Ethical Dilemma - Spot the antagonist

Let's say the year is 1993, few people really know what the internet is, and computers are not always present even in businesses. Then let's say a magical being appears and presents to you a PDA, let's say it's a good one even like a PALM. Anyways, obviously you recognize how great of an improvement this is and rush out to show your friends.

When you get there, you find that your friends have already met the same magical being, and he did not give them PDAs, he gave them all Ipads and Android tablets. What is your reaction at this point in time? Angry?

How should you be, you were just given a marvel of technology that is 15 years into the future! You should be jumping for joy. Never mind that everyone else was given a superior device from 25 years in the future. Right?

So the question is, what is the appropriate moral / ethical response to this situation. Is the receiver of the lesser blessing just being greedy?

Let's say the year is 1993, few people really know what the internet is, and computers are not always present even in businesses. Then let's say a magical being appears and presents to you a PDA, let's say it's a good one even like a PALM. Anyways, obviously you recognize how great of an improvement this is and rush out to show your friends.

When you get there, you find that your friends have already met the same magical being, and he did not give them PDAs, he gave them all Ipads and Android tablets. What is your reaction at this point in time? Angry?

How should you be, you were just given a marvel of technology that is 15 years into the future! You should be jumping for joy. Never mind that everyone else was given a superior device from 25 years in the future. Right?

So the question is, what is the appropriate moral / ethical response to this situation. Is the receiver of the lesser blessing just being greedy?

I would say the person is not greedy but rather his vice is envy. Though the two are often closely related. Greed would be to want to accumulate more things than the others. Envy is jealousy that someone got more than you did.

The anger here would not be without foundation in some circumstances. If I offered to change your taxes so that you pay 1,000 less this year you would be pleased. If I also change it so everyone around you pays 10,000 less you would be right to be angry. The logical reason for this is the inequity of it, it is simply not fair. Also in the long haul when others have more than you relative prices rise and you actually end up with equivocally less than you started with. However in the case of a gift from a mysterious benefactor the givers motivations can not be known and one would experience more envy than distress over inequity I suspect.

I think that a textbook example of relative deprivation would ensue for just about everyone due to the apparently random nature of the scenario and the imposition of the ideal of fate as a defining influence.


http://www.malcolmread.co.uk/JockYoung/relative.htm

Since PDAs were already around in 1993 I'd say this magical being isn't very magical at all. And I'd ask my friends to show me how to use their magical devices and watch them scratch their heads.

Spiral Out: Alright, I know it's fun to pick apart analogies. But without dragging on into the depths of creating a perfect analogy, you'll just have to Infer the meaning with it's wild technical discrepancies.

What I really want to know is where the feeling of "being wronged" comes from when you are given less than someone else, and whether there is any legitimate justification for it. After all you would still have more than before, albeit less than everyone else.

Grecorivera5150: The language you use is a little hard for me to follow, but I thank you for the link and the reference to "Relative Deprivation", I think this is the definition I was looking for. I knew what I was describing must already exist as a concept but didn't know how to call it.

Grotto19: You make a good point about others having more compared to you which causes a sort of inflation, and relatively you end up with less than everyone else. So that provides some legitimacy to the feeling of being wronged in a similar situation.

I am interested in the distinction you make between the said benefactor and something such as tax returns. Is it simply because the gift was an object instead of a set monetary amount? If the benefactor instead simply gave gold coins instead of electronic gadgets would that change things?

What I really want to know is where the feeling of "being wronged" comes from when you are given less than someone else, and whether there is any legitimate justification for it. After all you would still have more than before, albeit less than everyone else.

I think it would depend upon if there was a significant implied advantage to possessing the particular 'gift' in question. Also, does the greater advantage of the better gifts to the other few people render your own advantage basically void? Did you intend some significance to the fact that the better gifts were given to friends, not 'enemies'? This may have a major effect in the appearance of any perceived greed as it may have more dire consequences. It would also depend upon the type of gift, for example necessities rather than luxuries, and the degree of discrepancy between each type of gift. If you reference the better gifts of the few into your equation then you also have to reference the greater lack thereof with the majority.

