Is "how would you like it if it happened to you?" always a valid argument?

I'm thinking about this in light of a recent incident in which the full list of names and addresses of members of the British National Party - a far-right party with ties to racist groups - was leaked on the Internet.

As one would expect, us liberals were laughing our asses off, and fairly inevitably, a few of us then got all uppity and called us all hypocrites and such because apparently we'd all hate it if the same happened to us.

Now, on a purely hypothetical, ideological, all-things-being-equal level, I can understand the point. But surely that's the problem: the argument has been simplified beyond relevance. If we all just rolled dice at some point to decide our political views, then yeah, it would suck to be persecuted* for them. But that's just not the real world.

This has got me thinking. Is there a danger that "how would you like it if it happened to you?", while intended to make us less judgmental, is actually preventing us from feeling able to make good judgments? I mean, most of us do that anyway - we and society judge people for breaking the law, for example - so it seems to me like the question only casts doubt on judgments we make that we are conscious of.

And who's to say that a consciously made judgment can't be absolutely correct, or absolutely justifiable, just because one might not like the same to happen to them?

So... your thoughts? I get that "boooo, you shouldn't make judgments", so I don't need to be told that without anything added to it. I'm thinking "post-judgment" here.



*Although the BNP is also closely linked to Redwatch, which posts names, addresses and contact details of its "enemies" on the Internet as a matter of routine, so...

 

In regard to the BNP list being leaked specifically I have to admit it did amuse me greatly, especially the comments about bomber jackets and witches and such. However I do think people have a right to keep whatever affiliations they wish and also have a right to privacy. By necessity rights have to be universal which means defending the rights of those you don't really like, else you risk the erosion of rights of an ever-growing pool of "undesirables".

Not to mention the fact that list includes a lot of ex-members, some of whom may have left after realising what the party is really about, since the BNP portrays itself as a party for the disenfranchised working class in some areas with some success since Labour abandoned their original base, downplaying the racial aspect beyond their anti-immigration views. If someone lives in an area with a lot of immigrants and is unable to get a job and the tabloids are all claiming immigration is out of control in "soft-touch" Britain and that immigrants are taking jobs away from native Britons then I could understand how a party which seems to represent them could be alluring. Then again some of the people on the list are just racists.

Now I may be totally wrong here, but I don't really think "how would you like it if it happened to you?" is intended to make us less judgemental, rather it's just an heuristic designed to test if something is unethical by placing ourselves in the same position. It's really just a slight variation of the golden rule. I don't think they're saying it's wrong to judge someone for being a member of the BNP, rather questioning whether it's right for an association you wanted to keep private to be made public. Of course in this case it might be kind of hard to place yourself in the position of being associated with a political party which most of society shuns.

Generally I think "how would you like it if it happened to you?" on its own isn't that useful a test. People aren't identical after all and so something you'd be fine with may not be for someone else and vice versa. It's also not always the case that an action which will make someone unhappy is always wrong, but it is a factor to consider when deciding the morality of an action.

 

I do wonder how it's possible to have heard of the BNP and not know "what they're about".

Personally, in this case, I have difficulty empathising. I mean, I get that, if I'd done something which I find morally repugnant, I might not want the whole world knowing. But then, I wouldn't have done it, because I'd have found it morally repugnant.

On this particular issue, there is also the fact that the BNP is closely tied to Redwatch, an organisation which routinely publishes the names and addresses of its "enemies" on the Internet for people to, hey, just do what they feel like with.

 

You both make excellent points, especially "By necessity, rights have to be universal which means defending the rights of those you don't really like, else you risk the erosion of rights of an ever-growing pool of "undesirables"" and "Is there a danger that "how would you like it if it happened to you?", while intended to make us less judgmental, is actually preventing us from feeling able to make good judgments?". Basically, my conclusion combines your two arguments to say that while "how would you like it if it happened to you?" isn't the best way of approaching any ideas of punishment^1, we still have to respect the rights of even those we disrespect^2. Balance, my friends, between good judgment and respect, is needed when observing this case of privacy violations.

1. We wouldn't like to go to jail but if we molested children for lawlz on a daily basis we would surely send someone else to jail for something equally criminal.
2. In this case, privacy rights.

