From: Mark Walker (mark@permanentend.org)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 07:48:10 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com>
>
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Mark Walker wrote:
>
> > One of the ethical issues that this might raise is whether it would be
> > permissible to discriminate on the basis of an angelic rating. Would it
be
> > ok to hire on the basis of the candidate's angelic rating?
>
> The problem is that it is too easy to "bias" the rating -- I can be "good"
> for a decade with the intent of getting a high "angelic" rating and then
coast
> on it.
>
Well, the angelic rating is a lifetime average, so if you coast long enough
then your angelic rating will go down. On the other hand, if you have built
up sufficient good deed capital then it is good that the system doesn't
punish too severely short-term coasting.
> So one has the problem that one selects based on high ratings that are
> in reality fraudulent. If you know of a system that can't be "milked"
> please show it to me.
>
Well, you are right that it is difficult to think of a system that cannot be
"milked". Some people succeed in milking the banking system but from this we
don't conclude that the banking system should be abandoned. The problem
would have to be that "milking" is so systemic that the angelic system
cannot be maintained. I imagine that the system would require its own
justice system, those accused of milking the system would have to face their
day of judgment in the angelic court.
> > Would it be ok
> > for universities to set admission criteria in terms of an angelic
rating?
> > I'm inclined to think that this shouldn't be a problem.
>
> For the first few years (when "natural" behaviors) were in effect yes.
> But as soon as people figured out how to milk the system the "ratings"
> would be of questionable value.
>
Again, I'm not sure that the milking would reach such a high percentage that
it would cause the collapse of the system. The system is based on measurable
deeds like hours volunteered and monies donated. It is true that there is a
possibility that the system could support some corruption: suppose you are
head of a charity and I offer a bride to you to lie on my behalf and say
that I volunteered 40 hours a week at your organization and donated millions
of dollars. This would do wonders for my angelic rating. I suspect that
others that know me would be aware that my angelic rating was immorally
obtained and would be tempted to report me to the angelic court. Indeed, I
think the temptation here to report would be a least as great There would be
some problem, for example, of determining whether a charity is legitimate or
not. (Please donate to the "beer for Mark Walker fund" might not be
legitimate). Fortunately, a lot of legal thinking has already gone into
defining this notion.
> It is interesting -- such an approach might produce group (tribe)
supportive
> behaviors (above the average level) for a limited period of time -- that
might
> be of net benefit to society for some period -- but one has to wonder
about
> whether there might be a net downside once the cat is out of the bag.
> (e.g. "You mean you manipulated me into being a better person than I
> would otherwise naturally be -- how could you do that?")
>
> R.
>
No doubt some will feel that they are being manipulated, they could protest
by not doing any good or they might pretend not to do good while actually
doing good. The question is whether so many would rebel against the system
that it would collapse. I tend to think that the evidence that we have
suggests that this wouldn't be the case. My guess is most would think
(falsely) that they would perform the good deeds in the absence of the
system although acknowledging that the system might manipulate others. Those
who would already rank higher on the angelic system will likely approve of
the system because it recognizes their contribution and punishes the free
riders.
A related worry is that some, with a Kantian bent, might wonder if the
system actually promotes moral behavior, not because more good consequences
don't obtain, but because they are not done for the right motive. That is,
if one is performing the "good deeds" just to move higher on the angelic
scale then the deeds are not being done for the right reason. Of course,
those of us that are more concerned with outcomes rather than the belief
that the only thing unconditionally good is the "good will" won't be
bothered by this objection.
Cheers,
Seraphim Mark
Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214 Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 07:56:34 MDT