Also, in addressing at least tangible gifts, the inherent value of the gift is relevant to the perceived 'wrong'. Does the gift present any utility to the recipient? Does it present any utility to the general population (liquidity)? Does it appeal to the recipient's sense of aesthetics or partiality? "One man's trash is another man's treasure."

If I am to to address the specific technology example you gave then I would not be concerned since tech is not high on my list of personal priorities. However, if, in 1984 for example, I had been given access to every detail of my life to come for the next 3 years, assuming I had the ability to improve my future life by avoiding mistakes, and not taking into account any potential paradoxes, where my friends had been given the same access to every detail of their lives to come for the next 30 years, then, although the ability to see 3 years into my future would have been quite a gift, I think I would have been very upset indeed.

Grotto19: You make a good point about others having more compared to you which causes a sort of inflation, and relatively you end up with less than everyone else. So that provides some legitimacy to the feeling of being wronged in a similar situation.

I am interested in the distinction you make between the said benefactor and something such as tax returns. Is it simply because the gift was an object instead of a set monetary amount? If the benefactor instead simply gave gold coins instead of electronic gadgets would that change things?

No I should have been more clear about the distinction. The reason the benefactor would be more likely to provoke jealousy/envy is due to our fundamental perception that a neutral gift giver has a "right" to give in whatever manner they see fit. Whereas in most nations we have fundamental perception that the government is to be "fair" in their treatment of us. This expectation or requirement in our minds of fairness invokes a different emotional response, that of injustice.

Naturally no government is without corruption so we will likely feel some amount of envy, probably in the proportion to the amount that we have accepted that our government is corrupt. For example many Americans envy the rich for having so much more than them, but they also feel anger over the injustice of the system that facilitates the rich staying wealthy unfairly. The degree to which one feels envy vs injustice is probably directly related to how corrupt they think the system is.

[Scott]

Surely most people who experience relative deprivation will likely feel upset or believe that they have been treated unfairly. Much of that feeling may be from instinct and/or may be a rationalization of their greed, envy or normal desire for more which they can have regardless of whether the deprivation is truly unfair or unreasonable.

As for the example given, I suspect we do not have enough information to determine whether the deprivation was 'unfair' or unreasonable or whether the feeling of being treated unfairly is correct or unreasonable itself.

Any other example of the same problem might likely succumb to the same problem. I suspect this is because there is a strong tendency, which permeates both in the telling of the story, the lack of specification of crucial details and the interpretation and conclusion-jumping of the reader of the story, towards false dichotomies.

To illustrate, one reading such a story, might somewhat unconsciously model the situation as comprising of only two options with Option A being realized. For instance, Person 1 might think the only options are:

A. He gets the magical PDA (let's say with a market value of $1,000), but the others get the smartphones (each with let's say a market value of $10,000).

B. He gets the smartphone and the others all get the smartphone.

Of course, he prefers B to A. B is better by a utilitarian measure; B is better for him by a selfish/greedy measure; B seems to be agreeably more fair. So he is upset that A has occurred rather than B. The problem is that the choice between A and B is a false dichotomy, and the fallacy is that he concludes simply that A is unfair without qualification when what he means is that A is less fair than B.

Now, let's say we have Person 2 who encounters the same situation with A being realized, but he thinks the only options are:

A. He gets the magical PDA (let's say with a market value of $1,000), but the others get the smartphones (each with let's say a market value of $10,000).

C. Nobody gets any smartphones or PDAs.

Generally, this person will prefer A to C. A is better than C by a utilitarian measure; A is better for him by a selfish/greedy measure. Whether or not C is fairer or not is arguable mostly because 'fair' is equivocal and vague, but it also may be moot since there is agreement on the other two points -- which is better by a utilitarian measure and which is better by a selfish measure. So probably Person 2 is happy that A happened rather than C. But like with person 1 this is a fallacy because it is a false dichotomy.

