Most ethical work?

Surfer

Surfer

Surfer

Soldato
Joined
31 Dec 2005
Posts
11,182
Location
Glasgow
What are what you would say are the most ethical work/lifestyles? (regardless of danger levels)


Would it be working as an aid worker in the 3rd world? Perhaps as a doctor in a hospital?

Say im looking for a lifestyle that is as about anti-materialistic as it gets but also about directly helping others? (ie where the intention is linked to helping someone)

If i did want to work "ethically" in the 3rd world what sort of skills would be paramount. I would guess engineering/planning and development skills to help that country become more self-sufficient etc?
 
You can become my servant. I won't pay you so it is pretty selfless and as I think I am great as far as I am concerned so it is also pretty ethical.
 
Ethics are a pretty personal thing, what one person may think as ethical, another may not. If you're really interested in looking for an ethical job it has to be one that suits your ethics and not just what other people believe to be ethical.
 
_dogma_ said:
Ethics are a pretty personal thing, what one person may think as ethical, another may not. If you're really interested in looking for an ethical job it has to be one that suits your ethics and not just what other people believe to be ethical.
Click to expand...

This, it could be putting yourself forward for jobs which directly aid people, such as aiding in the process of healthcare, or could be more indirect, such as a political cause.
 
Surfer said:
If i did want to work "ethically" in the 3rd world what sort of skills would be paramount. I would guess engineering/planning and development skills to help that country become more self-sufficient etc?
Click to expand...
Languages are going to be a pre-requisite depending on where you're going. Then agriculture, healthcare and teaching are probably most paramount.
 
durruti said:
This, it could be putting yourself forward for jobs which directly aid people, such as aiding in the process of healthcare, or could be more indirect, such as a political cause.
Click to expand...

Yeah thats why i said directly linked because a lot of jobs (ie most jobs) can theoretically be indirectly linked to being ethical (ergo justification in that person's mind of that action)

How about a work-ethical-scale

1. Level of self-sacrifice involved
i) danger, commitment, lack of financial or status reward.

2. Level of Benefit to Other/s ?

Either others as individuals or others as in great number of people. So whilst a care worker or nurse could certainly bring personal level of benefit to a few folk. Someone who donates X amount of money to the same cause which allows nurses to be hired and good standard of care to be paid for? Is that a more ethical position? and hence more worthwhile? Or i guess it also depends on whether you have the aptitude or "people" skills etc.

Should one strive to amassing wealth in order to help many poor and destitute? or should one be more committed to helping person-to-person. (so much less numbers are helped but you are more involved on the ground level)

Also have the problem of "immediacy of benefit" a scale in itself. There is the immediate gain from individuals recovering or being helped as opposed to a political strategy which aims to help many less well off families but wont be realised fully until X number of years and X conditions met.
 
Last edited:
RDM said:
What has danger got to do with eithics?
Click to expand...


to do with immediacy of action required depending on the situation threat/danger level.

On the same sort of basis as hospital ER's will prioritize critical patients over less critical patients.

e.g. a situation could develop quickly in e.g. somalia which we are warned by aid organisations could become critical (threat to many lives via disease and famine)quickly so action required immediately. So DEC swings into action and funding is diverted & organised that may have went elsewhere but to a charitable case which was a much less severe threat/danger level.
 
Surfer said:
to do with immediacy of action required depending on the situation threat/danger level.

On the same sort of basis as hospital ER's will prioritize critical patients over less critical patients.

e.g. a situation could develop quickly in e.g. somalia which we are warned by aid organisations could become critical (threat to many lives via disease and famine)quickly so action required immediately. So DEC swings into action and funding is diverted & organised that may have went elsewhere but to a charitable case which was a much less severe threat/danger level.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't really tie in to how ethical a situation is, just because it is more dangerous.
 
Its near impossible for me to even imagine to answer that question, but are you really serious? or are you just some TV show character that has magically come to life?
 
RDM said:
But it doesn't really tie in to how ethical a situation is, just because it is more dangerous.
Click to expand...

When making a choice between two situations it is a factor. Its role is more peripheral when determining whether something is or is not ethical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom