|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 08:22:46 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Whether one judges the feeling itself or the act to be "bad," the result is the same. |
No, the result is not the same. If one possesses the feelings but never acts on them, then guilt would be cultivated even when no harm is done. The person would regard themselves as engaging in unethical behavior, even if they have taken great strides toward ensuring they do not act on those feelings. On the other hand, if they only judge the action and controllable thoughts and lifestyle choices that could encourage action as unethical, then that person can pat themselves on the back for cultivating a lifestyle that prevent them from acting on their unhealthy urges.
When we judge our actions are unethical, we feel like a bad person. If people already think they are a bad person - after making efforts to change and finding that they have no control over what is making them a bad person - they are more likely to do other bad things.
| It's for that very reason, marf, that I did not say "pedophile." |
You said “an adult male's feelings of lust towards 15-year-old girls”. Pedophilia is defines as sexual attraction toward either children or adolescents. Although it could be argued that there are 15 year old girls that almost any man might be attracted to. I don't see how this changes my response at all. It isn't the feelings that are unethical. The things that can be judged ethically are the things we can control. If after feeling the attraction, the man tries to be near this girl often, flirts with her, or does anything else which might increase his temptations to act on his feelings, now he is doing things that could be appropriately judged ethically. But if he tries to block sexual thoughts of her out of his mind, if he avoids her, or anything else that would decrease temptation, he has every reason to feel good about himself because he is someone who has acted very ethically in the face of unhealthy feelings. By patting himself on the back and feeling like a good person, he encourages such behavior in the future.
If we regard merely the feelings as unethical, we make ourselves feel bad even when we've done nothing wrong. Putting the judgment on the wrong thing can have different results, and can have bad results.
| And I said earlier that the vast majority of people think that they should be able to control their feelings, which itself is an ethical judgement that flying into a rage, uncontrollable sobbing, inappropriate laughter (etc) are "bad" things. |
I think this is at the heart of the discussion. How much can people control their feelings? I think many people think they can control them more than they actually can. And then they get really frustrated and blame themselves as weak or otherwise inferior because they fail to control their feelings.
Matt wrote: | I think in most cases the issue is that people simply don't know how to control their feelings, not that feelings are inherently uncontrollable. |
I dunno if it is that people don't know how to control their feelings so much as they don't know how to deal with their feelings |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 08:34:15 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | Just admit you were factually mistaken in this regard, |
I'm tired of repeating myself, but I'll give it one more shot and then I'm done with this trivial debate.
You used "not typically applied to" and I used "can't be applied to" but we meant the same thing. This is an incident of misunderstanding, as I have been trying to explain to you. I was going on the assumption that of course there is no universal and objective ethics that comes from some outside force. But there are arbitrary human consensus that we use when we come up with objective definitions for words, as you did with the word "ethics". When I said that feelings are only up to ethically judgment to the degree with which they can be controlled, I meant it in the same way as if I'd said ethics is typically applied to things which can be controlled. By saying "can't" I'm dismissing judgments of things which cannot be controlled as not very meaningful or useful, and thus not worth acknowledging. I'm not making some universal statement. I thought you'd get what I meant in the context of this discussion, but you didn't. That is a misunderstanding Dude, it is not me being factually mistaken. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 06/17/2007 : 11:24:33 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
| That is a misunderstanding Dude, it is not me being factually mistaken |
Then you agree that ethics can be applied to emotions, and that no one can universally exclude anything from ethical considerations?
I'm not asking you if we should apply ethical judgements to things like emotions and objects, just if you agree that they can be the subject of those judgements.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 11:26:07 [Permalink]
|
| You used "not typically applied to" and I used "can't be applied to" but we meant the same thing. |
There is no definition or usage of those phrases, that I am aware of, that allows them to mean the same thing.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 13:47:21 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | There is no definition or usage of those phrases, that I am aware of, that allows them to mean the same thing. |
People use "can't" in such a way all the time. You've never heard someone say "You can't do that..." in the context of meaning that it shouldn't be done or as in it can't be done in any way that isn't absurd?