The details might make either Person A's or Person B's false dichotomy more reasonable simply by creating a context in which either C or B seemed more likely as the runner-up option or in which it is the focus of one's attention, such as that a person is happy overall but is upset with a specific person/circumstance that specifically caused one of strictly two things to happen.

In any case, we can only say what would be a reasonable reaction to A to the degree we know the circumstances that determined A over other options and the detailed context in which one is considering those determinations matter.

While there is countless if not infinite other possibilities in a modal sense, in addition to the ones I mentioned, we at least want to take time to consider the following as well:

D. Everyone gets PDAs.

D. D is worse than B both by a utilitarian measure and by a selfish measure. D is better than C bother by a utilitarian and a selfish measure. D is arguably equally fair to C and B, and all three (D, C, and B) are arguably more fair than A; but since fair is equivocal and vague it's also arguable that fairness is tinged with the same factors as a utilitarian and/or selfish measure such that B is fairer than D and D is fairer than C, with A falling somewhere in between but being less fair than B.

In short, the real question that determines whether the distribution of spoils is unfair and whether whether it is reasonable to "feel wronged" whatever that means and that helps determines whether one will indeed be upset is why exactly did A happen rather than something more like B, C or D or any other relevantly distinct possibility and is there a context to the judgement (e.g. if we ask the Plantiff in a civil court case whether he felt he was treated unfairly the context tells us we only mean in regards to the modal dichotomies generated by other actions done by the defendant, not to include optimistic reactions regarding modal possibilities that the defendant of which the defendant had no or negligible influence).

I think it would depend upon if there was a significant implied advantage to possessing the particular 'gift' in question. Also, does the greater advantage of the better gifts to the other few people render your own advantage basically void? Did you intend some significance to the fact that the better gifts were given to friends, not 'enemies'? This may have a major effect in the appearance of any perceived greed as it may have more dire consequences. It would also depend upon the type of gift, for example necessities rather than luxuries, and the degree of discrepancy between each type of gift. If you reference the better gifts of the few into your equation then you also have to reference the greater lack thereof with the majority.

For expediency, let's presume that the gift is monetarily liquid despite whatever other characteristics it might have. Let's presume that the overall "advantage" of the gift is directly related to its monetary value. Let's also presume that the gift is completely neutral with regards to the recipients sense of aesthetics or partiality.

There is no intended significance from mentioning friends rather than enemies, other than I did not consider the gift to be used as a weapon, but I suppose in a hostile environment that would be the intended usage. Let's assume the gift is equally effective as a luxury or a necessity, weapon or a tool, depending on how it is used.

Rather than define the circle of people involved in the gift giving scenario, let's just presume that no matter how many people are involved, you are on the lower end of the receiving scale. I would be further interested to know in what ways you think the sample size, or composition (friends / enemies / other) might affect your final view.

If I am to to address the specific technology example you gave then I would not be concerned since tech is not high on my list of personal priorities. However, if, in 1984 for example, I had been given access to every detail of my life to come for the next 3 years, assuming I had the ability to improve my future life by avoiding mistakes, and not taking into account any potential paradoxes, where my friends had been given the same access to every detail of their lives to come for the next 30 years, then, although the ability to see 3 years into my future would have been quite a gift, I think I would have been very upset indeed.

Can you provide any justification to your feeling of being upset? Do you think it is related or unrelated to being envious? Can you cite any moral teachings that might either support or oppose your position?

-- Updated August 12th, 2012, 9:07 pm to add the following --

No I should have been more clear about the distinction. The reason the benefactor would be more likely to provoke jealousy/envy is due to our fundamental perception that a neutral gift giver has a "right" to give in whatever manner they see fit. Whereas in most nations we have fundamental perception that the government is to be "fair" in their treatment of us. This expectation or requirement in our minds of fairness invokes a different emotional response, that of injustice.

