I exaggerated my EC's on AMCAS and I got called on it.

[ImmunoLove]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I haven't had any formal training in philosophy😛) but if one believes that lying is always wrong, in every scenario, with zero wiggle room, then by definition you think it is wrong for everyone to lie. How can one believe that it is always wrong for john to lie yet sometimes ok for jake to lie and call oneself an absolutist? By definition that is relativism...

So, just my own personal view here: I think lying is wrong. That's how I "judge" it. I have a "prima facie" argument not to push my views on to others, so I argue points with others based on how their philosophy would judge it (and not how I myself will judge it). There's usually enough there to prove a point with premises my interlocutor accepts, and so I'll point out internal inconsistencies (e.g. earlier, the whole utilitarian argument that if we are to avoid suffering, and lies may lead to suffering, then lies are bad). I will not typically push my view (e.g. that lying is inherently bad), because that opens a whole other can of worms (e.g. do you even have the right to push onto others your views, and how are you certain you are right, and who the hell are you anyway?). So that's how I personally reconcile the two... (and also why I employ in my own moral compass set prima facie rules). I hope that helped...

 

[efle]

That sounds backwards. If universality is a subset of absolutism, then something that is universal is necessarily (but not sufficiently) absolute.



I don't have formal philosophy training either. I just learn bits and pieces from discussions with efle, Lucca and ImmunoLove.

I suppose by absolutism, the line between right and wrong is established, whereas for universality, everyone has the follow the distinction. Despite its condemning name, absolute moral philosophy doesn't authorize everyone to specifically follow what is right and wrong, which universalism expects. It is also possible for everyone to universally accept and follow the moral principle that is viewed to be wrong under certain absolutist standards (like for example, everyone accepts the death penalty).

You're right, I probably should have called it an extension. Moral absolutism says "Rule A: X is always wrong." Moral universalism says "Everyone must obey Rule A". You can then cast utilitarianism as "Rule B: X is always wrong if it leads to net suffering, and always right if it leads to net happiness", and can then call it universal too because they propose "Everyone must obey Rule B". Moral absolutism essentially includes universalism in it, because X is always wrong regardless of who is doing it, but it is not the only code that includes universalism.

And this is def not what Zed meant by "universal" anyways lol

 

[Pusheen]

I like this newly surfaced idea (from Mad Jack and Cyberdine iirc) that Asians don't actually have a higher bar set for them, they just are disproportionately competing for tougher spots to get (eg many in California that lack an accessible state option) driving up the matriculant numbers a tad above whites.

Although, Occam's razor would seem to support that what happens at the undergrad level (which we have some proof of, white apps with score below X are screened out, asian apps with score Y are screened out, Y > X) just continues. I have a hard time believing that race-blinding med schools would have zero impact on asian admissions.

That does make sense. Most Asians live on the coasts, where all the top schools are. It also may be that they self-select tougher schools for a variety of reasons.

Perhaps. Asian applicants are almost always distinguished by their names though. I'm not completely sure how color blind admissions work on a logistical level, but I'd imagine adcoms could be biased based on names even if they could't see the official race of the applicant

 

[ImmunoLove]

If I may suggest, the first three chapters of Vaughn's Bioethics should illuminate much of the discussion at hand...There are some technicalities which are addressed incorrectly here, and that dude is way more eloquent than I.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Oh I see now. Y'all ain't talking about exaggerating ECs and AMCAS anymore.

For the record, the Asians in California theory should be credited to @Reckoner and @Lucca. @Mad Jack's analysis of these admissions statistics included other regions, but he drew a similar conclusion. I basically paraphrase them whenever I bring up this topic.

 

[Lawpy]

You're right, I probably should have called it an extension. Moral absolutism says "Rule A: X is always wrong." Moral universalism says "Everyone must obey Rule A". You can then cast utilitarianism as "Rule B: X is always wrong if it leads to net suffering, and always right if it leads to net happiness", and can then call it universal too because they propose "Everyone must obey Rule B". Moral absolutism essentially includes universalism in it, because X is always wrong regardless of who is doing it, but it is not the only code that includes universalism.