You still aren't acknowledging that boron and I explicitly rejected your definition of "ethics" as inadequate, and we were both applying a more narrow definition of ethics that included not just application to humans, but to things which can be controlled.
I'm sick of this debate with you because I clarified my position pretty early on in this discussion. You started off swearing at me intensely, calling me dishonest, accusing me of calling you a liar, all over a simple misunderstanding of what I was saying in the context of how it was intended. Let it go. Move on! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 14:19:24 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
You still aren't acknowledging that boron and I explicitly rejected your definition of "ethics" as inadequate, and we were both applying a more narrow definition of ethics that included not just application to humans, but to things which can be controlled.
|
I don't give a rats ass about what you think should or should not be subjected to ethical judgements, nor does anyone else. You don't get to maike that decision for anyone other than yourself.
I'm asking you if you agree that nothing can be universally excluded.
You know I am right, and are just to stubborn to admit it (because it is me you are arguing with).
People use "can't" in such a way all the time. You've never heard someone say "You can't do that..." in the context of meaning that it shouldn't be done or as in it can't be done in any way that isn't absurd?
|
There you go, again, changing context around. You do realize that is a form of straw-man, right? And that such arguments are inherently dishonest. Lies, if you will. In the context of this conversation there is no way you can conflate "typically not subject to" with "can't be subject to".
| I'm sick of this debate with you because I clarified my position pretty early on in this discussion. |
Like I give a shit if you are sick of something? You have lost this argument, you know you can't rationally defend a position that universally excludes some things from ethical consideration, and you are just unwilling to admit you were wrong.
| You started off swearing at me intensely, calling me dishonest, accusing me of calling you a liar, all over a simple misunderstanding of what I was saying in the context of how it was intended. |
Ummm.... You are aware that your posts here are a matter of public record, right?
Your first sentence in this thread:
| Why, so you can define it the way you see fit and end the discussion there? |
You call me a liar and create a straw-man motivation for my lack of desire to participate in this argument. "Go fuck yourself" is an appropriate response to your allegation.
| all over a simple misunderstanding of what I was saying in the context of how it was intended. |
If it was a misunderstanding then you should have no problem stating, clearly, that you can't universally exclude anything from ethical consideration. Again, this is not a conversation about what we should or should not apply ethical judgements to, but what it is possible to apply them to.
eat
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 16:30:08 [Permalink]
|
| I'm asking you if you agree that nothing can be universally excluded. |
That depends on what definition of “ethics” one is using. If one is using the broad (and insufficient) definition that you threw out at the beginning of this discussion, then yes, nothing can be universally excluded. If one is using a definition that is more narrow, such as one which requires that ethical judgments be applied to human, not objects, then something has been excluded by definition of the word. It is a semantics argument. That is why I said to you in my very first post in this thread: I don't agree with the way you have defined ethics:
|
In that first post I also wrote: | Right and wrong are human constructed concepts of moral right and wrong that have many consistent trends, but no real universals. |
How have I not made myself clear to you by now? How many different ways do I have to state my position?
| You know I am right, and are just to stubborn to admit it (because it is me you are arguing with). |
Not that you will believe me, but this is false. Also, the same could be suggested of you – that you are being so stubborn about “winning” this debate (which I still think amounts to a misunderstanding and hair splitting) because it is me that you are arguing with. Actually, I don't think that's the case ‘cause you pull this stubborn, angry attitude with other people on this forum. But seriously, the game of you being a mind-reader is pretty tiresome. Not to mention hypocritical when you sit there saying that I have created straw-man motivations about you.
I did not and others here did not interpret what I said as calling you a liar.
I'm done with this debate, Dude. Go ahead and get your last redundant word in if you must, but I'm done. Wait, did I say last? Nevermind. I'm sure you'll drag this into other threads long into the future.
 |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 06/17/2007 16:30:18 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 23:24:49 [Permalink]
|
| If one is using a definition that is more narrow, such as one which requires that ethical judgments be applied to human, not objects, then something has been excluded by definition of the word. It is a semantics argument. |
Then you choose to remain factually mistaken. Always fun to see willful ignorance in action.
The fact that you can't comprehend a simple idea (or refuse to) is tiresome.
