# A question of ethics.



## Oorang (Feb 7, 2006)

This is SO not Excel related. 

I saw a recent episode of House and it got me thinking over the ethics of affairs, and such. And I was wondering if anyone felt it was unethical to try to charm someone away from their fiance? Yes/No/Depends?

What do you think?


----------



## Andrew Fergus (Feb 8, 2006)

Hi Oorang

Interesting question.  Why not turn your question into a poll?  IMO it depends.  Take for example if you knew your friends fiance was an axe-wielding murderer, and your friend {target?} didn't, then it wouldn't be unethical to do so....but that's just a purely hypothetical situation....most unlikely......very unlikely.

Andrew


----------



## litrelord (Feb 8, 2006)

It’s dubious at least.  I’d say it’s pretty low on morals but would need to be looked at on a case by case basis.  Not sure you can have a blanket rule for every time it happens.  

First you’d need to ask the question, “What is ethically correct?”.  If it would be ethically correct if it meant more people would end up happy then it’s possible that their subsequent split up would lead to the fiancé finding a partner even better (more suited) than the one they were about to marry and the two couples both leading long and fulfilling lives.  Unfortunately, since it’s impossible to know that this will happen, I can’t see how the end can justify the means. 

Of course, I’d also consider whether I care how ethically correct it is.  If I loved someone who was about to marry someone else would I be able to live with myself if I did nothing about it and spent the rest of my days wondering “What if?”.

Just too much to consider I guess, certainly too much to type out in this reply so I’ll stop for now.

Nick


----------



## Oorang (Feb 8, 2006)

Andrew:
Hmm. I am still up in the air. I mean technically and engament is a commitment to make a lifetime commitment. Not a lifetime commitment. However I think that if you actually suceeded you would have to wonder just how faithful your catch really is.  As for "rescueing them" you make a good arguement, but one would think you at the very least you have a conflict of interest BTW Per your suggestion I added the poll.

litrelord:
On the question of ethically correct, I guess I was thinking in terms of "first do no harm". i don' think it is ok to act in self interest if you are trampling someone elses rights. Which of course led to the question, what would the "rights" of the {target}s fiancee be. I mean you personally would owe them no formal obligation. but I was pndering if if there was a tacit obligation.


----------



## NateO (Feb 8, 2006)

Well, as far as I'm concerned, a fiancé is pretty much married at that point, in terms of long-term commitment...

And while I haven't been to Sunday school in a while, I do believe the following:



Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, or he will shoot you.
This is a no-no, in my opinion. :wink:


----------



## erik.van.geit (Feb 8, 2006)

> Well, as far as I'm concerned, a fiancé is pretty much married at that point, in terms of long-term commitment...
> 
> And while I haven't been to Sunday school in a while, I do believe the following:
> 
> ...





> "Is it unethical to attempt to woo a person who is engaged."


+


> is a no-no


=
*not unethical: means ethical*

I hope you noticed the UN-question, else you will need your adminspower to change your vote   
if I did grasp your explanation of course 

it's unethical for me so YES

kind regards,
Erik


----------



## Smitty (Feb 8, 2006)

As an old cowboy, I'll just stick with the Cowboy's Ten Commandments:

(1)   Just one God.
(2)   Honor yer Ma & Pa.
(3)   No telling tales or gossipin'.
(4)   Git yourself to Sunday meeting.
(5)   Put nothin' before God.
*(6)   No foolin' around with another fella's gal.*
(7)   No killin'.
(8)   Watch yer mouth.
(9)   Don't take what ain't yers.
(10)  Don't be hankerin' for yer buddy's stuff.

Smitty


----------



## Oorang (Feb 9, 2006)

ROFL


> Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, or he will shoot you.


"Because guns don't kill people, husbands that come home early do."

PennySaver: That whole post was just awesome, I think I may have to forward that.


----------



## LySeRGinator (Feb 9, 2006)

Interesting how modern age man can sit and ponder whether or not his biological dersire to spread his genes as far as possible is ethically sound lol.

Get it in context in my opinion: engagement is not marriage; it's not legally binding, and your're not actually obliged to take the sacred vows just by accepting a proposition. Context as I say is important: you're only trying to woo her!! Unless I'm misunderstanding the meaning of 'Woo', it certainly doesn't correlate to 'penetrate,' or even have sexual relations! You may find that in the process of wooing that you don't like the woman and vice versa. You may find that she's the one for you and vice versa, in which case you've both got some serious decision making to do lol.

Thinking more like the creatures we are, rather than the 'Perfectly Ethical' machines we're not, can seriously facilitate seemingly difficult decision making in my opinion.