And this is def not what Zed meant by "universal" anyways lol

The issue I have with universalism is that "everyone must follow something". Absolutism is nicely knit with objectivism in that it cleanly splits two categories into right and wrong. But everyone doesn't have to follow that split, and universalism can even follow contrary to absolutist philosophy (such as everyone must reject Rule A and Rule B in your examples). The two are different because there isn't a reason for universalists to follow the tenets of absolutist philosophy.

That's why I suspected deontology to be a combination of both absolutism and universalism.

 

[ImmunoLove]

You're right, I probably should have called it an extension. Moral absolutism says "Rule A: X is always wrong." Moral universalism says "Everyone must obey Rule A". You can then cast utilitarianism as "Rule B: X is always wrong if it leads to net suffering, and always right if it leads to net happiness", and can then call it universal too because they propose "Everyone must obey Rule B". Moral absolutism essentially includes universalism in it, because X is always wrong regardless of who is doing it, but it is not the only code that includes universalism.

And this is def not what Zed meant by "universal" anyways lol

Technically yes, I all absolute theory is also universal. But all universal theory is not absolute. In fact, all "sound moral theories" are universal. Universality is a premise of ethics (that it applies to everyone). Absolutism is "X is always Y". I believe in universality, but not in absolutism (hence the prima facie adjustments to deontology).

 

[ImmunoLove]

Oh I see now. Y'all ain't talking about exaggerating ECs and AMCAS anymore.

For the record, the Asians in California theory should be credited to @Reckoner and @Lucca. @Mad Jack's analysis of these admissions statistics included other regions, but he drew a similar conclusion. I basically paraphrase them whenever I bring up this topic.

and on that note...yeah I got sucked into that one....

It doesn't really matter (the ethics debate) because in this case, by whatever standards, the OP actions are not condoned....

 

[Lawpy]

I will admit that I only follow universalism when it comes to laws of physics. A demarcation between right and wrong is something good to follow for an individual or a society, but not always for everyone.

 

[Gandyy]

I was super conservative with my hours and called organizations that I could to verify hours.

I was probably way too conservative with my research hours but it is what it is. Better safe than sorry.

 

[ImmunoLove]

I will admit that I only follow universalism when it comes to laws of physics. A demarcation between right and wrong is something good to follow for an individual or a society, but not always for everyone.

that's the basis of relativism. Not ethics. Read Vaughn dear friend!

 

[efle]

The issue I have with universalism is that "everyone must follow something". Absolutism is nicely knit with objectivism in that it cleanly splits two categories into right and wrong. But everyone doesn't have to follow that split, and universalism can even follow contrary to absolutist philosophy (such as everyone must reject Rule A and Rule B in your examples). The two are different because there isn't a reason for universalists to follow the tenets of absolutist philosophy.

That's why I suspected deontology to be a combination of both absolutism and universalism.

It's not that they must follow something, its that splitting from it = failure to follow the most perfect moral code. An absolutist would say that any given universalist does have to follow their tenets, or else they are acting (to some degree) immorally by using an alternative, imperfect code.

 

[Lawpy]

It's not that they must follow something, its that splitting from it = failure to follow the most perfect moral code. An absolutist would say that any given universalist does have to follow their tenets, or else they are acting (to some degree) immorally by using an alternative, imperfect code.

And the universalist can disagree by saying the absolutist tenets were actually subjective. Absolutism and universality are two closely connected things, yes, but saying that one is a subset of another is taking things too far.

that's the basis of relativism. Not ethics. Read Vaughn dear friend!

I will, but relativism is still a subset of ethics iirc. Unless somehow, ethics refers to moral tenets that are inherently objective.

 

[ImmunoLove]

And the universalist can disagree by saying the absolutist tenets were actually subjective.



I will, but relativism is still a subset of ethics iirc. Unless somehow, ethics refers to moral tenets that are inherently objective.

