Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty

[E. Albright]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
E_A: If I inderstand your comment correctly...

If you are doing something becasue it is morally/ ethically right, then it makes no difference whether someone has asked you to do it or not, and a different set of rules apply.

Problem: morality doesn't evolve in a void. Most (though admittedly not all) people recieve their concept of what is "right" directly from others, and thus to do what is "right" can generally be viewed as doing what you're told, though by whom changes from one instance to another.

Originally posted by tbontob:
The quote was not mine but Grandpa Kim's although he got it from somewhere else.
[...]

The hard-liners of duty would have us believe we should do our duty without question.

But duty changes with the times. And to demand we be hard-wired to it, is IMHO neither healthy or advantages to the person or to the nation.

Yes, I was aware it wasn't your statement. See thread subject and the phrase "GK's quote" in my prior reply.

And yes, blind obedience is IMO a "bad" thing. "Bad" rather than bad because...

Originally posted by Grandpa Kim:
I refuse to give anyone or any group the right to force their concept of ethics on me. Most likely they won't come up to my standards anyway.

I too reject the concept of objective ethical standards, albeit for longwinded metaethical reasons. My view of right and wrong is purely my own, and admittedly purely arbitrary. As is, IMO, everyone else's (excepting perhaps the admittedly part).

So I don't expect people to agree with me about what is right, and full well expect that people can, will and must radically disagree with my personal standards of ethics. So what's the rub of this? Well, I can't really judge other people in any kind of compelling way. When I say "I think that what you're doing is bad", it's like I've said "'Boo!' for what you're doing", and if I say it's good, I'm saying "'Rah!' for what you're doing" (this outlook is called emotivism, BTW).

IMO, the rejection of objective ethics reduces my ability to judge the actions of others to a capacity to state purely personal opinions as to the value of their acts, comparable to statements regarding my preference for vanilla ice cream over chocolate, or vice versa. I can't in good faith say "You ought to do that"; I must instead say "I think you ought to do that", or better still, "I would like you to do that", whether "that" is not punching people like me in the face, avoiding cheating on your spelling test or restraining from deep-fat-frying your neighbor. Anything else smacks to me of hardcore hypocrisy...

E. Albright

[ January 15, 2003, 10:39: Message edited by: E. Albright ]

[tbontob]

Hmmmm.

The only real point I was making is that every individual should have the right to question anything which attempts to remove his right to decide things for himself.

So, if someone says I have a duty to do something, I should have the right to question whether in fact such a duty does exist, instead of doing a knee-jerk reaction to comply.

Or if someone says I am selfish when I want to do or not do something, I should have the right to question whether in fact I am selfish, instead of doing the knee-jerk reaction to comply.

Duty and the accusation of selfishness are only two of an arsenal of weapons a manipulator can use to get what he wants.

But until we accept that we have the right to question whether there is in fact a duty or whether we are in fact selfish, we will be susceptable to the manipulations of unscrupulous people.

The person's ethical system as well as the ethical system of the society he lives in will play a major part in that person's decision whether a duty (or selfishness) exists or not.

If a person decides he doesn't owe a duty and acts on it, it is possible he may contravene a law of the society in which he lives or becomes the object of censure by his neighbours.

As such he may be "wrong" according to the morays of society and be punished for it. But that is the chance he takes in making the decision to decide things for himself. He is responsible for his actions.

It is my personal choice that I would much rather run the risk of making a "wrong" decision by choice than by making a "wrong" decision" by virtue of a knee-jerk reaction.

[couslee]

Duty: Obligations of behavior or conduct in relation to others or to God which have a stronger claim on a person than his self-interest. Or, the work someone is expected to do because of his vocation.

It is the duty of the telemarketers to try and sell you the product, because that is what they are geting paid to do.

and as for how I deal with them, I let them ramble on and on and on, and make them think they are getting somewhere. They call me and invade my time. bad idea as I have lots of time. i find it funny, as most of the time, you can tell the newer marketers as they are quite proficient in the early part of the script, but they don't make it to page two all too often and they start talking in monotone, because they have not commited that part to memory yet. thats when I say things like "you have not been doing this long, have you?". Or once I am bored with wasting their time I tell them after much consideration, I have to decline at this point" and hang up. Keeping in mind, the longer they spend on a no-sale call, the more incompetent it makes them look. time wasted=less calls=less money=new vocation choice. and that is what we all hope for, is that they all get new jobs anyway.

You also can get their name, and tell them to take you off their call-back list. If they don't, you have the right to sue. You just have to remember to get the company name, and the caller's name (or EE number) and document the date/time they call. Personally, I find my way more fun.
Computer calls, I just hang up. And charitable calls like the sherriff's department are not excepted from the method. Usually they will want to send you a sticker or some other bobble, I tell them i already got my sticker for this year, matter of fact got it the other day. I have yet to have one smart enough to ask for my CONTINUED support of their worthy cause, but I have a responce for that too.... anything to keep THEM on the line. It's all just a matter of perspective.

[tbontob]

Originally posted by couslee:
And charitable calls like the sherriff's department are not excepted from the method. Usually they will want to send you a sticker or some other bobble, I tell them i already got my sticker for this year, matter of fact got it the other day. I have yet to have one smart enough to ask for my CONTINUED support of their worthy cause, but I have a responce for that too.... anything to keep THEM on the line. It's all just a matter of perspective.

And pray tell, what would be your response to "continued support"?

[couslee]

Simple, I whine about my limited income and explain that my Last donation was beyond what I really should have afforded, but to feel free to call back next year.

The victory in this game, is to get them to thank me for my time and have them hang up on me. lol

(edited for typo and additional thought)

[ January 15, 2003, 12:05: Message edited by: couslee ]

[AS of SA]

I always have a charity mail me thier paper work, I won't donate over the phone because of the number of charity scams running now.

For example, the 9/11 fund scams.