Human Rights

[Danoff]

Danoff, your rationale is just your opinion. Besides, most words you supplied are subjective.

I've supplied a logical, objective rationale for human rights in direct dialogue with you at least three times now. You have yet to respond. Until you do so, these kinds of accusations are pointless.

Anytime now.

 

[Dennisch]

 

[Dapper]

It has been proven objectively - you merely reject it because it does not sit with your beliefs.

No, it hasn't. You only cite reason(within the brain) and rationale(within the brain).

You cannot prove nonexistence objectively, which is what you have been trying to do.

You can't prove (human rights) existence objectively.

But I've repeatedly told you, as it is there in objective black and white text, that is not the case. I did say why I think, or use rationale, we have no "natural human rights". Two things happened, I said I can't prove a negative, but gave subjective opinions that logically (taking steps with reason) back it up.

Anytime now.

This is what will happen-
you: I think this
me: I think not, but I think this.
you: But I think this
me: But I think this.
In the end, nobody proves anything, everybody is just thinking.

 

[Danoff]

No, it hasn't. You only cite reason(within the brain) and rationale(within the brain).

So you want him not to use his brain?

The premise here is either that the human mind cannot conceive of logic, or that logic is subjective. Either one is false.

This is what will happen-
you: I think this
me: I think not, but I think this.
you: But I think this
me: But I think this.
In the end, nobody proves anything, everybody is just thinking.

me: logic dictates this
you: but that's like, your opinion man
me: show me where I used opinion
you: you used opinion because you used your brain
me: what?

 

[Keef]

Dapper, I believe you should come up with a way to describe your sense of morality. Myself and many others in this thread can describe morality in terms of human rights. Anything that violates these rights would therefore be immoral. Morality, to us, is based on logical reasoning just like mathematics. It's simple as pie and one cannot argue against it.

The reason I need you to describe your sense of morality is because I cannot provide you the definition of the word "wrong" if your sense or morality is not in accordance with everybody else's. The ideas of "right" and "wrong" are derived from morality, "wrong" being anything that is not moral.

I would go out on a limb and say that because of your skewed sense of morality, you honestly do not understand us when we say you're wrong, because your "wrong" is a different wrong than ours.

 

[Dapper]

No - I know that an individual's morals are subjective.

Morality, to us, is based on logical reasoning just like mathematics. It's simple as pie and one cannot argue against it.

So who is right?

The fact that you, and most people, think you are born special is what's askew, and completely ludicrous. But for this fact, humans wouldn't be destroying the world.

I would go out on a limb and say that because of your skewed sense of morality, you honestly do not understand us when we say you're wrong, because your "wrong" is a different wrong than ours.

Well, being right requires proof. One's opinion isn't proof, even if the opinion is arrived at by logic that does not use an external set of rules.

@Danoff- Do you want we to make a list of the subjective words you use to prove your objective point? Because I already did that, partially, and you claimed "semantics" and that was that (besides your rant on philosophy).

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff- Do you want we to make a list of the subjective words you use to prove your objective point? Because I already did that, partially, and you claimed "semantics" and that was that (besides your rant on philosophy).

That's right, I said:

I know of no objective consideration and so I must rationally conclude that all men are equal, and that the initiation of force cannot be just, and is not permitted by a just system.

and you said

Dude, concluding is subjective.

It depends on how it is used. You can come up with a subjective conclusion "I conclude that blue is the best color because it is the prettiest", and you can come up with an objective conclusion "Assume A implies B, A exists, I conclude that B must also exist".

In this instance I did not use it in the subjective form. Now, my premises might be wrong - perhaps there is an objective reason to subscribe to "might makes right". Or perhaps there is some other objective consideration that makes men not equal. But regardless of those things, "conclude" here is not used subjectively.

The problem is stated in terms of logic. There are ways to argue against a logical argument, but you must use logic to do so.