Yes, they are considered "objective" even though they may be "subjective". Technically, ethics is the study of morals.

From Vaughn: "Morality is about people's moral judgments, principles, rules, standards, and theories-all of which help direct conduct and....measure moral worth". Ethics is the study of morality.

"Universality: Moral norms (but not exclusively moral norms) are universal in all similar situations"

 

[Lawpy]

Yes, they are considered "objective" even though they may be "subjective". Technically, ethics is the study of morals.

From Vaughn: "Morality is about people's moral judgments, principles, rules, standards, and theories-all of which help direct conduct and....measure moral worth". Ethics is the study of morality.

"Universality: Moral norms (but not exclusively moral norms) are universal in all similar situations"

... then relativism is a subset of ethics. And the definition of universality is circular.

 

[ImmunoLove]

... then relativism is a subset of ethics. And the definition of universality is circular.

Relativism contradicts ethics

 

[efle]

Ethics talks about moral premises being objectively true or false, yes. There are disagreements about what premises are and aren't sound ones, but nobody claims they can be subjectively true for some people and false for others. Subjectively perceived maybe, but not subjective themselves (eg it isn't possible for X to only be a bad action when performed by certain people)

 

[efle]

... then relativism is a subset of ethics. And the definition of universality is circular.

Not really, rejection of ethics isn't a subset of ethics. That's like saying atheism is a subset of theism. You can talk about atheism as a stance towards religiosity just like you can talk about moral nihilism or moral relativism as a stance towards ethics, but they can't actually be called a subset of that which they examine

 

[Lawpy]

Ethics talks about moral premises being objectively true or false, yes. There are disagreements about what premises are and aren't sound ones, but nobody claims they can be subjectively true for some people and false for others. Subjectively perceived maybe, but not subjective themselves (eg it isn't possible for X to only be a bad action when performed by certain people)

Relativism contradicts ethics

So in that regard, ethics focuses on moral tenets that are based on objective, universal premises.

Not really, rejection of ethics isn't a subset of ethics. That's like saying atheism is a subset of theism. You can talk about atheism as a stance towards religiosity just like you can talk about moral nihilism or moral relativism as a stance towards ethics, but they can't actually be called a subset of that which they examine

But that essentially guarantees ethics is objective and universal.

 

[efle]

So in that regard, ethics focuses on moral tenets that are based on objective, universal premises.



But that essentially guarantees ethics is objective and universal.

Correct. Ethics is the attempt to discover/describe objective and universal truth about what is right and wrong. Some theories like moral nihilism and meta-ethical moral relativism reject the concept that objective truths on this matter exist. That's why they are called "meta-ethics", they are concerned with ethics as an endeavor rather than being positions within ethics.

 

[Lawpy]

Correct. Ethics is the attempt to discover/describe objective and universal truth about what is right and wrong. Some theories like moral nihilism and meta-ethical moral relativism reject the concept that objective truths on this matter exist. That's why they are called "meta-ethics", they are concerned with ethics as an endeavor rather than being positions within ethics.

Wait, so are absolutism and objectivism synonymous? I still insist that universalism is something closely connected but not necessarily a subset.

 

[efle]

Universalism is also a meta-ethical position, it opposes nihilism and says there are in fact objective truths (and therefor a sound/correct code that hits those truths applies to everyone). It's an extension rather than a subset; it's an added position that if the moral code is correct, it has hit a truth that is correct for everyone.

 

[Lawpy]

Universalism is also a meta-ethical position, it opposes nihilism and says there are in fact objective truths (and therefor a sound/correct code that hits those truths applies to everyone). It's an extension rather than a subset; it's an added position that if the moral code is correct, it has hit a truth that is correct for everyone.

Ok that makes sense. Guess I have to read more about this to avoid confusion/ignorance, but enjoyed the conversation/tidbits/clarification with you and @ImmunoLove.

 

[ImmunoLove]

Ok that makes sense. Guess I have to read more about this to avoid confusion/ignorance, but enjoyed the conversation/tidbits/clarification with you and @ImmunoLove.

