Ethics: Benefit and Harm

[Ginsune]

Originally Posted by Gem

People mistake ethics for morals, but morals are values based on beliefs and cultural norms etc, while ethics are grounded in the real world of benefit and harm, and frankly, imposing ones own moral values on others is invariably disrespectful and paternalistic, as the missionary treatment of Aboriginal peoples demonstrates.

Erroneous concept. There is a reason why the words are used interchangeably, people don't get them wrong as more it depends on the application.

Morals are what you, your family, and your religion decide are right and wrong. Ethics are what is decided as right and wrong by society / community as a whole. Ethical is what your culture says is okay to do.


Morally everyone the world over knows rape is wrong, for example. Yes, even those backwater countries where it is common because of the backlash if their mother, sister, or daughter underwent the same.

Ethically in some countries, the rapist is given a slap on the wrist because by state law and cultural mentality that is the "punishment" as decided by the WHOLE. In other countries though the rapist faces a different ethical judgement due to different cultural mentality and as such spends more than a few years behind bars.


Helping at a car accident, for example, has nothing to do with morals per say. A person helps because ethically it is expected of them to help - society says when you see an accident you help. If you don't help, you're an ****.

This this covered comically and yet VERY accurately in Seinfeld when they're tossed in jail because they stand by and giggle while the heavyset guy is being robbed. Morally they could have stepped in if they were brought up to step in - however, given as they were from NYC and I believe one even mentioned this happens on a daily basis or indicated such, they thought nothing of the heavyset guy being robbed. Ethically state law said they had to step in like it or not.


Because if ethics existed like you really seem to think it does business ethics, that special course where one is taught to blindside the little guy with scams & smile while doing it, wouldn't exist. A few months ago, for example, I was dealing with the CEO of a local company. He was ignorant and his responses were improper as per typical conversations procedures. When I learnt he was teaching at the local college I made a little quip about how I hoped he wasn't teaching business ethics because he should be the last person to teach a dog ethics.


For example, if we follow your concept the deforestation of the Amazon is ethically okay. Why? People are benefitting in the here & now, more food, etc., etc., etc. The harm itself won't happen in this generation or even the next.

However, if we were standing face to face you'd be running away from my rather toothy smile before I revealed just how much harm is being done right here & now. This harm is something the average person doesn't know about nor care about. And the people whining "OMG the rainforest" stop thinking about when they don't see constant reminders [TV shows, documentaries, etc.] to remind them they are supposed to shriek 'OMG the rainforest'.

Of the two - the first have poor morals in their selfishness, the second have poor ethics because they are reacting as expected with no real thought.



Ethics and morals are nothing but cultural and social constructs. Take someone from a different culture & throw them somewhere else, and they are a fish out of water.

I'll use myself for this example.

I was born in Canada to British parents both from old families [by old I mean back to the 1500s]. However, since ancestors were involved with the VOC and trade in Dejima, Japanese / eastern cultural mentality and ethics have long since become integrated. There's a reason why one of my employers once wrote his reference letter to include I have the most unique personality he had ever encountered [given my lily white skin, grey eyes, and white-blonde hair, my rather Asiatic cultural mannerism was definitely quite a shock to the European he'd have expected] and he worked for an international environmental lab for fifteen years as regional manager [that meant he did a lot of international flying].

To me, I think nothing of going to an eastern country or even mid-eastern country. I find Japan as much my home as I do Canada or the UK; I was so comfortable within days of arriving [no awkward transitional phase] that my work colleagues in Tokyo wanted to know if I had been born in Japan or lived there prior to moving.

However, I have seen many gaijin with all the ethical [as I said above ethical is cultural rules considered okay] finesse of letting a bull elephant loose in a china shop. They get offended when someone in the local community gets offended because to the tourist or even new immigrant [worker, student, etc.] they're doing nothing wrong. After all, as per the ethical standards [the expectations of their culture] they can do whatever behavior all the time, but in another cultural with different ethical standards such behavior is wrong.

Originally Posted by Gem

You know that saying 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'?

That saying was made to excuse nothing but ignorant greedy behavior. To make the guilty feel not so guilty.

Using aboriginals but North America.