This is not a semantics argument. It is an argument over the idea of objective morality. You are claiming there is an objective morality when you decide (by fiat) that there are some things to which ethical judgements cannot apply.
You refuse to acknowledge that other people do, obviously, apply ethical judgements to those things you have decided they can't apply them to.
There really isn't anything left to say at this point.
I did not and others here did not interpret what I said as calling you a liar.
|
I interpreted it that way. Because that is what you did. You called me a lair and created a straw-man motivation for me. How other people interpreted it is irrelevant. As you obviously don't give a fuck how the person you directed the comment towards (me) interpreted it, you can STILL go fuck yourself for posting that sentence.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 11:46:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave wrote: | Whether one judges the feeling itself or the act to be "bad," the result is the same. |
No, the result is not the same. If one possesses the feelings but never acts on them, then guilt would be cultivated even when no harm is done. The person would regard themselves as engaging in unethical behavior, even if they have taken great strides toward ensuring they do not act on those feelings. On the other hand, if they only judge the action and controllable thoughts and lifestyle choices that could encourage action as unethical, then that person can pat themselves on the back for cultivating a lifestyle that prevent them from acting on their unhealthy urges. |
I think you're either making a blanket statement about how people cope with inner conflict which is far too general, or you're only talking about extreme urges, which is why I was trying to not talk about pedophilia.| When we judge our actions are unethical, we feel like a bad person. If people already think they are a bad person - after making efforts to change and finding that they have no control over what is making them a bad person - they are more likely to do other bad things. |
I'm not sure that follows.| You said “an adult male's feelings of lust towards 15-year-old girls”. Pedophilia is defines as sexual attraction toward either children or adolescents. |
No, it's not. It's defined as a preference for sexual acts or fantasy with children over adults. This is why I wasn't talking about pedophilia, as the example I offered showed. A guy who ogles a 15-year-old (or even younger child) mistakenly thinking the girl is older is not a pedophile. I wanted to stay away from pedophiles because I wasn't interested in discussing extreme cases. Because a lot of this discussion won't apply to textbook sociopaths, either ("I know it was wrong to do that, but I really don't care."). I suggest we try to leave the extremes out of it for now.| Although it could be argued that there are 15 year old girls that almost any man might be attracted to. |
Actually, they're designed (evolutionarily speaking) to be that way, but that's a different discussion.| I don't see how this changes my response at all. It isn't the feelings that are unethical. The things that can be judged ethically are the things we can control. |
Yes, those are the points you wish to make.| If after feeling the attraction, the man tries to be near this girl often, flirts with her, or does anything else which might increas |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 06/18/2007 : 12:30:54 [Permalink]
|
Wow, I go away for Father's Day, and look what I get to return to! I will address the points as I have time, starting with the most recent, and working my way backwards. If anybody feels I have misunderstood or have left something out, do not hesitate to inform me. Originally posted by Dude
This is not a semantics argument. It is an argument over the idea of objective morality. You are claiming there is an objective morality when you decide (by fiat) that there are some things to which ethical judgements cannot apply. |
Strawman. Nobody here (as far as I know) is claiming any kind of objective morality.
Perhaps I am just not smart enough to understand your apparent non-sequitur when you claim that to exclude some things from ethical consideration implies objective morality. An analogous argument would be to claim that I am implying objective smell since there are some things to which scent does not apply (like angry). Feelings have as much morality as they have smell. | You refuse to acknowledge that other people do, obviously, apply ethical judgements to those things you have decided they can't apply them to. |
I don't see anybody refusing to acknowledge this. You can tell me what Tuesday looks like all you want, it still won't apply. .
.
.
I interpreted it that way. Because that is what you did. You called me a lair and created a straw-man motivation for me. How other people interpreted it is irrelevant. As you obviously don't give a fuck how the person you directed the comment towards (me) interpreted it, you can STILL go fuck yourself for posting that sentence. |
You would have a point here if your only response to her hadn't been "Fuck you. Asshole." If instead you had let her know you thought she was calling you a liar, you might have given her the opportunity to prevent further misunderstanding. If you had instead replied with the above response, you would not have been in the wrong. (Incidentally, this might be the first time in this thread that I have made a value judgment.)