Always a pleasure, @Lawper, you know you're one of my favorites! I sent you a PM to a source to clarify some things, so that you can then read it and paraphrase better than I can...

Universalism is a requirement of ethics. It applies mores (morals) to everyone. There are several moral theories, and they all are "universal". Absolutism is a type of moral theory, and it upholds the tenant of universalism, but says that there can be no exception to the rule. The "absolute" is in the rule itself, not to whom it applies (because all rules are universal, they apply to everyone, but absolutism says there are no EXCEPTION to a rule. For example: Killing people is wrong. Some mores would argue "killing people is wrong, unless it's in self-defense". Absolutism would say the person who kills in self-defense has committed a moral crime. Other moral theories may say the exception to the rule (that is, the exception of "self defense" to the rule "killing people is wrong" is acceptable. Absolutism would say no. Both the absolutists and the prima facie moral theories would apply their stance to everyone...So the ones who think killing people is wrong, except in self defense, would think it applies to everyone too.)

 

[md-2020]

Man, I clicked on this thread hoping all 330 messages were a continued ****ting on the OP 😛

Darn.

 

[Pusheen]

Man, I clicked on this thread hoping all 330 messages were a continued ****ting on the OP 😛

Darn.

🤣

 

[ImmunoLove]

🤣

LOL. Yeah, we should prolly get back on track...Oops, sorry...fell down the rabbit hole.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

I actually like this tangent. It's way better than using 7+ pages to point out the obvious.

 

[p0gono]

Might they report this to AMCAS? I don't know. Fact is, you attested to the veracity of everything on the application and you admit that what you listed was a falsehood. That is unacceptable. If they reject you for falsifying your application, they might be obligated to report this to AMCAS. If you withdraw, they might not have the standing to report to AMCAS as you are no longer an applicant to their school. I really don't know how this works at that level between the Dean of Admissions and AMCAS .

This thread has me stressed out. The OP definitely goofed up, but it brings up the larger point around records that may not always be available.

I waffled a lot about how to represent my research job I have had for multiple years, worrying that my actual hours might seem exaggerated. About a year of it I spent working 60-80 h/week even though I was only paid for (and have an official record of) 40. In the end I decided to accurately represent the number of hours I spent, since after all, it seemed fair for me to get credit for the over hours I worked, if not pay.

Will the X000 hours instead of (X-1)000 hours raise eyebrows?

 

[efle]

This thread has me stressed out. The OP definitely goofed up, but it brings up the larger point around records that may not always be available.

I waffled a lot about how to represent my research job I have had for multiple years, worrying that my actual hours might seem exaggerated. About a year of it I spent working 60-80 h/week even though I was only paid for (and have an official record of) 40. In the end I decided to accurately represent the number of hours I spent, since after all, it seemed fair for me to get credit for the over hours I worked, if not pay.

Will the X000 hours instead of (X-1)000 hours raise eyebrows?

If there are documents stating 40 hours per week, you're screwed if they investigate and ask your workplace for your hours worked.

 

[hopefulERdoc251]

This thread has me stressed out. The OP definitely goofed up, but it brings up the larger point around records that may not always be available.

I waffled a lot about how to represent my research job I have had for multiple years, worrying that my actual hours might seem exaggerated. About a year of it I spent working 60-80 h/week even though I was only paid for (and have an official record of) 40. In the end I decided to accurately represent the number of hours I spent, since after all, it seemed fair for me to get credit for the over hours I worked, if not pay.

Will the X000 hours instead of (X-1)000 hours raise eyebrows?

If there are documents stating 40 hours per week, you're screwed if they investigate and ask your workplace for your hours worked.

which is highly unlikely unless you really make a gaffe while interviewing (say they ask oh how many hours you work and you say 40 but your app says 60-80). Be more thorough next time lol. I called each reference ensuring that my records were accurate, even my reference abroad.

 

[studentdocftw]

How'd this thread turn into a philosophy course?