It is a sort of oops sorry I stepped on the aboriginals' toes, that I ruined their culture, that by coming here I brought disease that nearly eradicated them, that I forced them to reserves - but look what "benefit" I brought. They are now educated [research residential schools, my brother is the adopted son of an Elder that survived such he has horror stories that'll make you want to bury the word benefit in horse's sh*t], they now have money HAHA, they have schools, etc., etc., etc. Take a look around your local reserve one day. No, not the pretty front dressed up for tourists but the back regions and tell me "benefit".



Problem with ethics and morals is 95% of society is blind by their own ethics and morals.

For example, a chap who murders the rapist of his daughter because there wasn't enough evidence for the courts to put him in jail -- what has he just broken? Ethics or morals?

How about the drug dealer selling crack cocaine and other drugs, even stuff that can be fatal if taken wrong, on the street corner so that he can actually put food on the table? Ethics or morals?

Until one is capable of viewing the big picture and not just the tiny 2 inch by 2 inch snapshot they can "handle" ... they will remain blind and learn nothing.

[Serrao]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

That almost bought tears to my eyes. I must have felt something in that important in me.

Hi naturesflow,

A very intelligent man he must have been indeed, this Krishna.

And you know what they say?
Those people only get better in time.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ginsune

Erroneous concept. There is a reason why the words are used interchangeably, people don't get them wrong as more it depends on the application.

Morals are what you, your family, and your religion decide are right and wrong. Ethics are what is decided as right and wrong by society / community as a whole. Ethical is what your culture says is okay to do.

I don't think founding ethics on the cultural norm is a good idea because there are certain harms caused by marginalisation and oppression perpetrated under the 'general' consensus. Conversely, the ethical approach requires a critical deconstruction of cultural acceptability where in fact the accepted practices cause harm.

Morally everyone the world over knows rape is wrong, for example. Yes, even those backwater countries where it is common because of the backlash if their mother, sister, or daughter underwent the same.

Ethically in some countries, the rapist is given a slap on the wrist because by state law and cultural mentality that is the "punishment" as decided by the WHOLE. In other countries though the rapist faces a different ethical judgement due to different cultural mentality and as such spends more than a few years behind bars.

Yes, it's a simple case where the duress and trauma experienced by people who have been raped clearly indicate it is extraordinarily harmful. This brings us to the concept of consent, which is steeped in the deeper concept of self determination. That brings up the conundrum of coercion where 'consent' may be given under a situation of duress. This makes us reframe the concept of consent into one of 'freely consenting'.

Helping at a car accident, for example, has nothing to do with morals per say. A person helps because ethically it is expected of them to help - society says when you see an accident you help. If you don't help, you're an ****.

In terms of ethics, this a harm caused not by acting, but but failing to act, which we more simply refer to as neglect. It's a complicated area which involves what can be conceptualised as a duty to care. This in turn implies a risk of harm which one is clearly able to foresee. A primal ethical principle here is protection.

This this covered comically and yet VERY accurately in Seinfeld when they're tossed in jail because they stand by and giggle while the heavyset guy is being robbed. Morally they could have stepped in if they were brought up to step in - however, given as they were from NYC and I believe one even mentioned this happens on a daily basis or indicated such, they thought nothing of the heavyset guy being robbed. Ethically state law said they had to step in like it or not.

That was funny!

Because if ethics existed like you really seem to think it does business ethics, that special course where one is taught to blindside the little guy with scams & smile while doing it, wouldn't exist. A few months ago, for example, I was dealing with the CEO of a local company. He was ignorant and his responses were improper as per typical conversations procedures. When I learnt he was teaching at the local college I made a little quip about how I hoped he wasn't teaching business ethics because he should be the last person to teach a dog ethics.

Business ethics... sounds like an oxymoron in principle, but I think most (small) business operators have a view to benefit rather than harm, even where the law doesn't compel them to.

For example, if we follow your concept the deforestation of the Amazon is ethically okay. Why? People are benefitting in the here & now, more food, etc., etc., etc. The harm itself won't happen in this generation or even the next.

I think we could view deforestation as unethical on grounds of harm to flora fauna and ecological destruction in general. Ultimately, it's harmful.

However, if we were standing face to face you'd be running away from my rather toothy smile before I revealed just how much harm is being done right here & now. This harm is something the average person doesn't know about nor care about. And the people whining "OMG the rainforest" stop thinking about when they don't see constant reminders [TV shows, documentaries, etc.] to remind them they are supposed to shriek 'OMG the rainforest'.

