On the *need* for non-personal ethics

[katrinka]

6 hours ago, Dr_T said:

‘yes it’s true you could fake moral character by strictly following ethical codes thus creating the appearance of morality. But that person is not ethical they are simply good at following rules. 

 

True, people - especially sociopaths and narcissists - will often attempt to fake it that way. But I wouldn't say a person who is good at following rules is fooling anybody. We all know people like that at work. And as a rule, they aren't well liked.

It's like the Alignment system, something that's actually useful in spite of coming from an RPG. "Lawful" and "Good" are two separate concepts. People who are Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral aren't fooling anybody.
 

7 hours ago, gregory said:

and the right of a spouse not to have to testify against their partner - I think that's morally just awful - but ethically it hold sup in law even. There IS a difference.

 

I think that's a matter of degree. A serial killer is certainly not the same thing as someone with a petty drug case. 
And what if the person is actually innocent? If I was married to, say, Leonard Peltier, I certainly wouldn't be able to live with myself if I'd testified against him. But then, if I was only an acquaintance, I would feel the same way. If someone is doing something sufficiently horrible, he belongs under the bus, other than that no kangaroo court has any business using me to do their dirty work.

 

There is also the possibility that the person is dangerous, but they end up being acquitted or getting a very minimal sentence. You see this with killer cops a lot. What's likely to happen to a spouse who testifies against them?

That law certainly does need revisions, and it will never be perfect. It does show the limitations of rules, laws, and codes. 
 

[katrinka]

7 hours ago, devin said:

I'm also not sure we need to refer to a breach of code to prove that a Tarot reader gossiping about their clients' problems or flogging spells to counteract invented curses is a shitehawk.

 

Exactly this.
 

7 hours ago, devin said:

Most Tarot codes of ethics strike me as being heavily influenced by the new age and self help industries, name checking empowerment, non-judgement, personal boundaries, inner guidance, etcetera. This is a big turn off for me.

 

This, too. It's corporate BS with a veneer of new age BS. It's meaningless.
You can create fake Deepak Chopra quotes with Chopra tweets and a bot that are indistinguishable from actual Chopra tweets. That's how meaningless this stuff is.
http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

[AJ-ish/Sharyn]

most of this conversation is above my education level, but what I've seen over the years on websites for readers that they deem ethics amounts to I don't believe in reading on health issues, people other than yourself, what someones gender preference is...

If I had a reading website mine would read I don't do does he love me questions 😉 because I don't want to read on those questions, which circles back to the website listings I've seen. 

 

Selling candles and spells to lift curses is Unethical on every level. I now return you to the educated discourse station. 

[katrinka]

19 minutes ago, AJ-ish/Sharyn said:

most of this conversation is above my education level, but what I've seen over the years on websites for readers that they deem ethics amounts to I don't believe in reading on health issues, people other than yourself, what someones gender preference is...

If I had a reading website mine would read I don't do does he love me questions 😉 because I don't want to read on those questions, which circles back to the website listings I've seen. 

 

"I don't want to" is a MUCH better explanation of why you don't do it than "it's unethical."
I suspect the purpose of a lot of codes of ethics is to smear other readers who do things like health readings, love readings, etc.
OTOH, I wouldn't read on what a person's gender preference is, but nobody's EVER asked me that. If they did, I'd just say no.
 

19 minutes ago, AJ-ish/Sharyn said:

Selling candles and spells to lift curses is Unethical on every level. I now return you to the educated discourse station. 

I have to disagree. There are perfectly ethical readers who do, several of whom I know and count among my friends.
http://readersandrootworkers.org/wiki/Association_of_Independent_Readers_and_Rootworkers

 

What's not ethical is scaring someone with a fake reading that says they're cursed and charging an insane amount of money to lift said curse. 

Even if you don't believe in the efficacy of magic at all, if someone is convinced they've been whammied, lifting the curse is a much quicker remedy than attempting to change their beliefs - something that is often impossible. 

Even Ward Cleaver lifted a curse once. 😁

https://archive.org/details/leave.it.to.beaver.complete.series/Season+1/Leave+It+To+Beaver+-+S01E13+-+Voodoo+Magic.avi

 

 

[gregory]

1 hour ago, AJ-ish/Sharyn said:

most of this conversation is above my education level, but what I've seen over the years on websites for readers that they deem ethics amounts to I don't believe in reading on health issues, people other than yourself, what someones gender preference is...