 

[efle]

How'd this thread turn into a philosophy course?

Someone tagged me

 

[ImmunoLove]

which is highly unlikely unless you really make a gaffe while interviewing (say they ask oh how many hours you work and you say 40 but your app says 60-80). Be more thorough next time lol. I called each reference ensuring that my records were accurate, even my reference abroad.

I was in a similar situation. Got paid for 40, worked 80 (easily), but my PI is aware of that (plus, got escorted off the premises a few times for falling down the research black hole and being there beyond the allotted X hours). I posted the hours based on the 40 hour workweek, but I think it's a common enough situation that you'll be fine.

 

[p0gono]

I was in a similar situation. Got paid for 40, worked 80 (easily), but my PI is aware of that (plus, got escorted off the premises a few times for falling down the research black hole and being there beyond the allotted X hours). I posted the hours based on the 40 hour workweek, but I think it's a common enough situation that you'll be fine.

Thanks for the perspective! Sounds like we have the same job.

 

[Glandzburg]

Took a break from pre-allo for a few days and came back to this...

Still trying to decide if OP is a troll or a just that high on himself.

 

[Lucca]

Really? In that case, I will defer and launch a separate convo with you, @Lucca, me and @ImmunoLove about this.

Immanuel Kant is the bomb dot com. I don't agree with him on everything but I think he had very important ideas several of which are still up for debate in contemporary philosophy and are continuously brought up by practical problems. @efle and I have had many versions of this discussion.

 

[efle]

Oh he's a genius mind for sure, very interesting, just his ethical ideology is super duper limited to a fairytale land where people don't shoot up schools, attempt to exterminate races and other evils

 

[ImmunoLove]

Thanks for the perspective! Sounds like we have the same job.

LOL yeah, that kind of research (both soul searching and soul-stomping) is not uncommon, sadly. Of course, all my other friends (in law, business, or really any other field) couldn't believe I'd do what I've done... Those of us who've been there, understand. You're not alone! And, let's be honest, there's always a bottle of vodka in the -70 on days when you need it most. 🙂

 

[Dral]

Lying once depending on the extent of the lie does not necessarily make a bad doctor. That is an assumption some people are making.

However, with fifty million people applying to med school, why bother with someone who lied on their app? There are tons of others who didn't lie.

I have never lied on any app I've ever submitted. I've always feared a repercussion...and really...is 150 more hours really the thing that's going to push an applicant over the edge to get an interview?

It's things like this that make us all have to pay NBME freakin' $70 every time we apply for a job or a license to make sure we're not lying about USMLE exams.

Just because a 'little lie' isn't a big deal to someone, doesn't mean it isn't a big deal to someone else.

 

[Lucca]

Oh he's a genius mind for sure, very interesting, just his ethical ideology is super duper limited to a fairytale land where people don't shoot up schools, attempt to exterminate races and other evils

Again, I disagree here. Like I've said before, it's a very narrow reading of Kant to limit his ethics to the formulations of the categorical imperative.

 

[Stagg737]

My personal belief is that lying itself has no intrinsic ethics, and that the immorality can only be measured through consequences, especially when the consequences are intended by the liar. If I were to tell my mom I had the walls of my apartment pained green when in reality they are brown, I would feel no ethical concern whatsoever. A lie is bad only in so far as it deprives the lied to of information. Moreover, the degree of unethical behavior concerned is based on the vitality of information obfuscated or denied.

@Stagg737
My point was not that it was ethical to lie, but that the interview involves obfuscation information which is more vital to your acceptance. You must know you are probably in the sub 1% of D.O applicants who feel strongly about osteopathy compared to allopathic. I feel both can be competent physicians, but 99% are obfuscating the real truth via "spin" when they answer the question "why do?". Those 99% are acting more unethically than op with his explicit lie because the distinction between the results of the truth and the results of the lie is greater in the long run, thus more vital for adcoms.