I'm sure most people are shrieking OMG rainforest due to scale of ecological destruction, but sure, the media is also a powerful mediator of world views.

Of the two - the first have poor morals in their selfishness, the second have poor ethics because they are reacting as expected with no real thought.

That's a good point which gets to the point, 'good intentions' as bad ethics.

Ethics and morals are nothing but cultural and social constructs. Take someone from a different culture & throw them somewhere else, and they are a fish out of water.

I grant that morality is socially constructed, but ethics, at least how I'm framing it here, is predicated by real life benefit and harm, or particularly, benefit and harm as a consequence to actions or inaction - but it's much more involved than that as the conditions or circumstances may involve measures that aren't exactly clear cut. When I was was involved in social research it often wasn't a question of benefit or harm, but one of who will benefit and who will be harmed. That also led to 'being selective with the truth' which is an ethical issue all of its own. It's a very uncomfortable situation where certain judgements become necessary. The work to benefit humanity also sometimes involves ruthlessness, and people in the game go through these dilemmas all the time.

I'll use myself for this example.

I was born in Canada to British parents both from old families [by old I mean back to the 1500s]. However, since ancestors were involved with the VOC and trade in Dejima, Japanese / eastern cultural mentality and ethics have long since become integrated. There's a reason why one of my employers once wrote his reference letter to include I have the most unique personality he had ever encountered [given my lily white skin, grey eyes, and white-blonde hair, my rather Asiatic cultural mannerism was definitely quite a shock to the European he'd have expected] and he worked for an international environmental lab for fifteen years as regional manager [that meant he did a lot of international flying.

To me, I think nothing of going to an eastern country or even mid-eastern country. I find Japan as much my home as I do Canada or the UK; I was so comfortable within days of arriving [no awkward transitional phase] that my work colleagues in Tokyo wanted to know if I had been born in Japan or lived there prior to moving.

However, I have seen many gaijin with all the ethical [as I said above ethical is cultural rules considered okay] finesse of letting a bull elephant loose in a china shop. They get offended when someone in the local community gets offended because to the tourist or even new immigrant [worker, student, etc.] they're doing nothing wrong. After all, as per the ethical standards [the expectations of their culture] they can do whatever behavior all the time, but in another cultural with different ethical standards such behavior is wrong.

Interesting, and cultural sensitivity or what they now call cultural competence, is a huge thing in ethics. My examples of colonialism are very crude example to illustrate a point, but you've got the subtle level of it.

That saying was made to excuse nothing but ignorant greedy behavior. To make the guilty feel not so guilty.

I interpret it like 'your good intentions are not the intentions of others, and it's harmful to impose them'.

Using aboriginals but North America.

It is a sort of oops sorry I stepped on the aboriginals' toes, that I ruined their culture, that by coming here I brought disease that nearly eradicated them, that I forced them to reserves - but look what "benefit" I brought. They are now educated [research residential schools, my brother is the adopted son of an Elder that survived such he has horror stories that'll make you want to bury the word benefit in horse's sh*t], they now have money HAHA, they have schools, etc., etc., etc. Take a look around your local reserve one day. No, not the pretty front dressed up for tourists but the back regions and tell me "benefit".

The benefit is ok as a word. Its just that the imposition of dominant Western cultural norms wasn't beneficial, and still isn't; it was and is harmful.

Problem with ethics and morals is 95% of society is blind by their own ethics and morals.

For example, a chap who murders the rapist of his daughter because there wasn't enough evidence for the courts to put him in jail -- what has he just broken? Ethics or morals?

How about the drug dealer selling crack cocaine and other drugs, even stuff that can be fatal if taken wrong, on the street corner so that he can actually put food on the table? Ethics or morals?

Until one is capable of viewing the big picture and not just the tiny 2 inch by 2 inch snapshot they can "handle" ... they will remain blind and learn nothing.

'Big picture' is why I separate ethics from morals (though granted it's a very tenuous distinction). If drug dealing is simply immoral, then we tend to blame the individual, but when we view it as a risk of harm, we take into consideration the social/economic/political situations and the holistic myriad of factors that contribute to harmful situations and address the whole person in thier social context. The powers that be like the moral stance because to frame harm as an individual responsibility shifts the focus away from social disfunctions that are systemic. Basically, blame is really bad ethics because it leads to further harm.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Serrao

All the great teachers had one specific perspective in common: The Golden Rule.
Do not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself.
I think this rule is closely related to ethics.