If I had a reading website mine would read I don't do does he love me questions 😉 because I don't want to read on those questions, which circles back to the website listings I've seen. 

That's the kind of thing I'd put up too. "I choose not to read one xyz; I will never reveal what my reading said to anyone else, and specifically I will not post it on the web" (I really hate that in a reader !) That kind of thing. I think I'd call it something like "What you can expect from me".

 

1 hour ago, AJ-ish/Sharyn said:

 

Selling candles and spells to lift curses is Unethical on every level. I now return you to the educated discourse station. 

 

Only if done to try and get more money out of the gullible.

 

46 minutes ago, katrinka said:

"I don't want to" is a MUCH better explanation of why you don't do it than "it's unethical."
I suspect the purpose of a lot of codes of ethics is to smear other readers who do things like health readings, love readings, etc.
OTOH, I wouldn't read on what a person's gender preference is, but nobody's EVER asked me that. If they did, I'd just say no.

 

What's not ethical is scaring someone with a fake reading that says they're cursed and charging an insane amount of money to lift said curse. 

Even if you don't believe in the efficacy of magic at all, if someone is convinced they've been whammied, lifting the curse is a much quicker remedy than attempting to change their beliefs - something that is often impossible. 

 

Agree with this little lot.

[TheLoracular]

11 hours ago, devin said:

Most Tarot codes of ethics strike me as being heavily influenced by the new age and self help industries, name checking empowerment, non-judgement, personal boundaries, inner guidance, etcetera. This is a big turn off for me.

 

The New Age/Self Help "Ethics" list gets very SJW for me and its a turn-off.   But I think everyone reading tarot, especially for money, should read and answer for themselves the questions posed on that really good Barbara Moore article.  

Despite having a deep love for philosophy, I'm pretty anti-pedantic and don't cleave at definitions as some might.  But I have a strong personal ethic I wish was practiced en masse by our species of "Don't Lie, Don't Cheat,  Don't Steal."   Since it's not and never has been?   

 

I leave other tarot readers to their own devices unless I catch them doing something that isn't just against that core ethic of mine above, it is also illegal in the US and many other countries.   And that has only happened once this year.  It wasn't about a reading.  It was about a site advertising itself as belonging to a tarot author and stealing her book and facial image to misrepresent itself and earn revenue.

I emailed the author, showed them the link.  They wrote back, thanking me and said their lawyer would get right on it because I was very correct.  That wasn't them!  
 

[euripides]

I believe in social justice. Not always as it appears in popular discourse, and I get frustrated when it constantly centers on self-interest and interpersonal conflict instead of wider structural change, but I regard 'SJW' statements as a sign that someone is at least attempting to be an ally, and even if that does manifest problematically, I'm going to cut them slack for good intentions, which are frankly something we're in dire need of right now.

[katrinka]

17 minutes ago, euripides said:

I believe in social justice. Not always as it appears in popular discourse, and I get frustrated when it constantly centers on self-interest and interpersonal conflict instead of wider structural change, but I regard 'SJW' statements as a sign that someone is at least attempting to be an ally, and even if that does manifest problematically, I'm going to cut them slack for good intentions, which are frankly something we're in dire need of right now.

Yes. SJW is like "woke" - it's a good thing, but it got trendy and a lot of people tried to pile on and behaved like posers, they actually had no clue and couldn't see their own privilege. So these things have started to take on a perjorative meaning. I think the new agers are a good example of posers. 

[euripides]

I recall a thread some years back where people commented that they wouldn't read about third parties - I mean, there's almost always other people involved, but when it comes to straight out stuff like what others are feeling, thinking, or doing, that could be regarded as spying - they hadn't given their permission to be investigated.  I tend to lean this direction - I try to refocus questions on what the querent's feelings, thoughts, and actions are and what their consequences might be. But generally I don't read a lot for other people because sometimes the consequences of even trivial observations can be significant, and I just don't want that kind of responsibility. 

 

Theories of ethics are certainly worth having a bit of a dig into; understanding the main 'systems' can be quite useful when you're in discussion and trying to work out where someone is coming from. I notice people quite often shift allegiances midway through a discussion - we can actually hold multiple positions at once, or at least make use of them when it suits us.