In terms of selling yourself, the following is my belief. In an ideal world, the interviewer would immediately know all answers to the questions in complete and absolute truth. In other words, if he wanted to know your hobbies, an immediate list of actions and time performed would be available. Any deviation from this absolute truth on the interviewees part is a lie. Selling yourself is obfuscating the truth, and for that same reason, equally as unethical as a lie to the same effect.

To the first bolded, I think you might be surprised how off that "1%" statistic is if you visited an osteopathic school. I'm not saying that I'd pick any DO school over any MD school (as my top 3 choices were all MD schools), but I think there are plenty of people out there, certainly more than 1%, for which the statements "I only applied to DO schools because I couldn't get in to MD schools" is just blatantly false.

To the second bolded point, I disagree that people are hiding the "real truth" when they state their reasons for considering DO. Just because one would rather go to an MD school than a DO school, does not mean they are lying or even obfuscating their reasons for wanting to apply to that school. As I stated, it's pretty obvious to adcoms that a potential reason an individual with a 26 MCAT and 3.4 GPA would apply to a DO school is that their odds of getting into an MD program are slim. However, this is something that's understood by many DO school admissions committees and I think you're giving them far too little credit in terms of their own understanding of both applicant mindsets and the generally biases against DOs that affect applicants' decisions. Besides, if adcoms wanted to know negative information about applicants, they'd specifically ask about them. I wrote more than one essay along the lines of "what is your biggest weakness" or "talk about a time you failed".

To the final point, selling yourself is only skewing the merits of your application inappropriately if you either blatantly omit information that is relevant to a question which is being asked or trying to exaggerate or downplay a situation to change how you are viewed. Highlighting the positives is NOT unethical so long as you are telling the truth, and not talking about a negative is not unethical so if you are not asked about it. By that logic, every time a person talks about something you don't like or makes a statement you disagree with and you don't chime in, you are performing an unethical or immoral act, which I just don't buy. If someone (or a med school) wants to know something specific about you, then they'll ask for it. Otherwise one is under no obligation to disclose a negative aspect about themselves, and not doing so is not an unethical act. Would it be ideal if an interviewer would instantly know every aspect that a certain question could possibly address, but doing so would literally create applications with dozens of pages worth of essays. It's both unrealistic and unnecessary in many ways.

Not telling the truth is certainly a lie. Not discussing every single aspect of a given question is not lying, it's a means of remaining concise. Besides, I may not be an adcom, but it's really not that difficult to sniff out the applicants who have answers that are completely full of crap when I talk to interviewees or potential interviewees. If I can do it, I'd be willing to bet people who get paid to interview people regularly are pretty good at it.

 

[efle]

Again, I disagree here. Like I've said before, it's a very narrow reading of Kant to limit his ethics to the formulations of the categorical imperative.

Are you saying you read any shred of relative morality in Kant? There's something he's said that means he'd be OK using lethal force to stop a shooter? That would entirely change my opinion on his ethics of course !

 

[Lucca]

Are you saying you read any shred of relative morality in Kant? There's something he's said that means he'd be OK using lethal force to stop a shooter? That would entirely change my opinion on his ethics of course !

Yes he did. The foundation of his ethics relies on the relationship between two rational minds. I explained this in a PM you send me titled "thought experiment". If another mind is not rational - I.e the kind that thinks it's ok to kill other people - and is not rational based on the terms Kant defines (a rational mind is one which makes autonomous versus heternomous decisions, that is a bit more complicated to explain and I'd have to whip out my copy of Groundworks to explain it clearly but I'd gladly do that if you are interested) then it is ok to treat that individual as a means rather than an end. In other words, if a crazy person is shooting up a school you can kill the shooter and still be acting under Kant's normative formulation of ethics. This is why I first got into that argument with you like a year ago about the categorical imperative NOT being the golden rule. It is not universally applicable. The law is but only with other rational minds.

It might seem like "rational" is being hand-wavily defined here and can be rewritten to mean whatever an interested party likes but the definition is actually a lot more specific I just don't want to write out a massive post right now since I'm on my phone.

