When Should the Unethical Be Illegal?

[Koldo]

If I am a man who has cheated on all of his 3 ex-wives and I'm planning to get married again, I deserve to be embarrassed by having the the truth about my past infidelity revealed.

If I am a pastor who preaches that homosexuals are abominations in the eyes of God and I'm having a homosexual affair, I deserve to be embarrassed by having the truth of my affair revealed.

If I'm an alcoholic who keeps telling his son addicted to painkillers that he's a useless loser who has no willpower, I deserve to be embarrassed by having my alcoholism revealed.

I could go on and on.

I would say that in all of those examples the person in question is doing something unethical in the first place. Giving publicity to their unethical behaviour with the intent to prevent further harm coming from them sounds alright to me.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I would say that in all of those examples the person in question is doing something unethical in the first place. Giving publicity to their unethical behaviour with the intent to prevent further harm coming from them sounds alright to me.

So you agree that there ARE times when it isn't unethical to reveal a truth about someone, just because revealing that truth embarrasses them. Which is why suggesting that people should be able to sue when someone embarrasses them for revealing a truth is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Koldo]

So you agree that there ARE times when it isn't unethical to reveal a truth about someone, just because revealing that truth embarrasses them. Which is why suggesting that people should be able to sue when someone embarrasses them for revealing a truth is absolutely ridiculous.

I am not sure I understand your reasoning here.
Do you mean that if there are instances where it is not unethical to do something then it should always be legal to do that thing?

 

[QuestioningMind]

I am not sure I understand your reasoning here.
Do you mean that if there are instances where it is not unethical to do something then it should always be legal to do that thing?

I am not sure on how you are using the word 'illegal' here, but I was thinking on something like:
Saying in a loud and clear voice for everyone to hear that your friend has been cheated on by his/her spouse, not only to him/her, but also in front of his/her family and neighbors, during a birthday party.

Let's take your example. In this case you suggest that the person who was embarrassed should be able to sue the person who truthfully revealed that this person's spouse cheated on them. But you're making the assumption that the person's intent was to maliciously cause embarrassment. How do we know that the person didn't reveal this information because he/she thought that the person who was cheated on could use the sympathy and support of the others at the table? Maybe it was said because someone else at the table was chastising the person who was cheated on for not treating their spouse better. Proving that someone's intent was to maliciously embarrass would be almost impossible to prove. And even if you somehow could prove that the intent was to embarrass the person in question, on what basis are you claiming that anyone has a right to NOT be embarrassed by something someone else reveals? How can you make anyone responsible for what another person happens to get embarrassed about?

That's why we focus is on when people speak FALSEHOODS about another. I can sue you if you LIE about me, but I can't sue you for telling a truth about me, just because I happen to be embarrassed by that truth. For instance, I could state that person A has bright red hair. It's a truth. But should this person with bright red hair be able to sue me for speaking this truth, just because they happen to be embarrassed by their bright red hair and the fact that I called attention to it?

 

[Koldo]

I am not sure on how you are using the word 'illegal' here, but I was thinking on something like:
Saying in a loud and clear voice for everyone to hear that your friend has been cheated on by his/her spouse, not only to him/her, but also in front of his/her family and neighbors, during a birthday party.

Let's take your example. In this case you suggest that the person who was embarrassed should be able to sue the person who truthfully revealed that this person's spouse cheated on them. But you're making the assumption that the person's intent was to maliciously cause embarrassment. How do we know that the person didn't reveal this information because he/she thought that the person who was cheated on could use the sympathy and support of the others at the table? Maybe it was said because someone else at the table was chastising the person who was cheated on for not treating their spouse better. Proving that someone's intent was to maliciously embarrass would be almost impossible to prove. And even if you somehow could prove that the intent was to embarrass the person in question, on what basis are you claiming that anyone has a right to NOT be embarrassed by something someone else reveals? How can you make anyone responsible for what another person happens to get embarrassed about?

That's why we focus is on when people speak FALSEHOODS about another. I can sue you if you LIE about me, but I can't sue you for telling a truth about me, just because I happen to be embarrassed by that truth. For instance, I could state that person A has bright red hair. It's a truth. But should this person with brighlwt t red hair be able to sue me for speaking this truth, just because they happen to be embarrassed by their bright red hair and the fact that I called attention to it?

Trying to be succinct sometimes really works against me. There are essentially 5 ways to be held responsible for your actions in Brazil, and I agree with them.

The number 1 is if you intend the consequences of your actions. For instance, if you intend to break someone else's boat, and you do it, you pay for it.

