think not. Regardless of how you did it, you still took something without paying for it, right?

[Merlin]

So, you support stealing and have found a justification.
Interesting.

[Don]

I agree with Merlin on this.

First of all, the womand didn't give you anything. To give something away you have to own it. She did not. The establishment owned it.

If she had charged you for four drinks and only given you two, I imagine you might have complained. But when it's reversed, you pride yourself in getting away with it? It's still theft. What if you didn't realize that you had been undercharged? Then as soon as you realized it you should have paid the money.

In my opinion, this is not a question about suggestion, its a question of ethics. When I was a child, I remember hearing the story of how Abraham Lincon supposedly walked miles to return a penny he had overcharged someone. I remember the story of how Washington supposedly confessed to his act of chopping down a cherry tree. And here we are facing people who are proudly saying that they're getting away with theft. My, how times have changed!

Of course, somebody has to pay for your theft. The question is, who? And the fact is, any business factors in theft--it's called "shrinkage"--in their prices. In other words, every time somebody goes in and buys a burger or a drink, they are paying for your theft.

I am a member of two hypnosis certification boards and a private club for professional magicians. All of them have a code of ethics. Your actions would prevent you from being a member of any of those groups, not to mention that what you did was fraud and could get you arrested and put in jail, even for just the small amounts which you stole.

Theft is theft. It's that simple. Stealing is wrong not because you might get caught. Stealing is wrong not because you're harming the lives of others. Stealing is not okay if nobody knows about it. Stealing is wrong because it's wrong.

I find it quite interesting that people here justify and rationalize their illegal acts. I'm sure that you would be the first to complain if someone ripped off your car or GameBoy.

There's a real easy way to undersand if something is ethical: would I like it if someone did it to me? If the answer is "No," it's unethical. It's wrong.

So do you want someone stealing from you if you don't know at the time that you're being ripped off?

[solaris152000]

Yes but burger king are destroying the world, so I would support any losses burger make as they are a heartless corparation.

[Annie]

solaris,

> Yes but burger king are destroying the world, so I would support any losses burger make as they are a heartless corparation.

In NLP-speak, your statements contain several poor choices of:
1. "Generalizing" : can you figger-out which 2 ?
and
"2 wrongs make 1 Right, *not* : Stealing is wrong, no matter who it is from. And
"moral relativism" is what's destroying Society's fiber.

Annie

[Terry]

It is not wrong to learn by experimentation. It is wrong to defraud anyone or any company. The wrong you do is perpetrated against YOU, not them. Your actions today, decide the person you will become. In the world you are developing, there is no heart, no sense of what is right or wrong, only the gimme, gimme, gimme, attitude so prevalent in the young of today.
Any excuse to get and not to give, eh? Well this is not the world I grew up in, and not the world I want to live in, but luckily for me, I won't be around to see the mess you make of things. On the other hand, I am around now, and I would like to see some honesty and ethics shown on this board. I have no time at all for those who want it all for nothing, and offer nothing in return. Terry

[j0hnny#]

You still took something without paying for it, right?
With respect Merlin,

This is a very weak definition of theft... and even if it were it seems to me inappropriate here. Russ was given something which he didn't pay for, he did pay for what he asked, whether he paid for what he "ordered" (in another sense) is another thing :) , still why is he under sole responsiblity for the girl's interpretation of the order and actions? Not caring for a will of her own in certain matters is not much of an excuse for accusing someone of theft... his obligations to the contract were complete when he handed over the cash having requested his meal. As Russ said, though he encouraged her to do X, he did not determine her to do X. Responsibility has to be assigned somewhere. Blaming another for your actions is an insult to your own autonomy i.e. your entitlement to personhood (not you personally Merlin - using 'your' here to refer to the third person - hypothetically the BK assistant).

There have been a couple of these kind of replies on this forum which shout "not fair!" :( , "he influenced me to do it" therefore "he is unethical", can anyone really influence someone to do something they are strongly opposed to doing? This is my point about the kick in the nuts.... and this is probably why waiting / mundane services staff are easily influenced - they just don't give a shyte. If it is so wrong to give out extra food why did she do it? Where were her ethics??? Could he have influenced her to kick her boss in the nuts?

Further, what would make it wrong (unethical) even if it was theft?

(no 'if you need me to answer that....' type answers to this last question, please..... they are very weak and in general conceived by a lazy mind....:))

[j0hnny#]

solaris,

> Yes but burger king are destroying the world, so I would support any losses burger make as they are a heartless corparation.

In NLP-speak, your statements contain several poor choices of:
1. "Generalizing" : can you figger-out which 2 ?
and
"2 wrongs make 1 Right, *not* : Stealing is wrong, no matter who it is from.
Annie

"moral relativism" is what's destroying Society's fiber.
[/QUOTE]Lol,:D - as you so responsibly pointed out to solaris assertions of confidence are not warrant for generalised ethics related assertions. Why should yours be any better than his? (Please don't just stamp your foot, if the floorboards are rotting you just might hurt yourself.)

Peace
j

[Annie]

> In the world you are developing, there is no heart, no sense of what is right or wrong, only the gimme, gimme, gimme, attitude so prevalent in the young of today.
Any excuse to get and not to give, eh?

Granted the world is growing increasingly more "selfish". however,

Fortunately, there are still many parents who imprint *primarily by how we live day-to-day* in their children :
1. a "sound Work ethic, *and*
2. Giving unselfishly & compassionately of yourself *and*
3. how to have Fun living both #1 & 2.
AND
whose children continue choosing demonstrating those values, thank God !

Annie

[skip]

Dear Russ,

Ethics is something that is different for different people. Like politics, like religion, like sexuality, like that.

Right, wrong, gets blurred, in many instances.

BUT there are some things we as society agree on, such as assualt, murder, theft, etc.

Now suppose, you in your heart, were out practicing your skills, with no other thought, than to learn something, AND leave people better off than you found them...

AND further suppose, that you, on realizing that your "suggestions" had resulted in you recieving more than you had paid for, and so you pointed out the 'mistake', and/or offered to return, or pay, for the additional food...

Then according to MY ethics, you have done nothing wrong.

But it didnt happen that way, did it?

You do know you recieved something that didnt belong to you, and the condition of that something is irrelevent.

You can probably safely assume, that this girl didnt have the authority, to give out free food, if she did, she would have undoubtedly pointed it out, as she delivered it.

And apparently it was your INTENTION to see if you could get something that you didnt pay for.

AND to me that is key.

Your intention.

It is just icing on the cake, that you are questioning the ethics enough to ask, that generally indicates, that deep down you already knew. Either that, or you are just trying to brag, without seeming to do so.

BUT Russ, that's according to my ethical standards.

Others will tell you, all's fair.

Others will tell you, it was unethical to influence the girl at all.

AND there are a lot of points in between. It is up to you, to find your own path, and determine what is right for you.

The best way I have found, is to clearly understand my intention in the context, and then act accordingly.

skip

[skip]

Hi Johnny,

Interesting, and well thought out response to Merlin.

Is it OK if I disagree a bit?

You said: "As Russ said, though he encouraged her to do X, he did not determine her to do X. Responsibility has to be assigned somewhere. Blaming another for your actions is an insult to your own autonomy i.e. your entitlement to personhood (not you personally Merlin - using 'your' here to refer to the third person - hypothetically the BK assistant)."

Is Russ totally irresponsible in this? :) What I mean is, does Russ just 'put stuff out', and assume no responsibility for the results of his actions? I dont think thats how Russ presented it. If you take the view, you seem to have taken, then Russ cannot accept any credit for crafting the "suggestions", and "getting" the results he got. I get the impression that Russ would take umbrage at that.

And the ethics of the girl are pretty much irrelevent to the discussion. It is only relevent, in how skilled Russ might have needed to be, to effect the results he did. Might have been a cakewalk, might have been a heroic effort.

And please, when you say "(no 'if you need me to answer that....' type answers to this last question, please..... they are very weak and in general conceived by a lazy mind....)" it just indicates to me that you didnt understand Merlin's point.

Merlin strikes to the very heart of any ethical question. "What is in the heart?" "What is the intention?"

Thats where 'grey' areas of ethics are decided for each of us. And to say "If you have to ask ..." is to point out that you probably wouldnt understand the answer. In other words, "If you have to ask, then you probably already know, and you are asking for other purposes."

So please, dont sell Merlin short. She often makes brief replies, but only the intellectually lazy, dont grasp the profundity of her thought, represented by the brevity.

Try it sometime.

It is much more difficult to make the brief point, than it is to ramble on like I have.

