Strippers v.s. Telemarketers

POSTED BY: SigmaNunki
UPDATED: Friday, April 6, 2007 13:36
VIEWED: 4485
PAGE 3 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3

SCORPIONREGENT

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 8:41 PM

So it seems unanamious that strippers are less offensive than telemarketers.

Which would you choose for your close females friends and relatives as a job? Bear in mind that strippers get paid exceptionally well.

Scorpion Regent

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 9:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ScorpionRegent:
So it seems unanamious that strippers are less offensive than telemarketers.

Which would you choose for your close females friends and relatives as a job? Bear in mind that strippers get paid exceptionally well.

Scorpion Regent

I have to say, if my sister wanted to be a stripper, I'd have less moral reservations than if she wanted to be a telemarketer.

I'd have things to say about the safety of the job, though, which has nothing to do with the morality of the concept of stripping for money.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ScorpionRegent:

So it seems unanamious that strippers are less offensive than telemarketers.

And don't you find that just wild?

Quote:
Originally posted by ScorpionRegent:

Which would you choose for your close females friends and relatives as a job? Bear in mind that strippers get paid exceptionally well.

I'd find them a job as a waitress

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

CAUSAL

Friday, April 6, 2007 1:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
In that case I disagree with ethical philosophers on this point [ of philosophers not talking about ethical gradation ] (probably just means I'm wrong), but if something is debate-worthy from an ethical perspective, there's almost never black and white, and the shades of grey can change depending on context (sorry, I know 'shade of grey' is becoming a bit of a cliche, but it fits).

Well, I guess I'm going to have to stick my neck out for my colleagues and say that I agree with their disinclination to talk about degrees of moral evaluation. I think right and wrong as such are binary propositions. An act either is or is not wrong. I'm afraid I just don't buy that right and wrong exist on some sort of continuum. That said, it is often very difficult to tease out just what is right and wrong in a given situation, which gives the appearance of moral ambiguity. In addition, there does seem to be a continuum in terms of the effects of certain wrongs, and the social condemnation of certain wrongs. Take, for instance, two cases, A and B. In both A and B, an legitimate authority has given a rule or law to someone under authority, such that that rule/law ought morally to be obeyed. In both A and B, the rule/law is disobeyed. I think that it's the case that we can say that in both A and B the disobedient party did wrong in that they disobeyed a person with legitimate authority. And this seems clear without having to investigate the particulars of A and B in that the moral ought of rules-following was disregarded. But suppose further that in case A a mother told a child not to eat a cookie before dinner, whereas in case B a man was driving drunk and killed a pedestrian. Only now does it appear that "ethically worse" would apply--but my contention is that it does not. My contention is that "wrong" simply means "not morally right" and that doesn't allow for gradations. But what does allow for gradations is the severity of the wrongdoing in terms of the magnitude of the effects of the wrongdoing and in terms of the social blame place upon the wrong doer. In that sense, I think that we might actually be agreeing when it comes to what "ethically worse" means--though by using "worse" we import a philosophical can of worms (the idea of moral gradations), which is tricky given that right/wrong seem to be a binary pair that doesn't admit of gradation.

Quote:
In this case the second case you mentioned is more applicable, but with a modification: "Between these two morally ambiguous alternatives, which is more morally wrong?". I changed 'wrong' to 'ambiguous' since saying flat-out that they're morally wrong is basically saying they're unethical, and this assumption is what I don't necessarily agree with (in general and in this context).

Now we're back into the morass of moral gradation. My assertion is that in ethical evaluation right/wrong is a binary pair. That is, an act is either right, or it is wrong, or it is morally neutral (like tying one's shoes). I think it is improper to say "more wrong." Consider a computer's binary operations: the gate can have a value of 0 or 1 and nothing in between. We don't say it's "more 1" because that's incomprehensible. I propose something similar is the case with moral evaluation. I suspect that if you were to describe exactly what you mean by something's being "more wrong" than something else, you would wind up discussing the effects of two different things, or the degree to which our society holds that those things are acceptable or not. But neither of these things goes to the moral status as such of the acts. They go to the effects or to the social reception of the acts. Again, though, I suspect that we are really talking about the same sort of thing, just with different language. I think it's a perfectly appropriate question to ask which of two alternatives has the more deleterious effect on society--but this doesn't describe the moral status of the alternatives, it describ

PREV PAGE 1 2 3