This reminds me of verse 6.32 of the Bhagavad Gita:
He is a perfect yogi who, by comparison to his own self, sees the true equality of all beings, both in their happiness and distress, O Arjuna!

Well, perfect yogis say wise old things and I agree both these sentiments are probably the most fundamental guideline available, but ethics goes beyong the basic level where it's a question of who gets harmed and who gets benefited, and what course of action (or inaction) exacts the consequences. There are some simple quandries proposed by philosophers in the past such as the trolly car thought experiment which serve to get a feel for the sorts of dilemmas which are involved, but even those are very simple representations compared to real lived situations. That also looks at the moral decision - what is good, and the ethical decision - what are the consequences.

Consequences are well and good, but neglect the humanity - such as the trauma involved in hard ethical decisions where people inevitably become harmed by what is done or isn't done.


Troll car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpf6KcWYyw

Another one I read of tells the story of Sophie's Choice. Sophie was arrested by the Nazis and told one of her two children would be spared from the gas chamber if she chose which one. As the Nazis led them both away she chose to save the older son, and hence the young daughter was gassed. The surviving two were then separated and Sophie never found out what became of her son. She was so traumatised for having made the choice, and then not knowing if the son has been killed or somehow lost, or perhaps he hated Sophie for that hard decision. Sophie was traumatised by it so much that she took her own life. Perhaps in the end all three were killed in this situation, perhaps only Sophie and her daughter - but then what of the son, if he had survived, and then found out what has become? In this example, consequence is a real quandry in and of itself.

These examples sort of portray the delicate nature of ethics, making it quite hard to discern any 'correct morality'. I mean, there is a forced situation at hand, and what is done, the manner of that doing, or what is not done hardly relates to a golden rule. The ethics surpass having a correct, morally sound course of action. It goes beyond all guidelines of behaviour. It's puts people in a very discomforting situation of incredible complexity.

However - ethical approaches understand this sort of dilemma, and as we can see in the examples, it's very difficult to become judgmental and 'hold accountable' the actors in what end up doing.

[Serrao]

Originally Posted by Gem

Well, perfect yogis say wise old things and I agree both these sentiments are probably the most fundamental guideline available, but ethics goes beyong the basic level where it's a question of who gets harmed and who gets benefited, and what course of action (or inaction) exacts the consequences. There are some simple quandries proposed by philosophers in the past such as the trolly car thought experiment which serve to get a feel for the sorts of dilemmas which are involved, but even those are very simple representations compared to real lived situations. That also looks at the moral decision - what is good, and the ethical decision - what are the consequences.

Consequences are well and good, but neglect the humanity - such as the trauma involved in hard ethical decisions where people inevitably become harmed by what is done or isn't done.


Troll car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpf6KcWYyw

Another one I read of tells the story of Sophie's Choice. Sophie was arrested by the Nazis and told one of her two children would be spared from the gas chamber if she chose which one. As the Nazis led them both away she chose to save the older son, and hence the young daughter was gassed. The surviving two were then separated and Sophie never found out what became of her son. She was so traumatised for having made the choice, and then not knowing if the son has been killed or somehow lost, or perhaps he hated Sophie for that hard decision. Sophie was traumatised by it so much that she took her own life. Perhaps in the end all three were killed in this situation, perhaps only Sophie and her daughter - but then what of the son, if he had survived, and then found out what has become? In this example, consequence is a real quandry in and of itself.

These examples sort of portray the delicate nature of ethics, making it quite hard to discern any 'correct morality'. I mean, there is a forced situation at hand, and what is done, the manner of that doing, or what is not done hardly relates to a golden rule. The ethics surpass having a correct, morally sound course of action. It goes beyond all guidelines of behaviour. It's puts people in a very discomforting situation of incredible complexity.

However - ethical approaches understand this sort of dilemma, and as we can see in the examples, it's very difficult to become judgmental and 'hold accountable' the actors in what end up doing.

Ethics is (just) the study of morality.

Each individual has their personal morality.

At the moment of choices the individual acts or doesn't act according to their moral.

After that the event becomes factual history and life goes on.

Was it right or wrong?
Some would say 'everything just is'.