Thanks for the journey your remarks took me on, I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.

skip

[Don]

Originally Posted by Merlin
You still took something without paying for it, right?


With respect Merlin,
This is a very weak definition of theft...Russ was given something which he didn't pay for


Respectfully, I agree with Merlin and strongly disagree with both these claims.

1) Taking something without paying for it is a perfect and complete definition of theft. Anything else is simply a rationalization for theft. "I'm not stealing, I'm taking a 5-fingered discount." "It's not stealing, it's boosting."

By your definition, if I walked into your home and took all of your possessions and didn't pay for them I would not be making a theft of your property.

Unfortunately, people often think that if I get one up on you, I'm just sharp or fortunate, but if you do something to get one up on me, that's theft.

Technically, according to Webster's dictionary, the following must occur for a theft to occur:

"To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief."

All of these were followed in the instance described.

2) Your claim that he was given something he didn't pay for is simply false. If I have a coin, I can give it to you and let you keep it. But if I have someone else's coin--which I have been holding for that person--I cannot legally give it to you. It's not mine to give.

In the situation described, the worker did not own the food and drinks. It was not her right to give it away. For whatever reason, she made a mistake. Mistakes happen and there is no law against that. She did not participate in the theft. But the act of taking the items KNOWING that they should not have been taken without paying for them, was theft.

I have a large collection of books. If I were to walk into a bookstore and take a book without paying for it, that would be theft. But by your definition, because it was just sitting there on a shelf, there was no theft.

I simply cannot agree with the justification of crime you are supporting and do not find any validity in your arguments.

[j0hnny#]

Cheers Skip, here is my reply (and apologies for responding to alot of quotes - I prefer to answer otherwise... still..)


"You said: "As Russ said, though he encouraged her to do X, he did not determine her to do X. Responsibility has to be assigned somewhere. Blaming another for your actions is an insult to your own autonomy i.e. your entitlement to personhood (not you personally Merlin - using 'your' here to refer to the third person - hypothetically the BK assistant)."

"Is Russ totally irresponsible in this? :) What I mean is, does Russ just 'put stuff out', and assume no responsibility for the results of his actions? I dont think thats how Russ presented it. If you take the view, you seem to have taken, then Russ cannot accept any credit for crafting the "suggestions", and "getting" the results he got. I get the impression that Russ would take umbrage at that."


Good point Skip, still that has IMO no real bearing on the point I was making i.e. it is not a clear cut case of theft because it is not clear he entirely determined her. How much of a heroic effort would be required to get her to kick her boss in the nuts?

"And the ethics of the girl are pretty much irrelevent to the discussion. It is only relevent, in how skilled Russ might have needed to be, to effect the results he did. Might have been a cakewalk, might have been a heroic effort."

.....pretty much, still not entirely IMO. though I did use it to make a relevant point about responsibility in the case... so ....??


"And please, when you say "(no 'if you need me to answer that....' type answers to this last question, please..... they are very weak and in general conceived by a lazy mind....)" it just indicates to me that you didnt understand Merlin's point."

Skip, this has nothing to do with Merlin or Merlin's point - it was not to be taken as anything to do with what she said or her brevity or any kind insult to her... though fair enough I can see why this might appear this way... so sorry Merlin if you got offended - none intended. My saying that last bit may have been influenced more by the general consensus floating about this thread regarding judgement of the case without saying why it is unethical... the point of the thread as I understood it was simply is this kind of action unethical - that is the question Russ asked... I think he should get a fair hearing.... just trying to encourage objective feedback without prejudiced presupposition....


"Merlin strikes to the very heart of any ethical question. "What is in the heart?" "What is the intention?"

In your opinion. I can't nor would I speak for Merlin, she seems perfectly capable of doing that herself - her perogative..... Still I think, from what you said in your reply to Russ - which I respect by the way - that your understanding of her is prejudiced by your understanding of the ethical. As far as I can muster Merlin said nothing about why theft was wrong - only that she thinks it is...

Is it right to steal? I think not. Regardless of how you did it, you still took something without paying for it, right?
So, you support stealing and have found a justification.
Interesting.
(Also - intention is not IMO a good ethical indicator... modern terrorism might illustrate that.)



My points here (with respect to Merlin's post) were 1) not clear it is theft, and 2) even if it is theft it is not clear that confident assertion is all that is required to make theft unethical

and Merlin, if I misunderstood you here then once again - my apologies (and I don't know you that well)....



"Thats where 'grey' areas of ethics are decided for each of us. And to say "If you have to ask ..." is to point out that you probably wouldnt understand the answer. In other words, "If you have to ask, then you probably already know, and you are asking for other purposes."
"
once again Skip, only trying to encourage objective debate, avoid prejudiced answers.... which I'm not saying are necessarily the wrong views to be taking, rather only that it is perhaps more difficult to say precisely why...


"So please, dont sell Merlin short. She often makes brief replies, but..... "

Irrelevant..... not trying to sell Merlin anything, unless she is looking for a Drum Kit, then I might try and sell her that ;)


only the intellectually lazy, dont grasp the profundity of her thought, represented by the brevity.

Try it sometime.

you seem to be calling me intellectually lazy here.... ok, well you are entitled to your opinion....


It is much more difficult to make the brief point, than it is to ramble on like I have.

sometimes, granted.... heh,heh, heh:)


Thanks for the journey your remarks took me on, I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.

skip
heh, heh, heh.....:)

well I don't know how much you enjoyed it so.... and don't blame me if you didn't .... heh, heh, heh....

[Merlin]

>BUT Russ, that's according to my ethical standards.
>Others will tell you, all's fair.

Hi Skip,
Just a comment stimulated by these words.

The prisons are full of people who believe they did no wrong

[Merlin]

He knowingly took that which he did not pay for.
That is theft.

> can anyone really influence someone to do something they are strongly opposed to doing?

Yes. And if I so influenced you the mail me 1/2 of all your money, wouldn't you feel you've been wronged? Even though you *chose* to do it?

>Further, what would make it wrong (unethical) even if it was theft?

If you really don't understand right from wrong, you're not likely to gain such insight here.

[j0hnny#]

:( what would make it wrong (unethical) even if it was theft?

If you really don't understand right from wrong, you're not likely to gain such insight here.

aw, and there was Skip saying you were deeper than that....

My point once again.... whats in the heart and intentions that flow out of them are not ethical indicators... not reliable indicators of right and wrong.... for example, think of the perpetrators of recent terror campaigns...

I understand perfectly well what is acceptable and unacceptable in the Society in which I live, and you are right... here is not the place to gain any deep insight into the nature of right and wrong... no one it seems is up to the job.... only sproutings of an unreflective kind... pity... oh well...

Not sure I understand what everyones problem is with wanting to explore the issue a little more reflectively... try and tease out why it is unethical... rather than just saying it is and be done with it... feels a bit like I'm at Sunday School when I read some of the threads here...

Perhaps it will be largely viewed that Russ's actions were unacceptable in this Society, I'm sure a lot of people will see it that way.. so well done, you pointed it out... fantastic!

And I don't agree that it is possible to influence people to do absolutely anything... me giving you half my money would take some heavy duty persuasion... for example, you might kidnap my son or something... my point once again, you will not influence a person to do what they do not value unless you threaten something they do value... even then you may have a job.... still if you think Russ could have influenced the assistant to kick her boss in the nuts by dropping a few embedded command type suggestions, and you think you could do the same to me with half my money, then fine - come ahead:) ... using the techniues Russ used (i.e. the ones relevant to the case), seems to me that though you might be able to influence people to do something they don't really care about.. matter is massively different for stuff people do care about... and if not caring about something is enough for you to proportion blame then fine... yor perogative

adverts on TV take our actions without paying for them all the time.... perhaps they rob us of our time and doing other better things... they are allowed....

But I will end my replies to this thread here, unless anyone wants to consider the matter a bit more objectively. Seems people here are more concerned with prescription than evalutation... My intention was not to defend Russ's actions only to consider why it might be unethical in more depth....

ok, bummer for me then...:(

[j0hnny#]

The prisons are full of people who believe they did no wrong
suppose some of them will tell you its not their fault either.....

[Merlin]

Deeper is not the point.
Knowingly taking what does not belong to you is stealing. IT IS WRONG. This is not the place to discuss why stealing is wrong.

>you will not influence a person to do what they do not value unless you threaten something they do value...

Nonsense! It's actually quite easy.
No, I'm not talking about embedded commands.

[j0hnny#]

.....well you are entitled to your opinion Don, any argument I make is certainly valid i.e. logical, whether sound is another matter...

and by the way I never once defined theft, I have only merely been exploring the situation and issues... please refrain from making spurious accusations.