 

If one adopts an utilitarian approach, then the fact that I take delight in an action when it happens to someone else, but would not take delight in an action if that same action where to happen to me does not necessarily make the action immoral. The action could be immoral if it happens to me but moral if it happens to someone else. The morality of the action depends upon the net increase or decrease in intrinsic value. So I guess the answer to your original question is that the validness of the "you wouldn't like it if it happened to you" argument depends upon the moral framework one is adopting.

 

And some people can be broadly more consequential for their actions (example: disobeying for the End they did not approve of) then the others partaking of the social conscience. But who's ultimately Happy: in a utilitarianism I guess it is the others over-all. Is the end good for the greatest majority? That is the common good.

Too many people are functionally convenient for the common good. And then the government pulls the wool over their eyes.

No?

 

Well, it is not necessarily the greatest good for others overall. In utilitarianism, you must also count the intrinsic goodness that you acquire because of the action, but I think that is what you were getting at when you the phrase "common good."

 

i`m having a very small problem right now, but it`s big for me. in this town one needs an adress for a library card. i don`t have one. but i can pay $1/day for one. or if one gets a motel room one can get lib card that last 6 wks. other than that. "all" i`ve gotta do is send some mail to someone`s adress so i can lie & claim i live there. unfortunately evry1 i know doesn`t have an adress either. & some people are scared to have ame send mail to theirs. `im hoping this happens to some1 so they can see what it`s like .

 

My intrinsic Good may be at odds with the End of that considered majority once the end is re-realized socially consciounable. So as long as the 'I', the individual here, can be sociably consciounable with or without an end in mind. The utilitatarian thing is to find any misfit of convenience bearable to their ends.

One must look for friendship outside the library while freezing to death. There is a cause for the community to listen to ME, and I can make conversation with at least half witted public.


No?

 

famewalk, I am trying to understand what you are saying, but some of it is unclear to me. First, as far as I understand, utilitarianism has nothing to do with the ends of the majority. According to utilitarianism, the end of the majority could be actually immoral, if that end somehow reduces the overall intrinsic good (many utilitarians would adopt a hedonistic account and say that the only intrinsic good is pleasure, but I tend to disagree).
Also, I am not exactly sure what phrases such as "re-realized socially consciounable" or "misfit of convenience bearable to their ends" mean.

 

The grester happiness of a majority may exist without Ends once the end is reduced from being at all. I understand God determines an end, but people can decide for themselves.

 

Some feel that that is apparently utilitarianism.

Perhaps they feel that the developing project through time for the conclusive God at changing the constructed event horizon of the community was materialistic progress and even referenda for political and scientific opinions. That's all I'll say the conscience was tied to.

The individual conscience is some function to the whole of individual conscience's; and that we're already applying individual conscience inductively to the population of the assorted survey was Mill's form of argument.

I don't believe success at personal happiness is the pre-requisite to being knowledgeable about the end in the future which is and was objective nevertheless. But the modern community is and was however convinced that there was an advertised standard for happiness to pre-determine the value for the very kind of survey done.

Fighting God's will means resisting personal faith for what one Calls into as God for the end of All here and there. Would it not be that 'God' determines religion by dimmed out circumstances when We are against the War in the majority. The Taliban shall call the shot for no elections inferring the majority of people in Afghanistan are War Happy.

Conclusion: MIll's ethics should not be for Atheists. No?

 

Valid arguing does however have a broadness for respect. The decision to make happiness the probe was not always broad; therefore it is the Free Spirit contrasted with Happiness which makes the consequences of ethics primarily Broad, and subsequently conscience driven for the courage and Faith in the Cause. The Taliban cannot show they are viably consciounable for eternal fighting.

How long will it be before They contest the already evidently SHOWN Mercy of Allah? Either that or they break up and join their many syndicated struggles to find that the West is false.


The arguing may show it is False because the materialism is that self-deceit of happiness being an Advertisement about the majority ...


Crush the advertising.

 

"The arguing may show it is False because the materialism is that self-deceit of happiness being an Advertisement about the majority ...


Crush the advertising."


No. Now as the Kyoto Protocol is being deliberated: between strangers everything IS an AD. as long as IT IS concrete. I have problems consisting the rubbish conveniences but that is abstract to complain, even to expect to have something done about that.

Instead, remember: "Look what they've done to My song Ma." That was abstract. Concreteness has no message.