Just my view.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

Yes true. Within groups we have many individuals who, regardless of similar values are all unique human beings with unique needs, so in that deciding I would imagine that many peoples values and needs would not be considered when people make decisions for a whole group in light of all this going on within it. How can you determine the needs of larger groups of people unless every individual has been accounted for in the decision making process of what is best? I guess this is where I see that in this kind of intervention and decision making process cannot totally support all people involved successfully, unless all are part of this process. In saying that, perhaps this is where the process of such decisions might only be successful if addressed and created within smaller groups that link to the larger group.
And of course, using people/mediators who become *the voice of many* in ways, that do reflect a deeper awareness and voice to support in this way.

I did some work in delivering services effectively to people experiencing homelessness, in three different contexts, but all three found that networks of smaller organisations that shared resources effectively approached more individuals and had better outcomes that one large monolithic organisation (in that case I became a voice for many, but I first listened, and thenbrought their voices). The key is getting down as close as possible to the individual level and hearing what the issue is for them, and then finding a way. The individuals also exist as a community and the whole thing is interwoven (which is where the concept 'connection' comes in), but if you can't get close enough to actually hear the stories that people themselves are telling, you won't do any good - more likely cause harm, actually - that's what usually happens when everyone has solutions but no one is listening.

Yes your right. I always say people will choose their own path and meet their own needs their own way, with what they have to do so, even if its not the best choices, from the outside looking into this. So honouring that choice and knowing would be a very beneficial starting point. Empowering people in trust and support of making healthier choices for themselves would definitely require those core principles to be considered in the decision making process, if change is to have any real hope of being successful.

Yeppers, the ethical approach looks right under the surface of everything, and things like trusting, listening, understanding and supporting are really powerful, much moreso than having 'solutions' for others.

Naturally when people are imposed upon and being told without consent or a willingness to change, imo you have an immediate creation of some kind of backlash or fallout And how people land in this way, hits home in them harder making that fallout much more difficult than it may require to be.

Yep, I get it. I had to assist someone today and this very thing arose. Of course it was only one person, but what you say here had to be considered in the space in myself to allow them to open up their problem, reflect more deeply on the nature of the problem and how it was infusing their current world. The only thing I really did was hold the space and used that psychic architecture and not say too much at all. In some ways I noticed that they served their whole space even though there was unwillingness initially because of grief, in the suggestion, but just allowing their unwillingness, something productive opened, they took charge of the process, even though I initially guided *a way* to kick start the process, it was not fixed as *the way*. In allowing the movement to move their way, the grief was released and the outcome of how change could be found, was accepted more readily, with knowing awareness that it would serve them now, having freed the space in them, allowed for more clarity of needs to be naturally accepted through the originally idea offered.

True, silence is also effective - it's a space. Wow - getting them to take charge is like a huge talent. Awesome. I'm really struck by that.

Very much so.



When we live in a world that opens us all to many different cultures and values, the most ethical approach would be to understand *each way* more deeply. If you impede on another's way with your way, disregarding the deeper issues, often their will be very crucial connections overlooked. But in reflecting on what is and what is the way regardless of what we might see that requires to be *the way* our way really does have to consider the ways of others to build a more unified movement of change, one where others are more willing and hopefully with this inclusion, more successful for all.

Yeah - The way is to understand more deeply. It's part of the spiritual concept of 'becoming conscious', and sometimes a hard issue can just click into place and a person knows just what to do, simply because it, like, 'became clear', where it was previously all so confusing.

Yep I get it. Part of my own learning was to be kicked back down to reality where I had to learn to not attach to lofty ideas of truth, even though initially it was a nice escape and fantasy way of being. It wasn't sustaining in the greater view of life in me and how I wanted to live and work in the world with real people. I guess, until such time, those who have the responsibility at the decisions making level for others in this world would pay to walk in the shoes of those for a time before deciding. Sometimes that kind of walk really does hit home on how far removed people can be in the *not knowing* of others more complete in their reality.

I do find what we usually think of as 'spiritual' is like a domineering - a Telling that makes people docile and obedient - but in my spiritual world, it's the listening. You know, like listening to the birds as you stroll of a morning. No one is telling birds how and what to sing. We just appreciate it as we listen. In the conversation it's almost the same, but a person can tell they are being appreciated and listened to... We should probably understand that it's an honour to the one that hears it - everyone appreciates it then.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Serrao

Ethics is (just) the study of morality.

Each individual has their personal morality.

At the moment of choices the individual acts or doesn't act according to their moral.