[dust]

20 hours ago, Dr_T said:

Soons as you label it Ethics you are making a statement about The Good; what is right and what is wrong. … it is therefore more universal in nature 

 

differs from a simple code ; I will or won’t do this…. (Because it would make you uncomfortable or whatever). I think this approach is fine as it just what you personally will/won’t do without going down the path of labelling the actions as right or wrong.

I completely disagree. My understanding of these terms is similar to @gregory's: ethics is more about your personal conduct, morals are about the bigger picture.

 

Even if I DO have opinions about whether it's right or wrong to read about things like health issues, I have no interest in speaking for everyone in the Tarot community. At the end of the day, I just have other things (in my personal life and in the world in general) to worry about a lot more. A lot of my reasoning about how to behave as a reader is also based on my personal beliefs and knowledge, which is far from universal. For example, I'm not a professional reader. I have nothing to gain by giving someone repeated readings about their love and I'd be uncomfortable with it on multiple levels, so it would be easy for me to just say no and move on.

[dust]

1 hour ago, euripides said:

I believe in social justice. Not always as it appears in popular discourse, and I get frustrated when it constantly centers on self-interest and interpersonal conflict instead of wider structural change, but I regard 'SJW' statements as a sign that someone is at least attempting to be an ally, and even if that does manifest problematically, I'm going to cut them slack for good intentions, which are frankly something we're in dire need of right now.

 

I agree completely. Also, as someone who cares a lot about social justice... I don't care at all for "New Age" beliefs, many of which I also associate with racist stereotypes and TERFdom.

 

 

---

 

After reading some of these posts, I'd definitely have a code of ethics somewhere if I were a professional reader. Not to brag about my moral uprightness or prove anything, just to avoid wasting my time and the sitter's. There are certain things that I'd be very uncomfortable with, whether it's because they clash with my personal views or because I don't feel knowledgeable about, so it sounds useful to make it clear right off the bat what I wouldn't do.

 

For example, medical advice. I'm not a doctor and have absolutely no health-related qualifications. I wouldn't do health readings because I don't think I'd be able to give people good answers, so it would feel a lot like lying about what I can do, and it's a weighty enough topic that I wouldn't want to do that. I saw someone (I think it was @katrinka) in another thread comparing reading the cards to talking about a certain subject. Well, if Bob came up to me and asked me if I thought he had cancer and how to cure it, I'd just tell him to go see an actual oncologist.

 

I definitely don't think that breaking curses and the like is unethical. It's not part of everyone's belief system, but if both the reader and the sitter share a belief system where that's a thing, I don't see why not. It's only unethical when it's done in bad faith and with the intention of exploiting people (like lying to them to say they're cursed and surprise, surprise, fixing things costs a whole expensive ritual every week...).

[Dr_T]

7 hours ago, katrinka said:

"I don't want to" is a MUCH better explanation of why you don't do it than "it's unethical."

i don’t want to is not an explanation. It’s a reason, and it’s fine as that (you don’t have to do what you don’t want). But it’s only when you answer why you don’t want to you are giving an explanation (again not that you have to) …. And I wonder if you do answer how often then it’s starts to become ethics?

[Dr_T]

8 hours ago, AJ-ish/Sharyn said:

Selling candles and spells to lift curses is Unethical on every level.

‘why?

 

I’m sure it often is but if the person selling truely believes they work, it’s done with good intent etc etc… then how does it differ from selling crystals, or indeed doing Tarot itself?

[Dr_T]

3 hours ago, euripides said:

Theories of ethics are certainly worth having a bit of a dig into; understanding the main 'systems' can be quite useful when you're in discussion and trying to work out where someone is coming from. I notice people quite often shift allegiances midway through a discussion - we can actually hold multiple positions at once, or at least make use of them when it suits us.

‘good call 🙂

 

many philosophers hold an eccletic position. They will look at an ethical issue through the lenses of the main ethical theories and where they align an ethical answer lies… 

 

on some issues though the major theories just clash and, as yet, no-one has found a way through the horns of that dilemma.

[Dr_T]

5 hours ago, dust said:

I completely disagree. My understanding of these terms is similar to @gregory's: ethics is more about your personal conduct, morals are about the bigger picture.

‘they are very muddled and muddied terms. But they have very specific philosophical meanings dating back to pre-Socratic times. Dictionary.com has simply conflated meanings and colloquial usage.