Still I think you have excelled in giving a fine account of why Russ's actions were perhaps theft... or at any rate I am at a loss to pursue the gift aspect of the line any further..

As Merlin pointed out, this is probably not the place to get into discussion about why theft is wrong.. so I guess this thread is at a partial loss as to give Russ any kind of satisfactory answer to his question - is what he did unethical... ? Perhaps it was theft.... why was it wrong... ?

If you fancy having a go..... I'd be interested to hear your reasoning..

[j0hnny#]

you will not influence a person to do what they do not value unless you threaten something they do value...

Nonsense! It's actually quite easy.
No, I'm not talking about embedded commands.

The case involved the use of embedded commands... sure there are probably other techniques which could have been used to get the effect... but they are / or seem to me to be irrelevant to the case under consideration... still if you can give me a run down of how this can be done then please share it.... its only fair if you are going to accuse me of speaking nonsense

j

[Don]

We're all entitled to our opinions.

But it's really quite simple. If you take something which doesn't belong to you without the permission of the owner, it's theft.

You can rationalize and justify theft all you want, but it's still theft.

Let me put it to you this way: If you owned the restaurant and somebody got food without paying for it, what would you call it?

In this particular situation, the claim was that Russ was "given" the food. This is absolutely false. The server couldn't give away something she didn't own.

As a comparison, imagine that you have a friend watching your home while you're gone. A third person comes in and your friend gives that person your VCR, DVD player, and your TV. Your friend had no right to do that. The third person, knowing that your friend had no right to do that, still took the items. That's theft.

People can justify and rationalize theft all they like. It's still theft.

[Don]

:(
adverts on TV take our actions without paying for them all the time.... perhaps they rob us of our time and doing other better things... they are allowed....
(

Uh, no.

Adverts on TV pay for what we watch. If you don't want to watch a TV program you don't have to pay for it by watching the commercial. And chances are you have a remote button that prevents you from having to watch the advert anyway.

And if you don't want to watch advert-driven TV (so-called "free TV"), there are many pay services where you pay a fee to watch a movie, "wrestling," or Jerry Springer uncensored.

[j0hnny#]

Is that a reply to me Don, or are you just fishing for more compliments?:)

[j0hnny#]

Uh, no.

Adverts on TV pay for what we watch. If you don't want to watch a TV program you don't have to pay for it by watching the commercial. And chances are you have a remote button that prevents you from having to watch the advert anyway.

And if you don't want to watch advert-driven TV (so-called "free TV"), there are many pay services where you pay a fee to watch a movie, "wrestling," or Jerry Springer uncensored.
Great point Don, great point... you see I'm not infallible.... though over here in the UK we have to pay a licence for TV so it perhaps seems that way sometimes... though what do the billboards at the side of the road pay for and when I go to the cinema... in this kind of society exposure to advertising isn't always paid for it seems... look out! bus goes by with massive advert on it......

[Merlin]

>its only fair if you are going to accuse me of speaking nonsense

Better to retract my comment than to give you such tools.
So, I take back the comment :)

[j0hnny#]

>its only fair if you are going to accuse me of speaking nonsense

Better to retract my comment than to give you such tools.
So, I take back the comment :)
that answer is not taking back your comment - and why do you think it a bad idea to give me such 'tools'.... probably you think I'm not responsible enough for the information.... due to the posts I've made here... if this is the case.... very patronising... and an insult to those posts... if anyone here were to read them closely they will see that there is nothing in them committing to any particular stand point. The thread was 'is this action unethical' - do you think it is fair to answer to just say that it is ? If so, then I dread to think what use you put your 'tools' to.... probably the ends of the authority who gave you them..... good for you .... very responsible....

your lack of judgement and reflectiveness is unenviable IMO - if I understand you correctly

[Annie]

> Please don't just stamp your foot, if the floorboards are rotting you just might hurt yourself. "

meaning ?

Annie

[j0hnny#]

> Please don't just stamp your foot, if the floorboards are rotting you just might hurt yourself. "

meaning ?

Annie
Be cautious if the only defence of your point of view is confident assertion.... unqulaified confident assertion (stamping your foot) is not necessarily a solid foundation.... the rest is plain, though make of it what you will... perhaps you are someone who feels there is no need to qualify your claims and that there is no problem for yourself with that.... who knows?? Still it is a metaphor... make of it what you will.... Criticising someone for generalising and then generalising yourself is not very sophisticated, and pretty hypocritical IMO...

And another thing.... is stealing wrong no matter who it is from??? not entirely ... surely... say I could prevent death of one hundred innocent men by stealing some documents from a political organisation.... would that be wrong??

Or

Say, you manipulated a couple of extra drinks out of a BK assistant and in taking that extra time to get those manipulated things the assistant avoided burning her hand beyond repair in a frier (with a little imagination you could think how this might come about)...;) was it wrong for him to have that intent... I'm sure someone will try and accuse my of rationalising theft here... still that is not my intention... I in fact think that as a general rule for harmony in Society it is wrong to steal... people just get too upset if their possessions get lifted by the greedy... still, it is an interesting question to ask what is wrong with the things we call wrong... a healthy, in my opinion, exercise of the intellect.

If you don't like these examples pick others... point is there are different reasons for theft - if you want to say it is always wrong you ought to say why...

Generally :) , what I was trying to get across is that unqualified confident assertions of sweeping generalisations seem to me to require the exercise of caution.... I do well to remind myself of this from time to time...

Hope this help you understand my metaphor

Kind regards
j0hnny

[Don]

The problem with hypotheticals is that they ignore everything that went before and lead to an entirely unrealistic question. For example, in the first one, how did those 100 innocent men get put into a position where they would die if political documents were not stolen? How did the political organization get the documents in the first place?

This is all an attempt to avoid the question brought up in the first placeÑthe theft committed by the man was illegal and unethical. Period. In a fantasy world where a make-believe 100 people are put in a make-believe area where they will make-believe die unless a make-believe person steals make-believe documents from a make-believe political group then the make-believe theft would be make-believe ethical.

[j0hnny#]

The problem with hypotheticals is that they ignore everything that went before and lead to an entirely unrealistic question. For example, in the first one, how did those 100 innocent men get put into a position where they would die if political documents were not stolen? How did the political organization get the documents in the first place?

This is all an attempt to avoid the question brought up in the first placeÑthe theft committed by the man was illegal and unethical. Period. In a fantasy world where a make-believe 100 people are put in a make-believe area where they will make-believe die unless a make-believe person steals make-believe documents from a make-believe political group then the make-believe theft would be make-believe ethical.
Sorry Don it is not a attempt to avoid anything, it is an attempt to explore the issue of why it is wrong 'period' as you say... I don't understand why this is not getting through to you, and you think my thought experiment is unrealistic - well yes perhaps it is, but it needn't be... (lets imagine that a group of would be terrorists have some documents required to brief suicide bombers of some attacks happening by tomorrow... the only way the intelligence officer who discovered this can prevent what he believes to be a great wrong is to steal the documents, having no other way to get the message through to his superiors... he steals the documents and prevents some deaths... now is that so far fetched? Maybe it is... I bet with a little investigation we could find some real life examples...

Sometimes people want to say things are wrong period without saying why they are, they just stamp their feet without qualifying their claims... why should you follow them? Why should it always be the case that they are right? Ok the thought experiment is not entirely appropriate to this thread, but then people here want to say that theft is wrong in every case without saying why. So forgive me for troubling you with this difficuilt question. Ok, ok we've got the just of it.... most people are going to think Russ was wrong, he stole, perhaps worse he used a person solely as a means to his ends (though no one, it seems, wants to give me any credit for pointing that out), and like I said earlier I think you have made an excellent case against the position I wondered about for considering the action to involve gift giving. So we can perhaps put that difference aside now. Strikes me that the people posting here are generally intelligent, practical people. Maybe it is the general case that most people will not find this kind of exploration in any way practical. If this is the case, I would beg to differ. Being open minded and considering the qualifications of moral matters can be very beneficial in evaluting situations.

why were Russ's actions wrong period?

these seem to be the offerings:

STAMPS FOOT: It's wrong! (If you need someone to tell you why then you won't get an answer here)

Skip said it was a matter of conscience, intentions should be governed by conscience... (Respect to Skip for trying to cash out the reason for thinking it was wrong...)

I'm not entirely convinced that intentions flowing from conscience are good ethical indicators - all sorts of things can be justified this way, including I suggested recent troubles in and concerning middle eastern countries.