After that the event becomes factual history and life goes on.

Was it right or wrong?
Some would say 'everything just is'.

Just my view.

In my case, I don't know what the answers are, but I have been in hairy situations that involve people getting hurt. It requires making judgments without having any idea what 'is for the best'. There may be no rational or moral basis for a final decision. In the end, something is done and there are consequences, and it's a fact thereafter, but the lived experience is not similar to life goes on or it just is. There is a peculiar sort of lesson involved, but not one where you 'find something out' or 'know what to do next time'. It's more like you grow to understand something ... um ... intangible, but with a powerful effect of you as a person. During and afterward you become starkly aware of how inhibitions of fears, how bias and self servitude as well as social pressures affected things, for examples, and are impelled to face certain home truths as part of the process - while being given no comfort that the 'lessons' will let you 'know better' next time around. It's a difficulty that is distressing and changes the way you are somehow.

[Serrao]

Originally Posted by Gem

In my case, I don't know what the answers are, but I have been in hairy situations that involve people getting hurt. It requires making judgments without having any idea what 'is for the best'. There may be no rational or moral basis for a final decision. In the end, something is done and there are consequences, and it's a fact thereafter, but the lived experience is not similar to life goes on or it just is. There is a peculiar sort of lesson involved, but not one where you 'find something out' or 'know what to do next time'. It's more like you grow to understand something ... um ... intangible, but with a powerful effect of you as a person. During and afterward you become starkly aware of how inhibitions of fears, how bias and self servitude as well as social pressures affected things, for examples, and are impelled to face certain home truths as part of the process - while being given no comfort that the 'lessons' will let you 'know better' next time around. It's a difficulty that is distressing and changes the way you are somehow.

This reminds me of a documentary I saw once on television.
It was about a tibetan monk who was mistreated by the chinese.
All this monk tried was to not hate.
The interviewer said that the chinese deserved to be hated.
And the person who was being interviewed answered: The mind of a yogi is difficult to understand.

Now that's moral and ethics; stay acting according to your moral, no matter what, and afterwards life just goes on...

[Floatsy]

Originally Posted by Serrao

This reminds me of a documentary I saw once on television.
It was about a tibetan monk who was mistreated by the chinese.
All this monk tried was to not hate.
The interviewer said that the chinese deserved to be hated.
And the person who was being interviewed answered: The mind of a yogi is difficult to understand.

Now that's moral and ethics; stay acting according to your moral, no matter what, and afterwards life just goes on...

In the Tibetan tradition, in terms of coping with adversity, victims are encouraged to cultivate forbearance and the first stage of that is to develop a sense of equanimity. Forbearance builds up resilience and protects you from giving in to disturbing emotional impulses. A senior monk I know spent 17-18 years in Chinese prison after 1959. In the 1980s he was released and was able to join me in India. Once, when we were chatting about his experiences he told me that there had been dangerous moments during his imprisonment. I thought he meant threats to his life, but he said, ‘No, there were times when there was a danger of my losing compassion for my Chinese captors.’ This is an example of practice in action. He has since been examined by medical scientists who found he has no post-traumatic symptoms. He has physical pains, but no mental unease.”

- HHDL

Compassion for my Torturer

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Serrao

This reminds me of a documentary I saw once on television.
It was about a tibetan monk who was mistreated by the chinese.
All this monk tried was to not hate.
The interviewer said that the chinese deserved to be hated.
And the person who was being interviewed answered: The mind of a yogi is difficult to understand.

Now that's moral and ethics; stay acting according to your moral, no matter what, and afterwards life just goes on...

This is how I read that. The reporter says something to the monk he's interviewing, and the monk doesn't afford him the dignity of an explanation, but rather, dismisses what he said and directly implies that the reporter is ignorant by positioning him against a 'Yogi'. The monk, in this case, would do well to consider ethically the way in which he utilised powerful social symbols to diminish the voice of the reporter. If I were in the capacity of a Monk, I would be highly conscious of the power inherent in my social position and take measures to equalise that imbalance between myself and the interviewer. I would be careful to address what he said with care and explain things as far as I was able.

This, to me, is where spiritual stuff seems oh so wise on the surface of it, but when you look at a conversation such as the example you gave, you see there is no deep consideration of a thoughtful nature, or on a personal level, and absolutely no content of explanation. I see no signs of wisdom in it at all. I actually see indicators to the contrary.