I am a little on the skeptical side as to whether we can consider the gift giver to be "neutral". Once they tampered in our relations they will have affected our lives. Before they gave the gift they would have been neutral, but afterwards that definition is hard to apply. The only way it might be neutral, is if it were completely random. But when a "someone" is involved, it's hard not to perceive some intent behind the action, whether it is obvious or hidden. On the surface, just receiving less than someone else could be perceived as an insult.

In this regard, I suppose I would be more upset by a "someone" being involved, rather than the government which is essentially a faceless system. I also think you might be giving too much credence to people's expectations of a "fair" system.

Rather than define the circle of people involved in the gift giving scenario, let's just presume that no matter how many people are involved, you are on the lower end of the receiving scale. I would be further interested to know in what ways you think the sample size, or composition (friends / enemies / other) might affect your final view.

Since you wish to assume a high level of neutrality in the nature of the gift, as in the liquidity, usage, partiality and need/desire, etc., and that the monetary value is the sole source of the inequality, it really comes down to a perceived misappropriation of resources since it is commonly understood that everyone has an equal potential claim to funds, materials or resources in general.

It's assumed that envy is the culprit here for the emotional reaction to this situation, and I don't see greed as something that would be applicable here unless the people with the greater resources wanted even more resources unnecessarily. That would be greed. The people with less resources wanting to increase their resources to be equal with the people of greater resources wouldn't be experiencing envy necessarily, and definitely not greed. Would desire for equality be viewed negatively?

If there is an intentionally-artificial inequality created then one has to ask what the intent of such an inequality would be? Why were these people chosen to have more than those people? People would be suspicious, possibly even he ones given more. Life is generally viewed as a zero-sum condition in that with a finite amount of resources, someone else's gain means your equivalent loss. We are programmed by nature to notice some amount of loss more than an equal amount of gain.

The amount of discrepancy would cause a proportional degree of concern, also in relation to whether the amount of discrepancy is spread over the few or the many, and friends or enemies, as these would be aggravating factors. The fewer the people with the "favored" status, the less the degree of (I'll call it "concern" for lack of a better word) due to the perception of being more in the minority. Also friends would be more likely to agree to make things more equal than enemies would, and enemies would most likely try to use their advantage against you in some manner.

Can you provide any justification to your feeling of being upset? Do you think it is related or unrelated to being envious? Can you cite any moral teachings that might either support or oppose your position?

In regard to my 'future knowledge' example, justification for my feeling upset would be found in the fact that there would be no apparent reasonable justification for the inequality. So, a lack of justification on one side would be the justification for my side, I guess.

I don't think that it's envy at work here. Envy is wanting what someone else has and depriving them of it in the process. The desire for things to be equal is not necessarily depriving them of what they have already. As I said before, I think people in general believe they have an equal potential claim to resources.

Where it is an artificially-induced inequality, the factors of any degree of 'deserving', 'earned' or 'justified' are void. I think we all have more tolerance for some apparent inequality if one has taken more risk to deserve it, or has put in more work to earn it or has some other special condition where the greater material resources are somehow justified. To be simply given more, or less, for no apparent reasonable intent is deserving of suspicion and rejection.

I am a little on the skeptical side as to whether we can consider the gift giver to be "neutral". Once they tampered in our relations they will have affected our lives. Before they gave the gift they would have been neutral, but afterwards that definition is hard to apply. The only way it might be neutral, is if it were completely random. But when a "someone" is involved, it's hard not to perceive some intent behind the action, whether it is obvious or hidden. On the surface, just receiving less than someone else could be perceived as an insult.

In this regard, I suppose I would be more upset by a "someone" being involved, rather than the government which is essentially a faceless system. I also think you might be giving too much credence to people's expectations of a "fair" system.