 

that’s why I think the concepts are better understood in terms of meta- normative and applied.

Edited September 14, 2021 by Dr_T
Spelling

[devin]

18 hours ago, katrinka said:

You can create fake Deepak Chopra quotes with Chopra tweets and a bot that are indistinguishable from actual Chopra tweets. http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

 

 

"Non-judgment undertakes personal excellence" 

"A single particle is the path to innumerable opportunities" 

 

OMG, you've just changed my life. 👼

 

16 hours ago, AJ-ish/Sharyn said:

most of this conversation is above my education level,

 

Me too, but I shall not be deterred, and if I fall off my horse in front of the grandstand, then so be it!

 

13 hours ago, TheLoracular said:

"Don't Lie, Don't Cheat,  Don't Steal."

 

Amen. It's basically ethics as taught to us by our moms. I'd only add sharing and trying to be kind to the list. 

 

8 hours ago, Dr_T said:

that’s why I think the concepts are better understood in terms of meta ...

 

This is asking a lot.

 

I mean, if we take but one example that is fairly controversial in contemporary Tarot circles - the rights and wrongs of predicting the future (assuming its possible, of course), we immediately bump up against determinism vs. free will..... which then leads us to ponder things like the nature of existence (eg. materialism vs. idealism)..... which then leads us to ponder things like the nature of consciousness..... which then leads us to ponder things like the nature of substances..... and on and on.

 

That's some quite heavy lifting.

Edited September 14, 2021 by devin

[Dr_T]

4 minutes ago, devin said:

 

I mean, if we take but one example that is fairly controversial in contemporary Tarot circles - the rights and wrongs of predicting the future (assuming its possible, of course), we immediately bump up against determinism vs. free will..... which then leads us to ponder things like the nature of existence (eg. materialism vs. idealism)..... which then leads us to ponder things like the nature of consciousness..... which then leads us to ponder things like the nature of substances..... and on and on.

indeed… and a question I posed in another thread (prediction vs  free will vs determinism)… so quite predictive of you 😉. You’re right, it’s some heavy lifting, but oh so fascinating (well to me at least!)

 

I could go all night on consciousness and personhood 🙂

[gregory]

I got out my Aristotle to argue this - and of course his ETHICS are based around doing what will bring happiness - eudaemonia, His "morals" are more complicated and I was going to...

And then I got to thinking. This is a tarot forum, and I actually can't be bothered. But to my mind, our "personal ethics" are how we, as individuals, choose to behave, based on our personal morality. I also think it;s quite important to remember that language and concepts can change over the years. No-one today would see the concept of stoicism om the same way as Zeno did. Well, sudden disclaimer -  I suppose you would, @Dr_T But times do change, and with it concepts and language. 

[katrinka]

13 hours ago, euripides said:

I recall a thread some years back where people commented that they wouldn't read about third parties - I mean, there's almost always other people involved, but when it comes to straight out stuff like what others are feeling, thinking, or doing, that could be regarded as spying - they hadn't given their permission to be investigated.

 

I'm not throwing down the gauntlet - you do you - but I do want to talk about the other perspective. People talk about partners, crushes, friends, family, etc. with other people. There's never any mention of asking permission to do that. 

As for spying, there's a lot of things that are very difficult to pinpoint with cards. I don't care how good you are. You can often time an event within a day or two, but try getting the hours and minutes. Now imagine trying to build an extensive log of all someones' comings and goings, the times down to the minute, everyone they interacted with...I have not yet seen a reader who can nail all of that down easily, but an actual spy routinely does that.

 

Card reading doesn't make us omniscient - or even good spies. 

If someone is just being revoltingly nosy, trying to get dirt on someone for gossip purposes,  then yes - I'll refuse the question. But I don't like those kinds of conversations in non-reading situations, either. 

 

13 hours ago, euripides said:

  I tend to lean this direction - I try to refocus questions on what the querent's feelings, thoughts, and actions are and what their consequences might be.

 

And some of us feel it's disrespectful to refocus or rephrase other peoples' questions. Especially if they're paying you. 
 

13 hours ago, euripides said:

But generally I don't read a lot for other people because sometimes the consequences of even trivial observations can be significant, and I just don't want that kind of responsibility. 

 

Not reading for other people much makes a big difference here. The vast majority of the questions a paid reader gets are about other people. 