Stamping the foot is not a good ethical indicator - all sorts of things can be justified in this way, in fact this is a worse way of establishing the ethical than the former.... at least that way there is some attempt to qualify the belief...

what else?

[skip]

Johnny,

"I'm not entirely convinced that intentions flowing from conscience are good ethical indicators - all sorts of things can be justified this way, including I suggested recent troubles in and concerning middle eastern countries."

With respect, it is irrelevent what you think.

And Before you get upset, it is irrelevent what I think, or anyone else too.

Let me explain.

There are some things we collectively agree is wrong. At least for the most part.
Most of us think killing another is wrong. Then we make some exceptions.

Within, every, right/wrong there is a grey area. And that grey area may be fairly narrow, or very wide.

At the extremes, it is apparent to virtually everyone, whether something is right or wrong.

Within the grey area each of us decides for ourselves.

Now that deciding for ourselves doesnt make it necessarily right or wrong with respect to anyone but ourselves.

Im not saying that's the best way, or the only way, but it is the way we do it.

The futility of what you seem to want to do, isnt in the value gained from the investigation, it is in the inability to reach a common consensus about any ethical question. It is because there is no difinitive right or wrong, and within the grey area whats right for you isnt necessarily right for me.

NOW with respect to terrorists or some such. From their perspective what they do is right, proper, even laudable. It doesnt stop me from just as happily killing them, and still feeling as good as someone can, after killing someone else. I read an interview of an Al-Queda member who said after one of the camp bombings by cruise missles. He said they went into the hills and waited for the Americans to come. And that he would have been happy if they came, because he could either kill Americans, and that was a good thing, or he would have been killed fighting Americans and that would have assured him paridise.

OK. He is right from his perspective, within his world view. And just because I understand his perspective doesnt mean it would cause me to hesitate to help him along to paridise.

But thats because my ethics, say if someone threatens my family, friends, country, etc; then their value as a living person diminishes in relation to the extent of the threat.

Right for me, wrong for others; and no amount of exploring the question will alter that.

cheers,

skip

[RussWilde]

Wow, some really thought provoking views here, thanks everyone for your views. I'd like to clear a few things up here. Just to clarify a few minor points which got tossed around here and there.

Firstly, No I am not completely without moral fiber, yes I did realize what I was doing and by not offering to pay this did constitute a theft (Since theft is defined as taking something with and INTENT to deprive - a crime in the UK legal system is defined only as a crime if intent was present -- there is a funny tory about a man parking his car on a traffic wardens toe which I will not count here).

As everything in this world is represented and re-represented to each of us through our filters, this particular account had a few deletions, distortions and generalizations;

Most importantly, what was deleted, was that I went back to the counter and explained what I'd done, apologised to the girl and then the manager, who actually wouldn't accept any payment for the extra goods. Mostly because the manager didn’t believe me, but I like to think that perhaps the counter girl was a little impressed.

Yes I probably do need to keep my ego in check, but this was also the time at which "The magician within" was desperate to take a bow, so just walking off with my ill-gotten foods became too much of a difficult task.

I like to compare the whole episode to a pickpocket magician. Yes, He steals from you. But then he gives it back. Or in this case, offers to pay.

Why do this?? I hear you yell (yes I’m a mind-reader too ;) )

Well it was a test of my self-taught grasp of some of the techniques and idea’s I had been practicing and playing with that whole day. I was also testing myself, since I used to be a lot more outward as a person, a lot more confident in talking to and dealing with people than I am nowadays, and I wanted to see if those tools were still there and working since I feel they will be useful in putting my learning into practice.

What I’m working on at the moment is stopping the nerves I get when I’m dealing with new people; somehow I seem to have screwed up a bit though. Instead of getting nervous while starting to talk to them and get to know them etc. I get nervous afterwards instead, wondering if I screwed up. Admittedly this is still an improvement, since nerves cannot ruin things at that point anyway, but I think I’ll have to sort that out.

Thanks everyone for your insightful comments.

Stealing is wrong, but testing myself on people who aren’t expecting it is useful.

[Don]

There is a tradition in Judaism which, in modern parlance, is known as the "negative golden rule." The concept is this: Do not do unto others if you would not have them do it unto you.

In the case with Russ, assume, for a moment, that you were the owner of the burger stand. In comes someone and he gets food and drink without paying for them. You just lost money as a result. He stole from you.

Johnny, you're continually avoiding this issue. Products were taken without paying for them. That's theft. This is not a grey area. It is theft.

You want hypotheticals? Okay. Let's say that every day 100 people come into this restaurant and steal food and drink. As a result, the restaurant loses money and goes out of business.

People looking to eat there no longer can do so and have to travel a great distance to find another place to eat, increasing their costs and adding to pollution.

People who worked there are not out of jobs, adding to unemployment problems and harming the economy by being on the dole.

Because the restaurant went out of business, people who had invested in it lost their investments, costing them tens of thousands.

With all the people out of work, and with people having to travel to another district to get the food they want, taxes to the local government are vastly reduced, putting more people out of work and since they don't have the funds any more, cutting services such as road repair, medical care for the needy, and library and school funds.

And that's all okay with you because you don't want to admit that theft is wrong.

[j0hnny#]

Once again admirable reply Skip, thanks.... some very fair points... I think this is perhaps the best account given of how things are with respect to how law and moral codes are/ can differ...

I would like to disagree that what I think and what others think doesn't matter... it certainly does... do you think that moral codes just emerge or are written in stone somewhere... (in a sense I guess they do emerge... but it seems to me they emerge from what people think, how they react to certain things) again most people seem to think I am defending theft or something ..disappointing from my point of view, still whatever...


Right for me, wrong for others; and no amount of exploring the question will alter that.

Fine, still if this is the case, seems to me that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with theft. Just wrong because the society in which I live values personal property and economic growth... whilst theft is not conducive to either of these.. So to say it is wrong is only to say that it is not conducive to some prominent values of society... fair enough .... this doesn't make it wrong 'period' as some have said here... still it makes it reasonable to chastise someone who shares these particular values (personal property and economic growth) and who engages in theft (though they may understand theft in their particular case to be promoting economic growth and increasing their personal property). At best, it seems, we can say that it is not lawful to steal - we will not allow it in this society because it is not conducive to the ends of our generally held conceptions of the good. Your case demonstrates nicely why it is not lawful to steal , to say that it is wrong and wrong period would be to say that no matter what, it is wrong... it could never be right... this is not a possible conclusion given that account... and that is not to criticise it.

The futility of what you seem to want to do, isnt in the value gained from the investigation, it is in the inability to reach a common consensus about any ethical question. It is because there is no difinitive right or wrong, and within the grey area whats right for you isnt necessarily right for me.
Not trying to reach a common consensus, nor is there anything futile about what I'm doing - the investigation is valuable.. people are posting a lot on this thread... :)

Once again I am not trying to persuade anyone to come to an agreement with me about the rightness or wrongness of theft... I have only explored the issue and challenged the authority of any person who has stamped their foot... I too am sceptical (change c to k if you are American) about definitive rightness or wrongness... I am interested in the ways people attempt to defend it though so thanks for taking the trouble..

Cheers
j0hnny#

[j0hnny#]

There is a tradition in Judaism which, in modern parlance, is known as the "negative golden rule." The concept is this: Do not do unto others if you would not have them do it unto you.
Immanuel Kant defended a similar kind of moral guideline... "act only on those maxims which at the same time you can will to be universal laws" (Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals)

there is a problem with this kind of reasoning insofar as it allows for all sorts of things we'd not necessarily want to call moral... e.g. one criticism against KAnt's principle of universalisability in the history of western philosophy is that a consistent Nazi could justify his anti-semetic actions based upon this principle. A consistent Nazi could justifiably adhere to the maxim that all Jews are inferior and must be persecuted, and that that would hold even if s/he were a Jew.

Do not steal if, you wouldn't have people steal from you... so if someone didn't mind would that make it okay?

Johnny, you're continually avoiding this issue. Products were taken without paying for them. That's theft. This is not a grey area. It is theft.
Well, I don't disagree with you that it is theft... but then here is a reminder of what Russ asked:


When the girl behind the counter collected the food, she consciously added two extra drinks (four in total) and fries to the order without charge.

Just to clarify; we ordered two chicken burger thingies and two drinks; we received four drinks, two burgers and two portions of fries.

Am I wrong to do this?


the title of the thread is - is it really wrong to influence people?

the opening question was

My question is;

If I communicate idea's to people in such a way that they are not aware that I have asked them for something, a request they then proceed to fulfil presumably out of their own free will; is that ethically "bad practice" or is it just good communication?
how are my deliberations avoiding the issue?