The second way is if you don't care about the consequences of your actions. For instance, if you don't mind the consequences of playing with fire on someone else's boat and you happen to set it on fire.

The third way is if you are neglectful. For instance, if you are paid to keep watch over someone else's boat and you do nothing while watching a complete stranger destroying it, as in you don't even call the police.

The fourth way is if you are unskilled. For instance, you get hired to fix a boat but you don't really know how to do it and you mess it up.

The fifth way is if you are reckless. For instance, you get to drive someone else's boat, but somewhere along the way you decide to speed it up to the max speed even though you are reasonably expected to know you shouldn't, which happens to lead to an accident.

As per my example, even if there was no intent to psychologically attack the friend, at least proper care wasn't taken to avoid or reduce the damage. It would count as recklessness.The average man would know that by revealing that fact in front of everyone there was a major risk of the friend feeling ashamed and hurt, more than if the fact was revealed privately.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Trying to be succinct sometimes really works against me. There are essentially 5 ways to be held responsible for your actions in Brazil, and I agree with them.

The number 1 is if you intend the consequences of your actions. For instance, if you intend to break someone else's boat, and you do it, you pay for it.

The second way is if you don't care about the consequences of your actions. For instance, if you don't mind the consequences of playing with fire on someone else's boat and you happen to set it on fire.

The third way is if you are neglectful. For instance, if you are paid to keep watch over someone else's boat and you do nothing while watching a complete stranger destroying it, as in you don't even call the police.

The fourth way is if you are unskilled. For instance, you get hired to fix a boat but you don't really know how to do it and you mess it up.

The fifth way is if you are reckless. For instance, you get to drive someone else's boat, but somewhere along the way you decide to speed it up to the max speed even though you are reasonably expected to know you shouldn't, which happens to lead to an accident.

As per my example, even if there was no intent to psychologically attack the friend, at least proper care wasn't taken to avoid or reduce the damage. It would count as recklessness.The average man would know that by revealing that fact in front of everyone there was a major risk of the friend feeling ashamed and hurt, more than if the fact was revealed privately.

There's a huge difference between doing damage to someone's boat and speaking a truth that might embarrass someone. It's pretty simple to define what constitutes damage to a boat that everyone can agree on. What an individual may or may not find to be embarrassing is completely subjective. You seem to think that it would be OBVIOIUS that revealing that a friend is being cheated on would be embarrassing to the person getting cheated on. Why? In MY opinion the person being cheated on has done nothing to be embarrassed about. It was their spouse that committed the infidelity. I think the spouse might have reason to be embarrassed, but it's not for certain that the person being cheated on should feel any embarrassment about their spouse's actions. What people do and do not find embarrassing varies to a very great degree. No one should be prohibited from speaking a truth just because someone MIGHT find the truth embarrassing. It's impossible for anyone to know with any certainty wat will or will not embarrass any given individual.

 

[Koldo]

There's a huge difference between doing damage to someone's boat and speaking a truth that might embarrass someone. It's pretty simple to define what constitutes damage to a boat that everyone can agree on. What an individual may or may not find to be embarrassing is completely subjective. You seem to think that it would be OBVIOIUS that revealing that a friend is being cheated on would be embarrassing to the person getting cheated on. Why? In MY opinion the person being cheated on has done nothing to be embarrassed about. It was their spouse that committed the infidelity. I think the spouse might have reason to be embarrassed, but it's not for certain that the person being cheated on should feel any embarrassment about their spouse's actions. What people do and do not find embarrassing varies to a very great degree. No one should be prohibited from speaking a truth just because someone MIGHT find the truth embarrassing. It's impossible for anyone to know with any certainty wat will or will not embarrass any given individual.

But you agree that it is a non-trivial private matter, right?
Having your privacy exposed for everyone to see, without your consent, is not socially acceptable in both of our societies, right? It is to be expected that it could cause harm.

I want your take on this case: It is reasonable to imagine that having a nude picture of oneself exposed in the web could cause distress. But it is not a fact that it necessarily would. Considering it is impossible to know for a fact one way or the other before it is done, should the victim ever be able to ask for restitution for the damage caused?

 

[QuestioningMind]

But you agree that it is a non-trivial private matter, right?
Having your privacy exposed for everyone to see, without your consent, is not socially acceptable in both of our societies, right? It is to be expected that it could cause harm.

I want your take on this case: It is reasonable to imagine that having a nude picture of oneself exposed in the web could cause distress. But it is not a fact that it necessarily would. Considering it is impossible to know for a fact one way or the other before it is done, should the victim ever be able to ask for restitution for the damage caused?

