Unethical acts sometimes necessarily ethically preferable?

So with egoism, perhaps you'd view the E as some "act" which you take as best for yourself (over a longterm, holistic scale), and U, worst. Perhaps we can agree that under egoism: some "acts" are of equal value for yourself, some are of equal disvalue, and some of those values and disvalues have equal magnitude. It might be hard to flesh out equalities and magnitudes, but perhaps we can agree they still exist.

My point, which I feel is rather weak at this point, was to expose a sort of paradox - that sometimes some unethical acts are necessary ethically preferable.

AH! But see, given rational egoism, that is not a paradox at all! Because in this system, ethics does not operate according to any categorical imperative, so if your values require you to do something that under other circumstances would be inconsistent with them -- then that is not an unethical act.

My point does not depend on acceptance of a categorical imperative.

My point would be undermined were we unable to determine ethicalness one way or other. For example, it would be undermined if we could not determine ethicalness until we factor in all choices made over the course of an entire life, as taking all that into account would be practically impossible. But we can determine ethicalness.

My point does not depend on acceptance of a categorical imperative.

My point would be undermined were we unable to determine ethicalness one way or other. For example, it would be undermined if we could not determine ethicalness until we factor in all choices made over the course of an entire life, as taking all that into account would be practically impossible. But we can determine ethicalness.

But see, that's what I'm saying: the context defeats the act's unethicalness.

Some "acts" are unethical, right? Some are ethical right? I'm contending that sometimes when we lump unethical acts together with ethical ones we get greater ethicalness than were we to stick strictly only to ethical acts.

Allow me elaborate further:

All other things being equal: an act is unethical. (U)

An act which, all other things being equal, is unethical, is necessary in a certain context in order for the subject to act in accordance with his hierarchy of values; and is therefore -- ethical. (E)

So it is a contradiction to say (E) entails (E & U); because for (E) to entail (U) would mean (U & ~U); but (U) is not (U) in such a case, because -- not all other things are equal. Theoretically (although there are, perhaps, some acts I would be willing to make exception for), only time you can say (U) is not subject to context is if you accept some categorical imperative. And if (E) entails (U), then (U) is (~U).

-- Updated April 3rd, 2012, 4:42 pm to add the following --

Some "acts" are unethical, right? Some are ethical right?

There are acts that you can describe as ethical/unethical -- all other things being equal. But "ethicalness" is always subject to context; unless you accept a set of moral imperatives, which I do not.

Now, there are acts for which I cannot conceive of a context in which it would be ethical to perpetrate them; e.g., molesting a child, or committing genocide, but almost all other actions can be construed as ethical in some context.

E.g., it is not unethical to kill someone in self-defense.

You're not using the variables correctly. E cannot entail E&U because E = 1, U = -1. Therefore, E&U = 0, which means E&U cannot = E. E does not stand for an amalgam of ethical and unethical acts. If it did, it wouldn't = 1.

Ok, let me just make sure I understand your original argument:

In such a case that for outcome = E (some large positive variable), some U (-1) must be perpetrated. This E would seem to be more ethical than some e (some smaller positive variable) which is devoid of U.

Yes?

You're misusing (E), but I think you have the gist. (E) is not some large variable. For purposes of this thread, (E) = 1. E can be any ethical act, The important thing is that whichever ethical act it is, it must be of equal value to any other ethical act that we designate as E. And it must be just as ethical as U is unethical. So we say: (E) + (E) + (E) + (U) > (E). To be sure, The right-hand side shouldn't be treated as a new big (E). That wouldn't make sense since all E's in the equation are equal. If anything, the right-hand side equals 2.

-- Updated April 3rd, 2012, 5:12 pm to add the following --

(I had to use parentheticals so that the site would not construe my post as having too many spelling errors.)

Well, in such a case, it is misleading to label (U) as it is. Assuming (as in, "am I correct in?") that [(E)+(E)+(E)+(U)] is a package deal, and encapsulates the entire context, then U cannot be described as unethical.

Sure it can, especially if we accept that U was selected over some other available act that would have carried greater ethicalness. But we're not comparing (E) +(E) + (E) + (U) to (E) + (E) + (E) + (G), where (G) is that other available act that would have carried greater ethicalness than U. We're comparing (E) + (E) + (E) + (U) to (E).

Short answer:

[(E)+(E)+(E)+(U)] is more ethical than [(E)].

Long answer:

If we are talking about package deals, then that which is the most ethical on whole is the one that is, in absolute terms, the most ethical, period, because in evaluating E or U, we must evaluate its entire context -- and the package deal is its context. IOW, 'E' or 'U' is always with the caveat: "All other things being equal."

Fair enough. I still think it's weird.

Fair enough. I still think it's weird.

It is wierd only if you think of a certain act as being inherently and absolutely ethical/unethical; and if that describes an act, then that act generates a moral imperative.

Nah, we can construe ethical acts as more or less ethical than one another, and we'd still get the weirdness.

What I am suggesting is beyond even that.

If I kill someone for no reason other than that I wanted to kill the first person I came accross, then that would be deplorably unethical.

If, on the other hand, someone is trying to hurt me or someone close to me, then killing him is not unethical. At all.