You want hypotheticals? Okay. Let's say that every day 100 people come into this restaurant and steal food and drink. As a result, the restaurant loses money and goes out of business.

People looking to eat there no longer can do so and have to travel a great distance to find another place to eat, increasing their costs and adding to pollution.

People who worked there are not out of jobs, adding to unemployment problems and harming the economy by being on the dole.

Because the restaurant went out of business, people who had invested in it lost their investments, costing them tens of thousands.

With all the people out of work, and with people having to travel to another district to get the food they want, taxes to the local government are vastly reduced, putting more people out of work and since they don't have the funds any more, cutting services such as road repair, medical care for the needy, and library and school funds.

And that's all okay with you because you don't want to admit that theft is wrong.
lol, :D don't get too upset Don.... will you cheer up if I say its wrong... ok, ok, its wrong to steal... there you go..

Now why is it wrong? It is impractical for people who share the values your hypothetical presupposes granted... is this all there is to its wrongness? Its practicality? Maybe this is the best we can hope for?

IF there is any agreement here then perhaps Russ's question can now be answered as follows:

is Russ wrong - well it is theft (Don established this compellingly), is theft wrong.... well it is impractical.... if impracticality is the criteria for wrongness then yes it is wrong... However, I have a bit of a bad feeling about making impracticality the criteria of wrongness.... that would make practicality the criteria of rightness (most likely) and lots of things that are practical are not necessarily right... the first use of an atom bomb in conflict was practical... I'm not sure I could be convinced it was right to use it... right for who?

AND

is it ethically bad practice to influence people.. well it would depend, in the account you gave it certainly could be conceived this way.... though no one has yet established, conclusively, PERHAPS, that it need necessarily be ....

Best wishes
Johnny

[Don]

In a reply to Skip, you wrote that it "seems to me that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with theft." By extention, for you money and property are irrelevent and meaningless (since it's okay to steal them). Therefore, it is foolish to want to get ahead in life. Therefore, there is no need to ever want to improve oneself. Why bother? You can never get ahead anyway. After all, you feel there's nothing wrong with people stealing everything you own--your clothes, your means of transportation, your place of residence, your kidneys and lungs. According to you there's nothing wrong with that at all. See ya at the morgue!

Concerning the original question, we constantly influence people. If I ask you to open the door, that's influencing you. Nothing wrong with that at all. The problem is when you take advantage of people. In the original example, food and drink was stolen. According to you, that's fine...of course, you don't own the restaurant so according to you, that theft is fine.

The real problem with your argument, Johnny, is very simple: you seem to prefer to play philosophy games rather than state that you know the difference between right and wrong.

Curious. Most kids learn about that in kindergarten. It's sad that many either don't learn it, forget it, or, as you seem to do, rationalize it out of existance.

[j0hnny#]

Boo, unfair Don, unfair.... your accusations are getting more and more blinkered and more and more unjust. Shame on you Don. Most adults know how to have a little objectivity about matters of ethics, you seem to be so caught up in your own self-righteousness as to crticise with your heart and not your head , poor show.




In a reply to Skip, you wrote that it "seems to me that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with theft." By extention, for you money and property are irrelevent and meaningless (since it's okay to steal them). Therefore, it is foolish to want to get ahead in life. Therefore, there is no need to ever want to improve oneself. Why bother? You can never get ahead anyway. After all, you feel there's nothing wrong with people stealing everything you own--your clothes, your means of transportation, your place of residence, your kidneys and lungs. According to you there's nothing wrong with that at all. See ya at the morgue!

...

The real problem with your argument, Johnny, is very simple: you seem to prefer to play philosophy games rather than state that you know the difference between right and wrong.

Curious. Most kids learn about that in kindergarten. It's sad that many either don't learn it, forget it, or, as you seem to do, rationalize it out of existance.
Well, Skip wrote:

Right for me, wrong for others; and no amount of exploring the question will alter that.

In context, I said

Fine, still if this is the case, seems to me that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with theft.
emphasis here on "if this is the case" - please refrain from quoting me out of context.

When will you get it into your head that this is a reflective approach to considerations of rightness and wrongness... LET ME S P E L L IT OUT FOR YOU - I AM NOT DEFENDING THEFT, MERELY CONSIDERING WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN THAT DISCUSSION FINE POST ON ANOTHER THREAD.

if you want to criticise someone for their commitment to the lack of intrinsic wrongness about theft try Skip, he defended the moral relativist position - not me - I merely pointed out that it had the implication.

People who grow up in families whose parents are racists grow up learning that they are superior to all other ethnic origins, they learn, like kids in kindergarten, their beliefs from the authoities who give them them. You think philosophy games as you put it are not important? Fine , don't play them, you want to tease out why things are as they are... come with me and I'll set you free... you seem to think authority is a perfect reason to tell right from wrong... I put it to you that you are reacting to my posts with your heart not your head. Please do me the curtosy of actually reading and attempting to understand my posts before you continue with your accusations and defamation... in this country (UK) that is against the law..

AND

Don, if you can state the difference between right and wrong, please do so, you haven't yet and you accuse me of not doing it as if it is something I should be able to do easily. IF I was as keen as you to act like the moral authority I might.. but then I like to be able to back up my claims... you show no respect to the society into which you were thrown as a child and have emerged into as a man if you dismiss reason and justification for beliefs... you blindly follow authority, as do I at times, still do you really think there is nothing to gain from questioning it? From exploring an issue? This is not doging the issue, which again is "am I wrong to do X". The easy answer is yes, the more difficult one is why yes.

Still, with respect, for I know you are a knowledgeable man..

Regards
Johnny

[Annie]

j0hnny,

thanks for making yourself a bit better understood, & I've perceived much of that previously.

You mentioning "foot stamping & yelling" repeatedly, were you including 'physically' ?

Being a very sensitive, tender-hearted person - 'such' will intimidate me further, you know :)

example : Last year, I agreed accompanying a "brain-Injured" client to his school for a single day : we had barely sat down in the classroom, that their "Special education" (no less) teacher started screaming, and I mean literally S ! C ! R ! E ! A ! M ! I ! N ! G ! into each little child's precious face -
pouncing on them her expectations for the day ...

(like my friends say : "It's a darn good thing you never volunteered for Military-service, you wouldn't have survived the 1st. day of boot-camp alive, lol "... yes, as matter of fact, living surrounded by military-Hospitals, 4 such encouraged me applying there 2 years ago. As soon as I caught sight of 100's of these Battle-camouflaged uniformed employees approaching me with smiling faces, I was forced to leave ... my heart beating arrhythmically for a week afterward.
Since then,
I have been trying to desensitize myself by buying *pizza, weekly* at the Pizza-hut where some of them enjoy "lunch-Buffet".
Last year, having just paid for 2 carry-out pizza's, I turned around only to find FIVE ! 6+ ft tall such Officers a mere foot away from me, between me & the door. absolutely mortified, I won't even say what happened to me that time !, lol)

Initially stunned, tears left the corners of my eyes. This boy sitting next to me at his table, ever so gently reached out to give me a warm hug, whispering "she's just another sick lady - kinda like another lady we're around every day".
again composed, I whispered back : "Yes, but she thinks she's dispensing Treatment. She should be stopped !" and he said " she's no different than our other Therapists working to break us emotionally. there's lotsa reasons I'm glad knowing people like you, Annie ! " -

There was an old man in this group, one table up, who overheard our hushed exchange. During lunch-break, he approached me with " you know, my grand-daughter with her physical injuries too, got stuck with this Terrorist 8 months ago .
once
a smiling, outgoing, loving, happily-giving little girl - she's the one you saw disappearing, trembling underneath her table; and usually, she only lets me into her world. and her Therapists recently asigned her a new diagnosis : 'Autism'.

In my opinion, such fanatical extremist Nuts should be *fired*, but it won't happen once they're "Tenured", & especially those close to Retirement.

since children's welfare obviously takes a backseat to teachers benefits in the public school system,
I made a committment to be here supporting her every day so I can help her survive. and
I noticed how compassionately you interacted with Susie during last break. Thank you for being a natural. God bless you !"

the best part came on the way home that day : as on the school-bus, I found myself surrounded by
12 children (with this boy & Susie amongst them), clamoring for me continuing teaching them "more :) FUN songs, please" ... I love it !, amongst many other such activities :D


Annie

[Don]

Johnny, I apologize if I made an error and misrepresented your opinion.