But you agree that it is a non-trivial private matter, right?
Having your privacy exposed for everyone to see, without your consent, is not socially acceptable in both of our societies, right? It is to be expected that it could cause harm.

I agree that it is not a non-trivial matter and I agree that exposing a persons private information without their consent is seen by many as being socially unacceptable. The question becomes, do we make it unlawful for a person to do anything that most people find socially unacceptable? Most people find it socially unacceptable if others don't bathe regularly. Does that mean that I should be able to sue someone if I find their body odor offensive? I guess the question becomes does it do 'harm'? Depends on how you define harm. I could claim that I was harmed because the body odor made me lose my appetite for the rest of the day. Should I be able to sue because of that 'harm'? Yes, I missed a meal or two, but what REAL harm was caused? And yes, I can say I was embarrassed by what someone else revealed about me... but what REAL harm is there in experiencing embarrassment? Is it a level of 'harm' that people should be able to sue over in a court of law?

The problem with this idea is that it places the responsibility on every person to somehow know what will or will not embarrass everyone else. That's simply not a reasonable expectation.

So what do we do about people who do things that most find to be socially unacceptable? If the acts cause what everyone can agree upon is genuine harm, we outlaw the activity. However if it's something like your BO caused me to lose my appetite OR you constantly tell people things about me that embarrasses me, we deal with it differently. The person who never bathes never gets asked to go anywhere with anyone, they become a social pariah that everyone avoids. If you're the type of person who is constantly embarrassing others by revealing personal information, you'll quickly find that no one wants to interact with you or tell you anything about themselves. You become a social pariah that everyone avoids.

I want your take on this case: It is reasonable to imagine that having a nude picture of oneself exposed in the web could cause distress. But it is not a fact that it necessarily would. Considering it is impossible to know for a fact one way or the other before it is done, should the victim ever be able to ask for restitution for the damage caused?

It all depends on where the picture came from and how the person who posted it online got their hands on it. IF the picture was taken with my consent and I gave a copy of it to the person who posts it online then no, I shouldn't be able to sue, even if they promised me that they wouldn't. If I choose to give a nude photo to someone that isn't trustworthy, then that's on me. If I didn't want to face the possibility of being embarrassed then I shouldn't have let the picture be taken and I certainly shouldn't have given it to anyone else. It's called personal responsibility. If I do something that I'm embarrassed by I have to accept the reality that I might get embarrassed if the embarrassing thing I did becomes common knowledge.

 

[Koldo]

But you agree that it is a non-trivial private matter, right?
Having your privacy exposed for everyone to see, without your consent, is not socially acceptable in both of our societies, right? It is to be expected that it could cause harm.

I agree that it is not a non-trivial matter and I agree that exposing a persons private information without their consent is seen by many as being socially unacceptable. The question becomes, do we make it unlawful for a person to do anything that most people find socially unacceptable? Most people find it socially unacceptable if others don't bathe regularly. Does that mean that I should be able to sue someone if I find their body odor offensive? I guess the question becomes does it do 'harm'? Depends on how you define harm. I could claim that I was harmed because the body odor made me lose my appetite for the rest of the day. Should I be able to sue because of that 'harm'? Yes, I missed a meal or two, but what REAL harm was caused? And yes, I can say I was embarrassed by what someone else revealed about me... but what REAL harm is there in experiencing embarrassment? Is it a level of 'harm' that people should be able to sue over in a court of law?

The problem with this idea is that it places the responsibility on every person to somehow know what will or will not embarrass everyone else. That's simply not a reasonable expectation.

So what do we do about people who do things that most find to be socially unacceptable? If the acts cause what everyone can agree upon is genuine harm, we outlaw the activity. However if it's something like your BO caused me to lose my appetite OR you constantly tell people things about me that embarrasses me, we deal with it differently. The person who never bathes never gets asked to go anywhere with anyone, they become a social pariah that everyone avoids. If you're the type of person who is constantly embarrassing others by revealing personal information, you'll quickly find that no one wants to interact with you or tell you anything about themselves. You become a social pariah that everyone avoids.

I want your take on this case: It is reasonable to imagine that having a nude picture of oneself exposed in the web could cause distress. But it is not a fact that it necessarily would. Considering it is impossible to know for a fact one way or the other before it is done, should the victim ever be able to ask for restitution for the damage caused?