For example, above I said "A implies B, and A exists. I can conclude that B exists." You can pick at that in a number of ways. You could say that it is an improper use of modus ponens (it isn't, but you could try that). You could say that the premise A implies B is not correct, or that A does not exist. What you cannot say is that this is a matter of opinion. It is not, even if it is wrong (which it is not).

 

[Dapper]

No amount of rhetoric, logical or not, will account for a unsubstantial entity whose existence in a specific time period is not noted, written, observable, testable, or even evident.

Problems like this have been around forever. Like if God is real or not. Human Rights are as factitious to me as God, there is certainly a chance either of them are real, and I am open to either, but you can't prove it. You can't test, therefore verify, if people had rights before civilization, just like you can't test if God is watching me type this. Or if we have free will, I say we don't, most do, but it is not provable.

http://www.truthpizza.org/logic/testabil.htm
It is worth noting the entire website above is great, not just the one article I linked to. 👍

 

[Danoff]

You could have just said you have no interest in having a discussion. Would have saved us all a lot of time.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

..., but you can't prove it. You can't test, therefore verify, if people had rights before civilization, ...

I must say the other contributors have a point, here again you come to a point where you state a right needs to be formalised to exist. Not my opinion.
The right is derived "logically", from reasoning. I for example see a need for reason to kill anything living, so this leads to a "human right on life".

But then I agree with you again that that reasoning is based on quite subjective assumptions. Logic is not debatable, the assumptions the logic is based on might be.

I must say I have used arguments that you might like: one might be "It is the law so obey it."
However I fully agree that the law might be wrong and actually might obstruct you rights.

I come to human rights (for me very few) and (Fundamental or those we like) social rights. The social rights are derived from a logic, but they are coloured by a philosophy:
Individualistic society: what you do is your business, you should also respect this for the others
Collective society: the collective decides what is acceptable or not
Discriminating societies; although I'm fundamentally against this, is it not a fundamental social right to organise as your want on private property and why can a private property not be sufficiently large to hold a society.
Anarchistic society: there should be no rules.

For me your view (before civilisation) is an Anarchistic society, you might not have punishment for killing a person, but that does not mean that you have the right to do so.

 

[GTsail]

In the Presidential Election thread there is a short discussion of Foot's "Trolley Problem"

Link:https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=202082&page=25

This got me thinking about other possible scenarios.

GTsail's "Train Problem"

Lets say that there is a train track that has a junction that switches the track between two lines. Line # 1 (the main line) goes to a large city of 100,000 people. Line # 2 (the minor siding) goes to an old mine in the countryside that is no longer being worked, but there is a security guard who lives in a house at the entrance gate.

Then lets say that the "mad philosopher" from the "Trolley Problem" puts a large bomb (with a very short fuse) on a train and sends the train barreling down the track on the main line towards the large city.

Lets say that you are standing next to the switch on the track, and your two options are: (1) Do nothing --- and the train will continue down the main line and the bomb will explode and kill 100,000 people, or (2) Throw the switch --- and the train will switch onto the siding and derail at the un-used mine and kill the innocent security guard and his dog.

Is it immoral to throw the switch?

Is it ok to throw the switch?

Would you throw the switch?

What would you do if the security guard was your son or daughter?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Famine]

Is it immoral to throw the switch?

Yes.

Is it ok to throw the switch?

No.

Would you throw the switch?

No.

What would you do if the security guard was your son or daughter?

No change in answer.

 

[dylansan]

What if, instead of a security guard, it was a prison (assuming no non-criminals present)?

What if it was a prison with only murderers sentenced to life in prison?

I don't want to suggest the answer would change to yes, but I'd like to know the reasoning behind whatever answers are correct.

 

[BobK]

Also consider this: If you do throw the switch, in most jurisdictions that would be murder since your action resulted in the death of the guard, furthermore you knew it would in advance. The "mad philosopher" is an accomplice, but still it was your action.

Of course that's a legalism and has nothing to do with the morality of the situation.

 

[Famine]

Still no change to the first two answers. Given that I'm human, probably yes to the third but I'd lie about it and say it was like that when I found it.