However, it is a shame that you have to spend post after post trying to figure out what is wrong with theft. Little children learn that quite early on. Likewise, it's a shame that you don't know the difference between right and wrong. Perhaps if you get mugged some time, you will know the difference. In such a case you will learn both the difference between right and wrong and that something is wrong with theft.

[Persuasion Skills]

Hi Russell


My name is Marc Hogan - you may have heard of me. I specialise in teaching NLP based Ethical Persuasion. You can learn more at www.persuasion-skills.co.uk


I learnt hypnosis at 18 and have been practicing NLP etc for the last 12 years.



I'm not a therapist so 95% of my experience is out in the real world in Sales and Marketing.



When I am using my influencing skills this has unfailingly kept me on the right side of the ethics Line



Your question was;



"If I communicate idea's to people in such a way that they are not aware that I have asked them for something, a request they then proceed to fulfil presumably out of their own free will; is that ethically "bad practice" or is it just good communication"



If the conversation I was having with the person I was trying to influence was printed word for word on the front cover of The Times,



How would you feel?

They feel?

Your Family feel?

Your Friends Etc?



If you feel uncomfortable with any of the answers, then that’s always a good guide...



As for the Burger King, I’ve received the wrong order on several occasions and not used hypnosis, if it works again you have a couple of choices



Point the error out



Eat them yourself



Or bring the bag over to one of the many homeless people on (London’s) streets...



As a young man who learnt these skills at 18 and who at the begining used them ethically and unethically, I can safely say that the above test has never steered me wrong!



All the best


Marc


www.persuasion-skills.co.uk

[j0hnny#]

Ok Don, thanks for your apology.

I don't have to do anything.... I do what I do because I choose to do it... It just so happens that I find it interesting to think about why things are right and wrong... I choose to question authority.... to better understand the world in which I live.

I have had things stolen from me many times... I understand that I don't like it when these things happen... I get angry about it... probably as much as anyone does... I have been not mugged, though I once was attacked many years ago by two youths who gave me a serious black eye among other minor injuries, I was resentful about these in their respective contexts.... I understand perfectly well why the law is as it is... and the main reason I've been making post after post is because I have been misrepresented by individuals who fail to see what I am asking....

It is a shame you apologise and then continue to make unwarranted assumptions about me.... still thats you choice... and you don't want to explore the issue further than the behaviour of infants.... fine - no one is forcing you to.

I think it is sad, nevertheless, that you want me to be mugged in order to make your point... I question your resentment... and wonder what kind of a person wishes that upon a person in order to justify his self-righteousness... I know why it is wrong from my perspective... does its wrongness consist merely in this, my upset at the actions of other..... perhaps... and agreement in perspectives is, it seems, the way in which wrongs in societys are determined. I'm not sure what your problem is with exploring the bigger picture though....

Why is it that a child cries when he/she has her sweeties stolen? It is a natural reaction perhaps you want to say? Well why not say it.... explain why... this is all I've been asking for.. a little objectivity about why....

Having said that I am beginning to feel a little foolish due to the fact that people here don't want to play ball... so I will stand down .. a little disappointed, though not too much...

All the best
Johnny

[j0hnny#]

Pleasure Annie, you are truly a sweet person... apologies for my seeming coldness asking the questions I ask...

such are formal and not indicators of how I live... just a indication of my thirst for intellectual understanding coupled with a desire to not be misunderstood and mis-represented as I feel I have been on this thread (by and large)... to be able to say why .. is a powerful thing.

Your story makes me shameful (in a certain sense) to be asking such questions here...

Keep making those kids happy, I have seen no greater joy than that...... (I have 1 child - 10 month old son... to see him smile and laugh puts the icing on every day, regardless....)

Bless you

Regards

j#

[Don]

I want to repeat my apology for accidentally misrepresenting what you posted. I did not mean to do so. Thank you for accepting it.

It seems curious to me, that although in the statement above you clearly show that you do know the difference between right and wrong, that you chose to post using hypotheticals which, because we don't know what led to the situations you described, cannot lead to any realistic answer.

My "resentment," as you described it, is based on facing your approach of infinite regression, the okay, you answered that, but what about this? and what about this? and what about this? It reminds me of trying to deal with a young child who keeps asking "why?" repeatedly. I believe that children should be answered fully and completely always. But sometimes, the repeated "Why?" is not a request for more information. Rather, it is a request for more attention.

So mostly, and again, I find I should apologize for this, it was my lack of patience with hearing "Why?" or "Are we there yet?" even though the answers are clearly known.

So let me make clear my position. Theft is wrong. Period.

But in retrospect, I find I have to change that. Theft is wrong for humans. The reason I have to make this change, in consideration, is that sometimes people act not as humans, but as instruments of governments (just as the woman in the original question could not give away the food and drink--she did not own them, she was an instrument of the restaurant).

Governments are considered to be "soverign." That means governments do not have morals and ethics. Morals and ethics are for people. Governments have "interests." Governments will act to promote their interests. When we appreciate the way they function, we might consider the acts of government moral or ethical--but that is our interpretation. Similarly, if a government commits a theft to further its interests, people may consider those actions moral/ethical or immoral/unethical depending upon what they think of the government. But governments don't "care." People care; governments do not.

Respectfully,

Don

B.A. in Philosophy from UCLA

[quickdraw69]

As a former peace officer I can say that what russ did was stealing. But the thieft was not done by russ. Russ made his order and payed for what he ordered there for no thieft happened there. The employee as a representitive of BK added what he did not ask for he did not take it with out anyone knowing he was given it by a company rep so he did not steal. But the company rep did. She gave away something that was not hers to give. so in this case it is her who I would have taken in (and have).

With that being said I do feel that what russ did is unethical. He used his skills to manipulate someone with out there consent and not to there benifit. I believe that if you are going to go out and learn these skills you take on the responsiblity to use them for the good of all other wise you are no better then a con-man. In fact if he is guilty of anything it is of running a con. I can't say that for 100% sure as thats not something a beat cop deals with the detectives do but I do think it would be a very close call. any way it was unethical and he did take advantage of a person.

[Tekcor1]

I just read through this entire thread, and although I'm obviously joining pretty late in the game, I can't believe after reading it how many people completely misunderstood Johnny's position and questions.

I found this thread amusing as yesterday my family and I went to a Pizza Hut/Taco Bell restaurant for lunch. As part of our order, I ordered a mini pizza that was not ready (generally they are done and sitting under a heat lamp waiting for someone to order them). After waiting for approximately 10 minutes, we got the mini pizza. The clerk working the counter apologized for the wait and put an order of cinnamon twists in the bag to make up for the delay. Now, by Don and Merlin's definition, this clerk was not the store owner and gave us these twists presumably without his knowledge; therefore I stole them (as a side note, I have had to wait on an order before, and did not receive 'free' twists, so it is not a matter of policy). If someone had come up to me yesterday and accused me of stealing these twists, I would have told them they were out of their mind. Did I steal them? Or did the person, acting as an agent of the restaurant, have the authority to give them to me, relieving me of the duty to pay for them? According to Don, "Products were taken without paying for them. That's theft. This is not a grey area. It is theft." According to Merlin, "He knowingly took that which he did not pay for. That is theft."

What about if I went back today around the same time and ordered the same thing from the same employee hoping to get another order of free cinnamon twists? Assuming I got them again, would I be stealing them today, whereas yesterday I wasn't (if you believe I in fact wasn't stealing them yesterday)?

In Russ's case, if it had been the manager of the Burger King that had given him the freebies, would he have been stealing them? It wasn't the owner, and yet most people would assume the manager has the authority to give things away at her disgretion. Perhaps the clerk working the counter was the assistant manager, who also had the authority. Do we know? Is it stealing unless you take the time to question the person's authority? Is it even our responsibility to question their authority? And what if Russ had told the clerk that he didn't order the fries, and the clerk then told him that she had the authority to give them to him for free, when in fact she didn't. Is he still stealing them, because he's taking them without paying and without the owner's consent? Or does the clerk's lie relieve him of the duty to pay for them?

Also, consider this. I'm a manager at a casino in Washington. On a daily basis, I give away 'comps' for food, hotel rooms, etc. Now although I do not own the casino, people routinely use these comps to walk away with things "without paying for them". Is this theft? Of course not. I'm an agent of the casino, and have the authority to give these things away. Is it a player's responsibility to find out if I in fact have this authority to give comps? I think that it's my responsibility as the employee to know my boundaries and stick to them. If I overstep my boundaries, does the burden of theft fall on the player, or is it still my responsibility? What if someone uses embedded commands to get a comp from me they are not fully deserving of? Would it then be stealing?