 

[efle]

Yes he did. The foundation of his ethics relies on the relationship between two rational minds. I explained this in a PM you send me titled "thought experiment". If another mind is not rational - I.e the kind that thinks it's ok to kill other people - and is not rational based on the terms Kant defines (a rational mind is one which makes autonomous versus heternomous decisions, that is a bit more complicated to explain and I'd have to whip out my copy of Groundworks to explain it clearly but I'd gladly do that if you are interested) then it is ok to treat that individual as a means rather than an end. In other words, if a crazy person is shooting up a school you can kill the shooter and still be acting under Kant's normative formulation of ethics. This is why I first got into that argument with you like a year ago about the categorical imperative NOT being the golden rule. It is not universally applicable. The law is but only with other rational minds.

It might seem like "rational" is being hand-wavily defined here and can be rewritten to mean whatever an interested party likes but the definition is actually a lot more specific I just don't want to write out a massive post right now since I'm on my phone.

Well obviously that would work if you can call any departure from categorical imperative behavior a departure from rationality! Its not quite the same as what I asked you about with someone mentally ill or drugged to the point of losing mental coherence...a world under that interpretation of Kant would be essentially identical to a utilitarian world, with people allowed to act against fellow man's evils by calling them irrational for acting immorally. Totally ad hoc, seems pretty untenable to say all behaviors of net suffering exclude their agents from being rational, but a much more applicable system at least.

I could still think of some good challenges even under this condition though I think. Seems under this system you would still be morally unable to order actions that will kill innocents (protected rational agents) in order to save many others. And, as having vs lacking protection from possessing rationality is a binary state, it seems there would be no moral grounds to object when a man tells a lie and is then shot for it! That is, there is no real way to talk about a gradient in which more evil actions merit greater actions against your person as there is in utilitarianism, you are either absolutely protected from treatment as a means or entirely unprotected.

 

[jl lin]

This thread has me stressed out. The OP definitely goofed up, but it brings up the larger point around records that may not always be available.

I waffled a lot about how to represent my research job I have had for multiple years, worrying that my actual hours might seem exaggerated. About a year of it I spent working 60-80 h/week even though I was only paid for (and have an official record of) 40. In the end I decided to accurately represent the number of hours I spent, since after all, it seemed fair for me to get credit for the over hours I worked, if not pay.

Will the X000 hours instead of (X-1)000 hours raise eyebrows?

This is all clarified by the often harsh realities of getting paid a salary as opposed to your time or by the hour. In my salary positions, regardless of the fact that my salaries were to reflect 40 hours, each week we had to submit our actual work hours per day to the director and HR.
Many salary position demand exceeding 40 hours, and if you are to really do the job well, it's necessary. Some folks are less efficient, but most people will tell you that they are truly kicking butt and can account for their hours, and to get results, they must move beyond the 40. Many salary positions are not realistically about merely working 40 hours. You do your best to be efficient where you can be, but being effective can also mean 8-4 or 9-5 is not reality. I don't know if you were required to submit your actual hours per day, per week or bi-weekly, regardless of salary. Just relate that it was a salary position that often required going over hours. It's by far not an anomaly.

 

[DrDarce]

I just love that holier than thou attitude.

This thread blew up and I didn't get a chance to read the rest of it but I wanted to respond to this guy. People avoid lying on applications not just because it would be wrong to lie, but also because the consequences if you get caught can RUIN your chances at ever having a career in medicine. So OP, is exaggerating on your hours "a bit" worth losing your future career? Good judgement there. The argument that "everyone does it" holds absolutely no weight whatsoever.

 

[Lucca]

Well obviously that would work if you can call any departure from categorical imperative behavior a departure from rationality! Its not quite the same as what I asked you about with someone mentally ill or drugged to the point of losing mental coherence...a world under that interpretation of Kant would be essentially identical to a utilitarian world, with people allowed to act against fellow man's evils by calling them irrational for acting immorally. Totally ad hoc, seems pretty untenable to say all behaviors of net suffering exclude their agents from being rational, but a much more applicable system at least.

