Considering absurd hypotheticals can still be valuable. Consider this ridiculous question from a site with the tautological title, “Astrology or Superstition?” :

“Would it be unethical to use astrology to gain advantage over someone in the work environment?”

Obviously not, because astrology is a crock. But if it were not a crock, what would the answer to this question be?

It raises several ethical issues. The easiest: since an astrologer could do an individual’s chart using publicly available information, this is no more unethical than reading an individual’s blog, researching his or her career on-line or interviewing former colleagues. The hypothetical also implicates the “superpowers problem.” If you had Superman’s X-ray vision or the power to read minds, would it be ethical to use them to see what kind of underwear your boss wears, or to gain an advantage in negotiations? The principle at stake here is fairness, and the Golden Rule. One should not, without permission, violate areas that an individual reasonably believes are private using either technological means or super powers.

Does that principle also apply to specialists in body language, like the crime-solving heroes of TV’s “The Mentalist” and “Lie to Me”? I don’t think it makes sense to lump the use of acquired skills with super powers. Is it unethical to apply unusually well-developed judgment, instinct, wisdom, courage, persuasion skills or analytical ability to interpersonal relationships? Clearly not. Patrick Jane belongs on this side of the ethical line, not with Clark Kent looking under Lois Lane’s brassiere. Astrology, then, as an acquired discipline, belongs on the ethical side too—that is, if it weren’t also in the same category as reading chicken bones, phrenology, and faith healing.

The remaining ethics alarm in the question is sounded by the suspicious phrase, “gain advantage over.” If this means “take advantage,” that is an inherently unethical motivation, and even an ethical means, like a skill in hypothetical astrology that isn’t poppycock, shouldn’t be used for an unethical objective. If, however, the questioner means merely “Is it unethical to use my special skill to excel at work?”, then there is nothing wrong with that at all.

That just about covers everything, except for this: When one encounters adults of undamaged brain who believe in astrology and make more use of it in their life’s decisions than they do fortune cookies, the fair, respectful and kind thing to do is to make a good faith effort to explain why they should stop immediately. One has the same obligation when one encounters someone who says the Holocaust never happened, that the world is only 10,000 years old, that Elvis is alive, that gay people are corrupting America or that the Bush Administration was behind the World Trade Center attacks. Ignorance, paranoia and superstition are all contagious, and we each have an ethical obligation to try to contain the plagues.