More to follow later.... |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 13:34:08 [Permalink]
|
b10 said:
Strawman. Nobody here (as far as I know) is claiming any kind of objective morality.
|
FFS... this isn't that hard to grasp.
If you decide that there are things which can be universally excluded from ethical consideration, then you are saying that there is an objective standard by which such things can be measured. If that is the case, then there must be an objective standard for right and wrong. How else can you exclude a thing, universally, from ethical consideration?
You have decided that there are some things which cannot be ethically considered.
Obviously you are wrong, because every single example of things you claim cannot be ethically considered are, by other people, ethically considered.
All your nonsense about what teusday looks like just makes you look the fool here.
If you want to talk about what we should or should not apply ethical judgements to, go for it. But that isn't the topic of this thread. "Can feelings be unethical?" Obviously they can be considered so. You may not apply ethical judgements to feelings, but many other people obviously do.
| Perhaps I am just not smart enough to understand your apparent non-sequitur |
Seriously. You people want me to be civil, yet marf calls me a liar and now you are accusing me of deliberate argumentive fallacy. Why should I be civil in response to such blatant hostility?
The reality here is that you may not be intelligent enough to follow your own line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion.
Your argument is destroyed by empirical observation. People can, and do, apply ethical judgements to feelings. Every day. So much for "can't".
But that apparently isn't enough to satisfy you that you are mistaken.
Follow the logic:
You "can't" make ethical judgements about X.
Wait a minute... where are your premises for that conclusion? Apparently absent. Why "can't" you make ethical judgements about X?
Hrrmmm.... well, in order for your conclusion to be true, you'd have to have some premises that allow you to make that deduction. The only set of premises that allows your conclusion to be universally true are ones that describe an objective measure of right/wrong.
If you can think of another set of premises that allow your conclusion to be universally true, please go ahead and provide them to us.
| You would have a point here if your only response to her hadn't been "Fuck you. Asshole." If instead you had let her know you thought she was calling you a liar, you might have given her the opportunity to prevent further misunderstanding. |
Whatever. She knew damn well what she was doing, and she knew damn well how it would be recieved. Unless, of course, you think she is some imbecile with minimal language skills, instead of an intelligent person with a masters degree in fine arts.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 13:36:12 [Permalink]
|
B10 said:
| (Incidentally, this might be the first time in this thread that I have made a value judgment.) |
No. When you decided that you should not apply ethical judgements to some things, you have made a value judgement.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 14:00:43 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | I think you're either making a blanket statement about how people cope with inner conflict which is far too general, |
I'm not trying to make any kind of statement about how people do cope with inner conflict. I'm really just trying to say that it is not practical to make ethical judgments of feelings which are out of our control.
| or you're only talking about extreme urges, which is why I was trying to not talk about pedophilia. |
Well, I am talking about extreme urges, but only to make my points clear. I think the same principles apply to casual urges. I don't see any practical use to considering uncontrolled urges in-of-themselves as unethical. Any time we think we've done something “wrong” we make a knock against our self esteem. (Oh, maybe this is the generalization about how people cope with inner conflict that you spoke of?) Maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe there are people for whom negative ethical judgments do not lower their self esteem at all. But that strikes me as unlikely.
Anyway, granted, if the urges are not extreme but only passing, then presumable the ethical judgment will be equally casual, and therefore have considerably less potential for harm. But the potential for harm is still there, and I fail to see how the potential for good doesn't work better by simply limiting right/wrong judgments to things which can be controlled, such as thoughts and behavior.
| I suggest we try to leave the extremes out of it for now. |
Agreed.
| In your first paragraph, you said that doing so would make him feel guilty and more likely to do bad things. Now you've got him patting himself on the back for blocking out bad thoughts. |
I'm not sure, but I think you are regarding thoughts and feelings as interchangeable. Or maybe I've worded something in a confusing manner. Not sure which yet.