I could still think of some good challenges even under this condition though I think. Seems under this system you would still be morally unable to order actions that will kill innocents (protected rational agents) in order to save many others. And, as having vs lacking protection from possessing rationality is a binary state, it seems there would be no moral grounds to object when a man tells a lie and is then shot for it! That is, there is no real way to talk about a gradient in which more evil actions merit greater actions against your person as there is in utilitarianism, you are either absolutely protected from treatment as a means or entirely unprotected.

Ad hoc is not the correct term. Being "irrational" and being "rational" on Kantian terms is a much more complex concept than one where you can just call someone irrational where the outcome is a net gain of suffering. You must be careful to not think everything through a utilitarian lens when thinking about distinct and separate philosophies - that's the kind of stuff that will get you crucified in a Philosophy paper, you must be as generous to the opposing position as possible or your argument will not be strong enough to hold up scrutiny. That's just the philosophy student in me coming out. Later today I'll post a more detailed description of what Kant means by rational and irrational.

Furthermore, yes Kant's ethics would not permit you from killing someone to save 100. Likewise, Kant's ethics would not let you kill someone for lying or being unethical. Punishment was also very important to Kant and rehabilitation rather than straight punishment was his preferred method. Like I have said over and over, Kant gets a bad rap for being an absolutist because of the black-box-ish formulations of the categorical imperative. The CI is in many ways a logical black box where something either is or is not wrong. The important part people miss is that Kant himself admitted that the CI would never work, that it was only a theoretical construct, and that it didn't even agree completely with his prior positions. Thus, framing Kant only within the context of the CI is like calling a sand pit in the middle of a rainforest a desert.

You should read Groundworks @efle. It's a boring, difficult and confusing book but I think your opinion on Kant would really change if you actually took a look at what he wrote.


Anyways, I'll just quickly reiterate my problems with utilitarianism and why I think it's inadequate. 1) You can't measure human suffering 2) Conversely, utilitarianism leaves no room for "utility monsters" that is people who derive so much happiness from an activity that they should therefore be allotted the bulk of that activity 3) Utlitarianism does not allow for the discrimination of suffering even though it allows for the discrimination of happiness. John Stuart Mill wrote "Socrates dissatisfied is better than the pig satisfied" and went on to describe how some pleasures differ from others, I.e there are some pleasures that are better than others. The fault in this is that the same cannot be said for suffering. There isn't a method of discrimination in Mill or Bentham (Bentham didn't even discriminate between goods) for suffering. I know the last time you brought this up you called it a "got ya" question but really it is not soluble in a utilitarian framework unless you make some novel, non-utilitarian backflips. A homeless man has healthy organs that could save 5 dying people. He has no family and nobody would know when he was gone and nobody would know you did it and therefore you would not be punished. You kill him in your clinic, humanely, and harvest his organs and save 5 others. Is this permissible? Utilitarianism says yes. I'm presuming @efle's response would be something along the lines of this action violating the homeless man's rights or dignity and would thus cause a net gain of suffering. I don't agree with this view. For one, you can't really measure this. We could up the ante and say save 1000, 1 billion, 6 trillion and you would have to pick a point where a single man's dignity is more important than a multitude's right to life and any point you picked on that spectrum would be arbitrary. Secondly, the lack of punishment prevents this from being a public issue that would lead to public backlash and therefore public suffering. The only thing the public sees is the saved lives.

You could apply the same logic to the non-extreme case of Eugenics. Eugenics is at its root a conflict between the rights of an individual and the benefit of humanity. A utilitarian framework would permit Eugenics on all accounts and I don't think we as a society are comfortable with that.

 

[Goro]

Will you guys knock off the Kantian philosophy discussion before my computer melts into a puddle of Silicon??

 

[Cotterpin]

Will you guys knock off the Kantian philosophy discussion before my computer melts into a puddle of Silicon??

For real. I opened this thread and was just like "Wha happen???"