It all depends on where the picture came from and how the person who posted it online got their hands on it. IF the picture was taken with my consent and I gave a copy of it to the person who posts it online then no, I shouldn't be able to sue, even if they promised me that they wouldn't. If I choose to give a nude photo to someone that isn't trustworthy, then that's on me. If I didn't want to face the possibility of being embarrassed then I shouldn't have let the picture be taken and I certainly shouldn't have given it to anyone else. It's called personal responsibility. If I do something that I'm embarrassed by I have to accept the reality that I might get embarrassed if the embarrassing thing I did becomes common knowledge.

How do you figure what counts as real harm?
Must it be physical?

 

[Sunstone]

When the practice damages others or society.

This^. With qualifications. For instance, I would consider whether the unethical behavior was such as I wished to involve the government in addressing it. If something was unethical, but for one reason or another, I did not consider it wise to involve the government in addressing it, I would not make it illegal. Example: I think it is highly unethical to cast an informed vote for Mr. Trump, but I certainly don't want the Government to prohibit it.

 

[Sunstone]

But if they're legally allowed to break the contract whenever they want, what's the point of the contract? Just get rid of marriage in that case.

Among people in my circle, marriage is much more about property rights and other financial rights for spouses -- and especially for their children, if any -- than it is about sexual fidelity. At least to a whole lot of people I've known it is.

I don't know what it means beyond my own circle, but the people I know seldom say they got married to make infidelity a breech of contract. They are much more likely to take the attitude of "If his or her promise to stay loyal without marriage isn't good, marriage won't change them. Hence, marriage is meaningless in those terms." I can't think of a person I know who did not live with his or her partner for years before getting married -- if they were worried about cheating after that test, they probably would not have married.

You are correct, however, in pointing out that it is essentially a contract, and is treated as such under the law. In fact, you can draw up a legal marriage contract for just about any legal thing. "The first party will serve the second party ice cream each Thursday before 5:00 PM for the duration of this contract." If you did, in fact, insert that clause in your marriage contract, then under Colorado law, you would have legal grounds for divorce, should they not serve you ice cream by the appropriate deadline.

 

[QuestioningMind]

How do you figure what counts as real harm?
Must it be physical?

Not necessarily, though I think it would be extremely difficult to determine the extent of harm done to someone psychologically from being embarrassed. For instance, someone who is seriously effected psychologically from the embarrassment of having their spouse's infidelity revealed to others would in my opinion suffer from some form of mental disorder that goes beyond simple embarrassment. Just as I would believe that someone who claimed to suffer serious psychological damage from coming in contact with a person with body odor also has some sort of mental issue that goes beyond being offended by the smell.

Physical harm is much easier to access than psychological harm. Everyone can pretty much agree that getting a broken bone is fairly serious physical harm. But getting people to agree on what amount of embarrassment constitutes psychological harm is far more difficult. Asking a jury or judge in a courtroom to try and determine if the amount of psychological discomfort a person claims to have suffered from being embarrassed rises to the level of serious harm would be extremely difficult if not impossible.

 

[Koldo]

Not necessarily, though I think it would be extremely difficult to determine the extent of harm done to someone psychologically from being embarrassed. For instance, someone who is seriously effected psychologically from the embarrassment of having their spouse's infidelity revealed to others would in my opinion suffer from some form of mental disorder that goes beyond simple embarrassment. Just as I would believe that someone who claimed to suffer serious psychological damage from coming in contact with a person with body odor also has some sort of mental issue that goes beyond being offended by the smell.

Physical harm is much easier to access than psychological harm. Everyone can pretty much agree that getting a broken bone is fairly serious physical harm. But getting people to agree on what amount of embarrassment constitutes psychological harm is far more difficult. Asking a jury or judge in a courtroom to try and determine if the amount of psychological discomfort a person claims to have suffered from being embarrassed rises to the level of serious harm would be extremely difficult if not impossible.

Why do we get to agree that a broken bone is a significant physical harm? I have never broken a bone in my life. However, I do still agree with that.

I would say that is because we can place ourselves into others' shoes and imagine what it is like to experience such even if we haven't experienced it ourselves.

Therefore, a jury or judge can do the same and imagine if they would experience distress by being placed in any given situation.

 

[Koldo]

Among people in my circle, marriage is much more about property rights and other financial rights for spouses -- and especially for their children, if any -- than it is about sexual fidelity. At least to a whole lot of people I've known it is.

I don't know what it means beyond my own circle, but the people I know seldom say they got married to make infidelity a breech of contract. They are much more likely to take the attitude of "If his or her promise to stay loyal without marriage isn't good, marriage won't change them. Hence, marriage is meaningless in those terms." I can't think of a person I know who did not live with his or her partner for years before getting married -- if they were worried about cheating after that test, they probably would not have married.