[devin]

15 hours ago, euripides said:

But generally I don't read a lot for other people because sometimes the consequences of even trivial observations can be significant, and I just don't want that kind of responsibility. 

 

I get this. It's why I almost never do health readings. But, y'know, if someone's going to a Tarot reader instead of a doctor with their health concerns, imo, the responsibility lies with the one asking the question, not the reader. Same goes for financial advice, etc. Adults have a responsibility not to be stupid.

 

 

 

[TheLoracular]

17 hours ago, katrinka said:

Yes. SJW is like "woke" - it's a good thing, but it got trendy and a lot of people tried to pile on and behaved like posers, they actually had no clue and couldn't see their own privilege. So these things have started to take on a perjorative meaning. I think the new agers are a good example of posers. 

 

That was totally my thought when I made my anti-SJW comment.  It was too off-handed for a public forum; I regretted it after.  I am a huge advocate of anti-Hate in all its forms.  SJW to me is the mindset that using bullying "Mean Girl" tactics while advocating for social justice is okay and even admirable- the end justifies the means.  But that is One Big Fallacy that way too many people of all kinds of ideologies only see in others, not themselves. 

Love is Love; Strife is Strife and one connects, one divides.  

 

[devin]

17 minutes ago, TheLoracular said:

That was totally my thought when I made my anti-SJW comment.  It was too off-handed for a public forum; I regretted it after.  I am a huge advocate of anti-Hate in all its forms.  SJW to me is the mindset that using bullying "Mean Girl" tactics while advocating for social justice is okay and even admirable- the end justifies the means.  But that is One Big Fallacy that way too many people of all kinds of ideologies only see in others, not themselves. 

 

That's exactly what I thought you meant. ❤️

[Dr_T]

10 hours ago, gregory said:

But times do change, and with it concepts and language

of course they do. But concepts (frameworks) necessarily stay the same…

 

Aristotle (eudaemonia), Kant (rational derivativeS), Singer (promotion of interests), Rand (self interest) … all different notions of the good but all using the terminology (meta) ethics in the same way with same meaning.

 

do what promotes happiness, act to maximise interests, act in accordance with rationally determined rights … all different ethical theories or right action but all using the terminology (normative) ethics in the same way with the same meaning.

 

10 hours ago, gregory said:

choose to behave, based on our personal morality

I assume, when you say this, you are referencing ‘applied ethics’? [to bring it back to Tarot]… e.g. a personal decision about the rightness/wrongness of predictive tarot.? With which I do not disagree at all.  But that is simply the application of ethics (an ethical  decision, if you will, presumably based on some reasoning*). Not a personal theory of right action 

 

it’s a difficult (impossible?) topic if we disagree on the application of base concepts 🙂

 

*hopefully, but not necessarily, ethical reasoning 🙂

 

[gregory]

I don't actually care whether we agree or not. If I ever wanted to put disclaimers on a reading website, I'd put something like "what you can expect from me." I know what I mean, and I know how I read - and I have read Aristotle and others among the ancients, and many more modern philosophers as well. But I come here for tarot, not academic discussion of entirely other areas.

I shall return to my cards.

[euripides]

33 minutes ago, Dr_T said:

of course they do. But concepts (frameworks) necessarily stay the same…

 

 

 

I tend to agree - I think we need to have at least loosely-agreed-upon definitions in order to have meaningful discussion, but I know others disagree on this - we've had that point in a discussion once before and it's really clear that others don't feel similarly. This is just what I personally feel, I do like to know we're using words in a similar way, but if you feel differently that's 100% ok, you do you!

 

regarding 'spying' I didn't mean it literally - of course a reader isn't timing down to minutes and seconds - and 'being nosy' is exactly what I meant by that. Minding other people's business is what I meant, and spying was perhaps a poorly chosen word on my part, I apologize.

 

Generally when reading for others, I do so in a discursive manner: I talk with the querent about  their concerns, and we build the question together. This is what works for me, such that I'm addressing their concerns but in a way that I feel able to do. As I said, I'm not a professional, and this is what works for me and seems to work for the people I've read for. Obviously more experienced and professional readers will have their own ways of working, if I do things differently that's not a criticism, I'm just managing what I feel I can do within my abilities and boundaries, and I'm always totally upfront about that.