I can't recall saying neutral but if I did it was a mistake. What I was saying was our belief that a giver has an inherent "right" to be inequitable in gifts whereas we generally don't perceive government agency's as having that "right" (though they most certainly do it anyway).

As an example if you are buying a gift for your your two co workers. If you give one an Xbox worth $300 and the other gift card to Best Buy worth $20. Your co worker who got the gift card would experience upset much more from jealousy than from greed. This is not an implication that the giver is viewed as neutral (in fact he would probably view you as quite biased). However the giver has the right give as he chooses, as giving is not obligatory.

“Virtually every activity in which any person may engage is directly attributable to ‘response’…and all which that implies.” Gw

Upon becoming aware that a gift given is inferior to that which others possess, anger is only one among several entirely Natural and readily-identifiable possible responses. Jealousy and envy, often associated with ‘emotions’ may be considered as revelatory of the existence of confusion and conflict. The latter states seemingly present within most all individuals to some greater or lesser measure. The most appropriate response is, of course, to actively engage in discovering what can be learned about the gift and utilizing the experience and knowledge gained to maximize the potential it represents for the benefit to Self and others.

“All Experience is Self Experience, all Knowledge Self Knowledge and all Understanding, Self Understanding.” Gw

“If challenged to hazard a guess as to what Wisdom might be, at least in part, I’d be inclined to suggest it may involve knowing what not to do and exactly when not to do it.” Gw

A delayed thank you to everyone for your thoughts on this subject. I still haven't come to any clear resolutions about Relative Deprivation, although I continue to think about it from time to time. I feel that there is still much more to understand about this subject.

In the meantime, I have come across a video which seems to demonstrate a classical case of Relative Deprivation, using monkeys. It seems to demonstrate that our typical response is at least somewhat biologically programmed.

Capuchin monkeys reject unequal pay

In the video, a monkey is given payment in the form of cucumber, and is perfectly ok with it. Then another monkey is given a more desirable form of payment, in the form of grapes. The monkey that was originally ok with cucumber, now rejects it violently and demands to be given the same payment of grapes.

So the question is, what is the appropriate moral / ethical response to this situation. Is the receiver of the lesser blessing just being greedy?

First of all, this isn't an ethical question. But here are my thoughts on it, anyway.

The receiver received a gift. If you just focus on that fact, he has reason only to be grateful. The magical being transgresses no rules of etiquette or morality in giving your friends better gifts. What possible objection can you reasonably make to someone who has given you and your friends free crapola? Nothing. You can pout that you didn't get as good as they got, but that's just you being a douchebag. This is a case of douchebaggery, not ethics.

[Scott]

Fiveredapples:

[...] Your response seems tied up in some emotions, and I'm not sure that your explanation is not derived from them.

How about this, we keep a slave alive, keep him fed. Sure he has to work every day, but it's none of his business that everyone else is not treated sub-human.

If you can agree, that there is an opposite extreme, then maybe a discussion could start about where to find the middle ground.

-- Updated December 23rd, 2012, 3:59 pm to add the following --

To expand upon what I had said earlier about slavery, that in some way it could be considered a type of relative deprivation. All that would be needed in order for this to happen, is to provide a certain person or class of person with a much reduced rate of pay. When a person has to work twice or three times as much in order to sustain their living, it enforces a life of servitude. When a person is denied certain avenues of earning from their local authority, it forces them into second or third-class status. When a person is denied pay to the extent that they are perpetually indebted to their land owner / food supplier, that is essentially the same as being indentured. Obviously that is an extreme case, but that is the intent of this illustration.

If relative deprivation can be considered immoral / unethical in more extreme cases, where would one go about determining where inequality is no longer considered a right of the provider?

-- Updated December 23rd, 2012, 4:16 pm to add the following --

(Also, I have to recognize a difference between a gift and a payment, but this is largely a matter of semantics. By saying a slave is not given reduced pay, but the upper class is being given "gifts" on top of their pay, nothing really changes for the scenario.)