You are correct, however, in pointing out that it is essentially a contract, and is treated as such under the law. In fact, you can draw up a legal marriage contract for just about any legal thing. "The first party will serve the second party ice cream each Thursday before 5:00 PM for the duration of this contract." If you did, in fact, insert that clause in your marriage contract, then under Colorado law, you would have legal grounds for divorce, should they not serve you ice cream by the appropriate deadline.

Seriously?
In Brazil, any clausule that violates the....hmm, how do I say it in english?... morals and good manners is rendered null and void.

 

[Sunstone]

Seriously?
In Brazil, any clausule that violates the....hmm, how do I say it in english?... morals and good manners is rendered null and void.

Yes, seriously under Colorado law. I got my information from a local community college teacher in paralegal studies.

 

[exchemist]

This^. With qualifications. For instance, I would consider whether the unethical behavior was such as I wished to involve the government in addressing it. If something was unethical, but for one reason or another, I did not consider it wise to involve the government in addressing it, I would not make it illegal. Example: I think it is highly unethical to cast an informed vote for Mr. Trump, but I certainly don't want the Government to prohibit it.

Adultery would be another, less Trump-centric, example. Even breaking up with a partner can cause damage. So yes, there is obviously some kind of cutoff, beyond which it is oppressive to get the law involved.

This just goes to show that glib answers (like mine) to difficult questions are never going to be adequate.

In a democracy, the key job of legislators is to gauge what balance between the rights of some and the protection of others is felt by society to be right. If it were always obvious, we would not need legislators.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Why do we get to agree that a broken bone is a significant physical harm? I have never broken a bone in my life. However, I do still agree with that.

I would say that is because we can place ourselves into others' shoes and imagine what it is like to experience such even if we haven't experienced it ourselves.

Therefore, a jury or judge can do the same and imagine if they would experience distress by being placed in any given situation.

Again, you're acting as if people have some sort of a right to never be embarrassed and I just don't see it. If you're going to limit my speech to only things that couldn't possibly embarrass anyone, you've essentially eliminated free speech.

 

[Koldo]

Again, you're acting as if people have some sort of a right to never be embarrassed and I just don't see it. If you're going to limit my speech to only things that couldn't possibly embarrass anyone, you've essentially eliminated free speech.

I am not suggesting that free speech should be limited by what can possibly embarass someone, but rather by what can reasonably embarass someone taking into account the cultural standards.

But that's still not completely accurate, because there are circunstances where an action that ends up embarassing someone is ethical, such as when someone commits a crime and their name shows up in the news.

Nevertheless, what is your take on mobbing and sexual abuse, when the attacks aren't physical? Is this the sort of free speech that should be allowed?

 

[QuestioningMind]

I am not suggesting that free speech should be limited by what can possibly embarass someone, but rather by what can reasonably embarass someone taking into account the cultural standards.

But that's still not completely accurate, because there are circunstances where an action that ends up embarassing someone is ethical, such as when someone commits a crime and their name shows up in the news.

Nevertheless, what is your take on mobbing and sexual abuse, when the attacks aren't physical? Is this the sort of free speech that should be allowed?

I guess that's my point... since what embarrasses people varies greatly I think it's almost impossible to decide on what would be 'reasonable' for a person to get embarrassed by. But even if there was, why should anyone have a right to never be embarrassed?

Not familiar with any kind of sexual abuse called 'mobbing'... but if it's what it sounds like then it certainly isn't protected by any free speech laws. My argument centers exclusively on the idea people shouldn't be restricted from speaking the truth, even if it happens to embarrass someone.

 

[Koldo]

I guess that's my point... since what embarrasses people varies greatly I think it's almost impossible to decide on what would be 'reasonable' for a person to get embarrassed by.

By 'what can reasonably embarass' I am referring to what would generally embarass the average Joe or Jane.

For instance, it is to be expected, at least in my society, that someone would be embarassed if their nude pictures were posted online against their consent.

But even if there was, why should anyone have a right to never be embarrassed?

What do you think of bullying? Is it alright to intentfully make someone feel embarassed again and again? If not, why not?

Not familiar with any kind of sexual abuse called 'mobbing'... but if it's what it sounds like then it certainly isn't protected by any free speech laws. My argument centers exclusively on the idea people shouldn't be restricted from speaking the truth, even if it happens to embarrass someone.

I didn't say there was a sexual abuse called mobbing. I asked about sexual abuse and mobbing. Mobbing is when a group bullies an individual. What's wrong with both of those practices, when they don't involve anything physical, in your view?