----------



## Oorang (Feb 9, 2006)

Ah but if we don't struggle to be more than animals we almost certainly will be animals.


----------



## litrelord (Feb 9, 2006)

> Thinking more like the creatures we are, rather than the 'Perfectly Ethical' machines we're not, can seriously facilitate seemingly difficult decision making in my opinion.



Whilst I’m sure you’re not saying we should start peeing up lampposts or living in trees I think there is a large difference between us and (non-human) animals which is due largely to our thought processes.  I for one wouldn’t want to live in a savage world where everyone is out for themselves with no thought for anyone else (I’ll ignore the fact that some may say that’s where we are anyway).

Other animals form partnerships within their groups for mating and any attempt by another male/female to interject is often met with aggression by the mate/whole group.

As humans I feel the way we’ve evolved has let us see consequences more fully.  Not just spreading our DNA but trying to improve the survival of that DNA by helping each other to become more co-operative.

Well that, read back, sounded like a pretentious load of twaddle so for that I apologise.

Nick


----------



## Felix Atagong (Feb 9, 2006)

The vote needs one category more:
Yes (it is unethical) but it is also FUN to do it!


----------



## PaddyD (Feb 9, 2006)

The dilemma is not whether or not it is ethical, but whether you're more likely to get laid or laid out.


----------



## LySeRGinator (Feb 10, 2006)

I agree in large with your sentiments lord, however I believe these days people seem to forget they have a complex biochemical system underpinning absolutely everything they do... people can experience matters of conscience, or ethics, and be left almost in limbo as to first why they are thinking such things as ripping off an engaged lady, and secondly what they could possibly do to resolve it lol.

Stepping back, realising the context, remembering our biology and smiling about it can help in many, many ways is my point revised


----------



## Greg Truby (Feb 10, 2006)

All, in all, it's unethical.  

If'n yer steppin' twixt two that are truly in love then it's very unethical an' yer deserving to get a thrashin' if'n ya get it.  But even if the chap is a drunken, abusive skunk and you are truly in love with her, then it's still wrong to agressively court her in my book.  I'd say better to simply tell 'er that if'n she decides to break it off with the skunk, here's your number.  Like Smitty said, ya don't *go after* another fella's gal.  If, of her own volition, she ends the engagement *prior* to callin' yer number, then it ain't poachin'.  If she calls yer number whilst still engaged jus' hang up the phone and save yerself a barrelful o' grief.

LySeRGinator's bit about biology is naught but a bunch of hooey to me (in this context).  I very much recognize that we are biological systems and that to pretend that there are not "urges" is simply false.  There are "urges".  But we're talkin' ethics here and the moral value of betrothal and by extension promises.  A betrothal is *not* marriage.  But it *is* a promise.  Urges or not, to woo or court someone who is engaged is disrespectful to that promise.  

Leastwise, that's how I call it.  Great question Oorang.


----------



## Oaktree (Feb 10, 2006)

I agree with what Greg said, though I had to translate from Southern to Chicagoan (usually, find and replace TH with D works pretty well) to understand exactly what it was.


----------



## Greg Truby (Feb 10, 2006)

Oaktree, actually I occasionally lapse into prose reminiscent of Mark Twain deliberately and for a couple of reasons.  (a) Given his ranch management pedigree, it facilitates Smitty’s rapid comprehension; and (b) it should keep Erik busy looking things up in his dictionary for while and give the rest of us a chance to answer a thread. (Now I just need to figure out how to distract Norie…)


----------



## Oaktree (Feb 10, 2006)

> (Now I just need to figure out how to distract Norie…)



We could start a thread asking which part of Peru he's from.


----------



## Smitty (Feb 10, 2006)

> facilitates Smitty’s rapid comprehension



And that's hard to do! 

Smitty


----------



## Greg Truby (Feb 10, 2006)

Well, Smitty, it ain't so hard when this sits on my shelf between my books on Access & Excel.  I just take it down and thumb through a couple o' pages and get in the proper frame of mind...:wink:


----------



## shades (Feb 10, 2006)

Greg, that fits in with the KC barbeque scene, eh?   

BTW, that is in line with how I grew up - a little further north of the Pacos, though. We called 'em *lumberjacks* and they had to speak Swedish/Norwegian/Finnish/Serbian, etc.


----------



## Oorang (Feb 10, 2006)

roflmao This thread has turned out pretty funny. I think I tend to agree with Greg that it's just a matter of social ettiquette. Altough I also agree with paddy that it might also be a matter of survival rofl.


----------