All of these are real world situations in which IMO it is not a "black and white" issue as has been stated so many times throughout this thread. I think Johnny asks some brilliant questions, and let me say in his defense, that he never once said what Russ did was right or correct; he only wanted to explore WHY it was right or wrong. Let me also say in my own defense that I'm not defending Russ or his actions, nor passing judgement on whether they are right or wrong; I'm simply stating that it is not always as clearly defined as has been put forth here. If you think it is always black and white, show me exactly how it is stealing in each and every situation I presented above. Simply put, it can't be done, because it is not as black and white as some have claimed.

I'm sure that since this topic is past its prime, there will probably not be much more discussion in this thread. I just couldn't leave it without putting my $0.02 in.

Paul

[skip]

Paul,

This is the problem with ethics questions, everyone has their own take.

However you might wish to review your examples with the view in mind; the law says any person who benifits from, or expects to benifit from, illegal activity, is guilty of conspiracy, and is just as accountable as the person who 'did' the crime.

Now my thoughts might or might not agree with yours, and that is irrelevent.

There is a distinction between what is illegal, immoral, and unethical.

skip

[Robert]

I want to apologize in advance for being so third grade in my post. I know that most of us reading this are very familiar with these concepts. I simply want to remind myself and all of us reading of these ideas.

Ethics is based on meaning. Meaning is context - dependant, as illustrated by many examples above.

How many unethical actions are you (that is anyone reading) contributing to without intending out of convenience? For instance, deforestation of the great rain forests by supporting certain sources of beef.

In talking about ethics I want to remind everyone of a couple of fundamental NLP presuppositions -
The map is not the territory. In Dale Carnegies "How to win friends " book he makes the case that everyone whoe ever committs a crime or unethical action believes it is well justified or in this particular case excusable or worth while.

The person is much more than any set of behaviors. There are no thiefs or murderers. Anyone who has engaged in an unethicall action such as this is may also be a father or mother, a son or daughter, a valuable employee, a fellow human being.

Also, every - yes every criminal or unethical action has underlying it a positive intent. Albeit distorted in some way. The intent is still there.

Now, of course, the ultimate test of whether an action is ethical or not is objectivity. What would an objective observer conclude about a particular action? another test from Immanual Kant's categorical maxim is "Would you want this behavior to become the rule for all mankind?" However - since NLP has proven (at least to me) that there is no objectivity because it's all filtered through subjectivity. Therefore, there will often be some potential for disagreement in the arena of ethics as we all have different subjective ways of being objective about it. And that's not really a problem since we know the hierachy of ideas we can always chunk up to agreement.

So, rather than splitting hairs about whether something is ethical or not I invite you to consider this: Every unethical action arises out of an Internal representation that was filtered through a set of strategies, beliefs, values, decisions, memories, meta-programs, current state, language patterns, unresourceful physiology, and meta-states. These are the real problem where someone is unethical.

This is one of the things that inspires me about NLP - is that people can change, because we can help folks change their models of the world. If that's the case the world can change.

Almost all of the major problems facing mankind today are behavioral problems - for instance - war, drug abuse, crime, and poverty. Are NLP and Hypnosis not the pre-eiminant ways of changing behavior? Thus we hold in our hands the very technology that is the solution to a lack of ethics.

My challenge to everyone on this board is to go out once per month, and find someone who is seriously out-ethics, and use your skills to help that person adjust their mind to become more humane and more ethical. In this way we can start to have a greater impact on the world and actually begin to change the ways the world is currently unethical.

We have exactly the technology that the world needs. Do you realize that if we got enough of all the people of the world that are currently at war to go through the hierachy of ideas agreement frame - war would cease.

Who is willing to take on a challenge? If your skill level currently does not allow you to exert this level of influence - study more, use NLP / hypnosis / timeline therapy to get rid of the internal resistance being a powerful persuader. And practice first in non-significant situations such as clerks or friends. Then start to use it where it matters most.

And most of all - Be the change. If you want to influence the ethical level of the planet - start with yourself. Do you fib little white lies? Do you pay your bills promptly? Are you sometimes mean or cruel to others? Clean it up!!!
If you don't know how - buy a book, listen to tapes, attend a course, see a therapist trained in NLP / hypnosis / timeline / core transformation / neuro-semantics.

- Humbly - as this is more than anything a reminder to myself,
your friend,
Robert

[Don]

I... yesterday my family and I went to a Pizza Hut/Taco Bell restaurant for lunch. As part of our order, I ordered a mini pizza that was not ready (generally they are done and sitting under a heat lamp waiting for someone to order them). After waiting for approximately 10 minutes, we got the mini pizza. The clerk working the counter apologized for the wait and put an order of cinnamon twists in the bag to make up for the delay. Now, by Don and Merlin's definition, this clerk was not the store owner and gave us these twists presumably without his knowledge; therefore I stole them (as a side note, I have had to wait on an order before, and did not receive 'free' twists, so it is not a matter of policy). If someone had come up to me yesterday and accused me of stealing these twists, I would have told them they were out of their mind. Did I steal them? Or did the person, acting as an agent of the restaurant, have the authority to give them to me, relieving me of the duty to pay for them? According to Don, "Products were taken without paying for them. That's theft. This is not a grey area. It is theft." According to Merlin, "He knowingly took that which he did not pay for. That is theft."

What about if I went back today around the same time and ordered the same thing from the same employee hoping to get another order of free cinnamon twists? Assuming I got them again, would I be stealing them today, whereas yesterday I wasn't (if you believe I in fact wasn't stealing them yesterday)?...
Also, consider this. I'm a manager at a casino in Washington. On a daily basis, I give away 'comps' for food, hotel rooms, etc... Is this theft? Of course not. I'm an agent of the casino, and have the authority to give these things away. ...
Paul

Paul, you don't give comps to everyone, but you have the authority to do so to a certain degree. If you gave a free drink to someone, that's a comp. If the same person came in, grabbed a drink off a tray and didn't pay for it, that would be theft. What's the difference? Responsibility.

You have the responsibility to choose who will and who will not receive the comp. If someone who does not have that responsibility takes the authority (as in the grab and run person), it's theft.

In the original situation, the example took the authority away from the person who had the responsibility. He was like a grab and run person. It was theft, pure and simple. In the case of the pizza hut, the server had the authority to choose whether or not to give you free food for your inconvenience. As long as he chooses to do so and has the authority to do so, it is not theft. Take away the authority and/or the choice and it is theft.

BTW, I'm not sure that the comparison of giving comps in a casino is a valid comparison. Comps are given to get people to gamble. For decades, casinos have used cheap or free rooms, food, and drinks to get people to gamble. Giving comps is basically advertising. Vegas tried to change this--as well as make it more family friendly--and has not been very successful. They are moving back to the earlier model. However, in the case of food stores, food is not given out to get people to gamble. It is their only product.

I don't think you could comp people a better payout percentage on the slots! If you tried, you'd be in jail very quickly.

[j0hnny#]

My challenge to everyone on this board is to go out once per month, and find someone who is seriously out-ethics, and use your skills to help that person adjust their mind to become more humane and more ethical. In this way we can start to have a greater impact on the world and actually begin to change the ways the world is currently unethical.

Whose ethics should we use for this task and why.... Facists are up to this sort of thing all the time.... personally I find it repugnant... they believe it is for the common good... :(

KAnt's making an action a end for humanity is equally open to the consistent facist objection... so if all the persuasive people go out and make those 'unethical' people ethical this may not necessarily result in any harmonious state of affairs... In the spirit of Alasdair MacIntyre (fine Scottish Philosopher) Whose Justice? Which Rationality?

[Robert]

True. My friend. Vert True. (at least to me.)

A drug dealers ethics are very different from what I imagine the ethics of those of us that post on this board.

I think that in general we all agree that outright theft as a source of income, kidnapping, murder, blatant dishonesty, un provoked assault and battery, child abuse....etc.

We can forever argue about whether theft for Robin Hood type purposes, or whether it was theft or borrowing, or whether the murder was a result of Karma, or in what context a blatant lie is actually true, or what constitutes provoked as opposed to un-provoked, or that it's impossible to discriminate between discipline and child abuse.

however, when confronted with a car theft ring, a Jeffrey Dommer or Ted Bundy, someone saying they are 25 when they are 18, a person just walking up and hitting somebody across the head a baseball bat, or burning a child's hand in boiling water for the purpose of discipline - the vast majority of people find these things to be un-ethical, and highly immoral, and NOT justifiable.

I'm talking about the kind of actions that are generally considered wrong wrong and bad things to do.