| Now the pendulum has swung back the other way again. But a lot of people think that thinking certain things is, indeed, wrong. People not only feel guilty about telling their mothers that they wish mom were dead, they also feel guilt over thinking "I wish my mom were dead." |
OK, now I think you are using thoughts and feelings interchangeably.
| I submit that which is the "right thing" to judge is going to be different in different cases, and no blanket solution is possible. |
I agree that there is not blanket solution, however, I still think it never serves any practical purpose to judge things which people have no control over. People DO have control over their fantasies and what they decide to linger their thoughts over. But they do not have control over sudden urges and other mere feelings that come spontaneously and/or powerful |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 06/18/2007 14:01:31 |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 14:36:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
FFS... this isn't that hard to grasp. |
Maybe I'm just too dumb to understand it then. By the way, what does "FFS" stand for? It is an acronym with which I am unfamiliar. | If you decide that there are things which can be universally excluded from ethical consideration, then you are saying that there is an objective standard by which such things can be measured. If that is the case, then there must be an objective standard for right and wrong. How else can you exclude a thing, universally, from ethical consideration? |
No. I am attempting to apply a useful definition. The definition you have provided doesn't work. How can you define a thing to include everything?You have decided that there are some things which cannot be ethically considered.
Obviously you are wrong, because every single example of things you claim cannot be ethically considered are, by other people, ethically considered. |
Argument ad populum. | All your nonsense about what teusday looks like just makes you look the fool here. |
I understand that you think this. I am merely trying to get you to understand how silly your argument is. | If you want to talk about what we should or should not apply ethical judgements to, go for it. But that isn't the topic of this thread. "Can feelings be unethical?" Obviously they can be considered so. You may not apply ethical judgements to feelings, but many other people obviously do. |
Similarly, it is obvious that people can wonder what yellow tastes like. That still doesn't mean it's applicable. You might as well tell me that God can create an object he can't move. | Seriously. You people want me to be civil, yet marf calls me a liar and now you are accusing me of deliberate argumentive fallacy. Why should I be civil in response to such blatant hostility? |
I wasn't accusing you of a deliberate fallacy. I was attempting to inform you (again) that I do not see a connection between your premise and your conclusion; thus, it appears non-sequitur to me. | The reality here is that you may not be intelligent enough to follow your own line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion. |
That may be. Why do you persist in arguing with one who clearly possesses inferior intelligence? (That, by the way, was a snide comment. Have you considered that you may not be smart enough understand this argument? How confident are you that I am the moron here?)| Your argument is destroyed by empirical observation. People can, and do, apply ethical judgements to feelings. Every day. So much for "can't". |
Hm. Perhaps "can't" is not an appropriate word here. People can also attempt to see what a triangular circle would look like. In this case, I don't mean "it's not possible," just that it is inapplicable. .
.
.
Hrrmmm.... well, in order for your conclusion to be true, you'd have to have some premises that allow you to make that deduction. The only set of premises that allows your conclusion to be universally true are ones that describe an objective measure of right/wrong.
If you can think of another set of premises that allow your conclusion to be universally true, please go ahead and provide them to us. |
Let's try that definition again. Your definition, "Ethics deal with judgements of right vs wrong," is not specific enough since it includes everything. If I were to similarly expand the definition of color to include everything, we would have the ridiculous statements I have been making. By excluding nothing, your definition becomes useless. I will again direct you to the wikipedia article for an overview of some philosophers' definitions of the word. In the mean time, we can try dv82matt's definition:
"Ethics is the socially and culturally derived set of principles that have to do with determining the appropriateness of motives and conduct most often with the aim of promoting fairness."
If you don't like this definition, I suggest you present a better one. | Whatever. She knew damn well what she was doing, and she knew damn well how it would be recieved. Unless, of course, you think she is some imbecile with minimal language skills, instead of an intelligent person with a masters degree in fine arts. |
Interesting. If somebody interprets a sentence in a different manner than Dude, that person is an "imbecile with minimal language skills?" You have just insulted a large number of people on this board, Dude. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 14:41:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
By the way, what does "FFS" stand for? It is an acronym with which I am unfamiliar. |
"For fuck's sake."
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Can Feelings be Unethical?
