Honesty...

[SeriousSam]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8240985.stm

An interesting read, though no surprise really... makes you wonder whether they should teach ethics in schools?

[fuddam]

ethics based on who's idea of right and wrong? Yep, i understand the IDEA of talking about ethics, but.........



symptom of modern society, where most people believe they are essentially 'good', and all morality is ultimately relativistic.

[kalniel]

They should teach philosophy and encourage debate.. mine did

[TheAnimus]

Yes they should be taught morality from a book, and beaten veriously should they disagree/ask questions.

Its wrong to steal... But Why? *Smack*

The earth is 6,000 years old.... But carbons decay at a predicable rate and indicate this to be wrong? *SMACK* *SMACK* *SMACK*

Education in morals is a tricky thing as most of those we hold true are quite warped when you think about it.

[Lucio]

You have to wonder if the researchers are making invalid assumptions, as they've asked whether something is honest or dishonest, and then tested people's morality/immorality viewpoints instead.

Given that honesty is measured as speaking/communicating the truth and whether you leave an accurate impression with people, almost none of the described tests seem to indicate that. In fact, one might even go as far to say as it's dishonest research designed to give the impression that their ideas on changing the jury system is a good idea.

[SeriousSam]

Just a small note, I said teach ethics, rather than indoctrinate Of course I'm perfectly aware that in our current political climate, the latter is what would happen. Can't have people thinking, then they might question what they were being told...

It is an interesting conundrum about ascertaining whether peoples sense of morality can be compromised by their "feelings" about an individual. In an ideal situation then judgements of guilt should be independant of the individual in question, but it is clear that isn't the case. Why else would lawyers in the states spend an inordinate amount of time and effort pre-trial to get a jury that will be beneficial to them.

Just goes to show once again that we aren't as rational as we'd like to think...

[Lucio]

Just goes to show once again that we aren't as rational as we'd like to think...

Who on earth thinks that trial by jury is about being rational?? The entire premise is to get 12 average people and ask them for their insight into often complex and confusing points of law that get debated backwards and forwards, with the truth being bent into complex shapes by people who actually *know* what the law is, means and could possibly mean if you subtly alter the meaning of the sixth word in the 12th paragraph.


I really think we, as a society, are long past the point where a trial by jury is a fair and impartial method of judging criminals and we should revert to either a single judge or a tribunal depending on the severity of the crime.

[SeriousSam]

Who on earth thinks that trial by jury is about being rational?? The entire premise is to get 12 average people and ask them for their insight into often complex and confusing points of law that get debated backwards and forwards, with the truth being bent into complex shapes by people who actually *know* what the law is, means and could possibly mean if you subtly alter the meaning of the sixth word in the 12th paragraph.

I really think we, as a society, are long past the point where a trial by jury is a fair and impartial method of judging criminals and we should revert to either a single judge or a tribunal depending on the severity of the crime.

The point about rationality was more general, as in the human race by and large likes to put itself above animals because of our ability to reason. Whereas in fact a lot of our decisions are influenced by our biology, and we then post rationalise them with a lot of nonsense.

Personally I think that trial by jury is still better than being judged by a single judge in the vast majority of cases, as they are no less prone to irrational decision making than the rest of us. I will accept however that asking the average man in the street to make a decision on complex fraud cases is probably not a good idea either. So its something that needs to be looked at in order to evolve our justice system into something more workable.

[TooNice]

I vote for a giant computer to be the judge. Sure it'll still have to be programmed by human for now, but at least it would consistent.

[Brucelles]

The teaching of ethics generally, is to give people the tools to analyse ethical conflicts specifically. If a student is given the basic education into ethics they will, generally, behave more ethically.

My daughter studied Philosophy (and got a 2:1 ) and we used to talk a lot about ethics while she was studying. There are lots of different ethical thought experiments that really make one think.

I liked the one about he train. Ignoring for a moment the practicalities, imagine this situation:

You are driving a train. Suddenly you realise that the track ahead is under maintenance and there are four men ahead who will certainly be killed when the train hits them. You could not possibly stop in time, or warn them, but you can use the track selection switch to send your train down a different branch line where only one man is working. He will definitely be killed too, but at least there’s only one of him. What do you do? Assume that you know none of these people and all things are basically equal, there is no wriggle allowed.

Now, the situation is slightly different. You are on a bridge and can see the train approaching, and you can see the four men, but they are around the curve and the train driver can’t see them. The chap who was working on the other branch is now in front of you on the bridge. If you push him onto the track the train will stop and the four men will be saved. What do you do?

Ethically the two situations are identical, but many people balk at actually pushing the chap off, where they wouldn’t balk at flipping the switch to kill him. This is normal.

The process of thinking through situations like these help people to better grasp the concept of ethics, as apposed to morality, and it has been shown that more ethically aware people are more ethically behaved. How cool is that?

Teaching ethics, even for 2 hours a week for a single term would be a tiny investment for a potentially huge payback.

[mediaboy]

Teaching ethics, even for 2 hours a week for a single term would be a tiny investment for a potentially huge payback.

Philosophy and Ethics. GCSE course. One hour a week. Only looks at referencing it in from religion however, does not give you right and wrongs.

Ethically the two situations are identical, but many people balk at actually pushing the chap off, where they wouldn’t balk at flipping the switch to kill him. This is normal.

I think that I would either jump in front myself or push him in front, depending on my mental state at the point and who he was. *shrugs*



In regards to the OP, I personally believe that all systems can be improved upon and that as and when flaws are found in the system they should be corrected. Here is a prime example, hopefully it will be replaced with something that does the job better than the current test, or even with a different legal system that works out as being fairer than the current system.

Computers, as someone has already said, would be at least consistent.... but I would argue that a computer cannot contemplate every possible nuance of the situation. A trimunative sounds like an interesting idea, although a larger committe would perhaps only kill the justice system as the committe couldn't come to an agreement time and time again.

It is, however, not in my hands to decide what the new justice system should be. Can't even vote yet. I guess I will have to trust you () to vote for the government with the best suggestion, although none of them yet seem inclined to dramatically change it. Or admit to wanting to at any rate.