Although, I grant there are some people such as Saddam Hussein, or Hitler, etc. - who believe that genocide, or other atrocities are ethical. I'm suggesting that we target changing the mental maps of people with these sort of deranged ideals. Of course, doing it safely....not putting ourselves in harms way to do this.

And neither am I suggesting that any justice - such as prison, or what have you be negated bacause of this... only that we weild our influence to make the world a better place.

[Merlin]

>We can forever argue about whether theft for Robin Hood type purposes...

Robin too often gets a bum rap.

He did not ever *rob*
Robin was returning the money which was stolen by a repressive, overbearing government.
The out-of control government would steal the money and Robin would return the money to its rightful owner.

He was more a policeman returning stolen property.

[Terry (existing)]

Forgive me, perhaps I am misreading your post, but I think not. You seem to be demanding information from Merlin on the basis that she thinks you are out of order, (something with which I agree by the way) so in return you demand this information (so you can test it for yourself I presume.) Now please understand, we are all guests on this board, some who are highly skilled, and offer help to others who are not so skilled, and we also have those who have no training, no ethics, no skills, and no willingness to pay for what they need, right? Well friend, we also have no gun to our heads either, and our replies are based on what we read into a post from someone we know very little about....There are times when we will offer our help, and others were the poster makes such demands as you, and we react accordingly. If this is not satisfactory, don't blame those who react in a negative manner, but rather accept that your aproach was wrong.....
If this is not satisfactory, you do have an alternative do you not? Terry

[j0hnny#]

PERHAPS I misunderstood her...


WAS Not demanding anything (long time ago though - and I think I know Merlin a bit better now, certainly have a lot of respect for what she writes - and I like her) .

Surely I have a right to ask, at least, why I am being accused of speaking nonsense. And surely I have a right to have my thoughts accurately represented? Or at least defend how I wish them to be understood.... Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression this was a discussion forum.... ? A forum is a place where people meet to discuss things on an agenda - there are demands in a certain sense whenever there are replies of some kind of controversy. The way you represent it (if I understand you correctly) is as though it were divided into us and them... the panel and the paupers... Granted there are experts on a variety of different subject matter, and some with less knowledge than others on some things and more than others on others - I suppose you might also be right to say that some people might not be able to afford to get their understanding from elsewhere... people have their reasons.... and no one is putting a gun to anyone's head Terry so don't go getting all upset man (though I got to say, I'm loving your grumpy old man patter.. heh, heh, heh :))


Now please understand, we are all guests on this board, some who are highly skilled, and offer help to others who are not so skilled, and we also have those who have no training, no ethics, no skills, and no willingness to pay for what they need, right? Well friend, we also have no gun to our heads either, and our replies are based on what we read into a post from someone we know very little about....There are times when we will offer our help, and others were the poster makes such demands as you, and we react accordingly. If this is not satisfactory, don't blame those who react in a negative manner,
Don't disagree with you....

Not demanding (in any kind of negative sense)....... where do you see me nagging? IF opinion of what another should do is demanding then we are all guilty of that... And where do you see me blaming - like I say I qulaified my answer with 'if I understand you correctly'

It is a difficult question..... just trying to offer people a chance to think about the ethical, why certain things are good and bad..... seemed appropriate to the post..

Anyway, I don't seem to see the Moderators deleting my posts on this thread so as you say you are entitled to you opinion that I am out of order (not sure if Merlin agrees with you characterising her as thinking that?) - read in to it what you will and reply accordingly.... I'm all up for that!

Booya! big Tel:D

[skip]

Johnny,

If I may.

Intentions are an importnt part of ethics.

If I intend to do you harm, and am successful, that's unethial, in most contexts.

If I intend to do you harm, and are unsuccessful, then that too is unethical in most contexts.

But intent isnt all there is to ethics, or life.

You must also consider results.

If I intend you no harm, but do harm you, is not that wrong?

In many contexts it is.

In the situations posed, three factors come into play. Intent , harm, and yes degree of harm.

Many people dont think taking a paper clip from work is wrong, but it is, isnt it?

Some might think that accepting free drinks is OK. And it might be, if the person offering the free drinks is authorized to so do. But if the person offering the drinks isnt authorized, it isnt OK, and lots of people are being harmed. The person to whom the drink rightfully belongs is harmed, as is the person who offers the drink unrightfully, and to my way of thinking, so is the person who 'benifitted' from accepting the 'free' drink. You and I are also some of the people harmed, because of the higher prices we have to pay, in order to compensate for all those "free drinks" someone stole.

Now those are just results I am talking about, I didnt get into intentions.

Yesterday I was helping the assistant DA select a jury, for a trial. A nice kid, a sargent, 11 years distinguished service, in the Marines, came home on leave, and with a couple of his buddies, went out on the town. Dinner at Hooters, then club hopping. 3 AM, on their way home, they crossed the center line, and hit a dune buggy head on. The driver and passenger in the dune buggy, both killed. The marine sargent, who was driving, did cpr on the passenger until EMS arrived, the guy died in his arms. The sargent, had a blood alcohol of .15, legal limit in Tenn is .08. He also had traces of meth. He had also driven over 16 hours that "day" to get here from Arkansas.

Too tired, too much alcohol, best of intentions.

****ty results.

If you reach my age, and if you drink alcohol, you will have no doubt done much the same thing as this Marine sargent did, drive after drinking too much, or when you are too tired, or both.

That you do it successfully, and get away with it, doesnt make it OK.

skip

[j0hnny#]

Johnny,

If I may.

Intentions are an importnt part of ethics.

If I intend to do you harm, and am successful, that's unethial, in most contexts.

If I intend to do you harm, and are unsuccessful, then that too is unethical in most contexts.

But intent isnt all there is to ethics, or life.

You must also consider results.

If I intend you no harm, but do harm you, is not that wrong?

In many contexts it is.

In the situations posed, three factors come into play. Intent , harm, and yes degree of harm.

Many people dont think taking a paper clip from work is wrong, but it is, isnt it?

Some might think that accepting free drinks is OK. And it might be, if the person offering the free drinks is authorized to so do. But if the person offering the drinks isnt authorized, it isnt OK, and lots of people are being harmed. The person to whom the drink rightfully belongs is harmed, as is the person who offers the drink unrightfully, and to my way of thinking, so is the person who 'benifitted' from accepting the 'free' drink. You and I are also some of the people harmed, because of the higher prices we have to pay, in order to compensate for all those "free drinks" someone stole.

Now those are just results I am talking about, I didnt get into intentions.

Yesterday I was helping the assistant DA select a jury, for a trial. A nice kid, a sargent, 11 years distinguished service, in the Marines, came home on leave, and with a couple of his buddies, went out on the town. Dinner at Hooters, then club hopping. 3 AM, on their way home, they crossed the center line, and hit a dune buggy head on. The driver and passenger in the dune buggy, both killed. The marine sargent, who was driving, did cpr on the passenger until EMS arrived, the guy died in his arms. The sargent, had a blood alcohol of .15, legal limit in Tenn is .08. He also had traces of meth. He had also driven over 16 hours that "day" to get here from Arkansas.

Too tired, too much alcohol, best of intentions.

****ty results.

If you reach my age, and if you drink alcohol, you will have no doubt done much the same thing as this Marine sargent did, drive after drinking too much, or when you are too tired, or both.

That you do it successfully, and get away with it, doesnt make it OK.

skipcheers Skip,

I think it is important to distinguish between ethics and practical ethics....

So....
If I intend to do you harm, and am successful, that's unethial, in most contexts. doing so is practically unethical in most contexts I agree.

I think practical ethics takes certain conceptions of the good and delineates certain practices in accordance with them.... at the other end is thinking about those conceptions of the good and possibilities thereby. Still, practical ethical procedures are based upon the conceptions of the good nonetheless, and while they are useful for sustaining order within a particular society - providing the means for establishing legal systems and procedures of justice, they nevertheless, have some overriding conception of the good in play at their heart. Certainly it seems to me to be a valuable exercise for any individual to consider the merits or otherwise of the conceptions of the good in play (before the delineation of procedures) that have such a massive and powerful influence over individuals lives.

So as I understand it, there is ethics and then there is practical ethics.... practical ethics is how we enforce some ethical ideals. Ethics is concerned with how ethical ideals are arrived at for particular purposes. In one I am considering conceptions of the good and attempting to arrive at objective values to inform how best to procede, in the other I am considering how best to procede from the conceptions of the good I have arrived at.

Ethics, at all levels, is important, I think, for everyone, no matter who you are, IF you want to consider yourself a responsible human being.

But cheers, I respect the considerations you posted. Insightful and useful.

Regards
Johnny