 

[Danoff]

Is it immoral to throw the switch?

It is not your choice to sacrifice them for the good of others. Yes it is immoral.

Is it ok to throw the switch?

No. See above.

Would you throw the switch?

No, and I'd like to point out that you face this dilemma essentially every time you vote.

What would you do if the security guard was your son or daughter?

I'd like to think not, but here you introduce an emotional response that could outweigh the rational one. Is it possible that my emotions could get the better of me and cause me to do something immoral? Yes. Would that somehow make my actions explainable? No definitely not. I am a human being with strong irrational emotional attachments. It is possible that those could be used against me to get me to do something I know is wrong.

What if, instead of a security guard, it was a prison (assuming no non-criminals present)?

Doesn't matter. Most prisoners are not guilty of something that waves their right to life.

What if it was a prison with only murderers sentenced to life in prison?

Then they have forfeited their right to life. If you send the bomb to them you are trusting that the state only imprisoned guilty people - something you yourself have presumably not attended to personally. At least in principle it is ok to murder a murderer, so I can see an argument, even with imperfect information, for throwing the switch. If you throw the switch in this case and blow up the murderers only to find out that one was innocent, the fault lies with the state for falsely imprisoning them and telling you they were guilty of murder.

At that point I don't think you could be considered guilty of murder. Maybe negligence.

 

[Dapper]

Let's make it more personal. If a person has a severly infected arm and the doctor said "we can amputate the arm and you live or you will die if we don't amputate." Anyone would just lop that arm off without much thought.

How does this relate to a train hitting a town versus a guys house? Our society is essentially a body, small parts work as a whole. No parts work alone. So keeping one person alive opposed to several is like a person letting the infection spread and essentially killing themselves, or is more like letting the body die but keeping an arm alive... Which is not possible!

Ok, my example could use some refining, but this phone has grown a terrible blurry crack and typing/reading is difficult. I'll fix it later if I'm not busy playing 2.0 .

 

[Famine]

Let's make it more personal. If a person has a severly infected arm and the doctor said "we can amputate the arm and you live or you will die if we don't amputate." Anyone would just lop that arm off without much thought.

Not anyone - but it's a call you can make for yourself. No-one else can make if for you - I'm not allowed to instruct the doctors to remove your arm.

How does this relate to a train hitting a town versus a guys house? Our society is essentially a body, small parts work as a whole. No parts work alone. So keeping one person alive opposed to several is like a person letting the infection spread and essentially killing themselves, or is more like letting the body die but keeping an arm alive... Which is not possible!

You can sacrifice yourself - it's a call you can make for yourself and no-one else can make it for you. That means it's a call you can't make for anyone else either.

 

[Danoff]

Society is not essentially a body with small parts working as a whole. It is a collection of individuals, each with independent rights. This is why you cannot treat individuals as part of a whole (morally).

 

[Keef]

Let's make it more personal. If a person has a severly infected arm and the doctor said "we can amputate the arm and you live or you will die if we don't amputate." Anyone would just lop that arm off without much thought.

You have proposed no moral dilemma in your situation. First of all, you have not stated who is making the decision to lop or to not lop. You've also not stated whether the person with the bad arm is capable of making their own decision on the matter. Their arm is infected in your example, so I see no reason why they wouldn't be able to make their own decision, and therefore you have not proposed a moral dilemma.

This is a moral dilemma:

A person with a severely infected arm is incapacitated and unable to make their own medical decision. The doctor has two possible solutions: he could either amputate the person's arm without consent, thereby saving their life, or he could not amputate and let the person die. Which is the moral decision?

I'll go ahead and answer it. The moral decision, sad to say it, is to do nothing and let the person die.

If the doctor leaves the person alone and lets them die, he is off the hook morally. He did not kill the patient, the infection killed the patient.

But if he takes their arm off without their consent, he has denied them their right to property (in this case a part of their body, and if you don't think one's own body qualifies as their own property then you're out of this world). No matter how appreciative the person is for being alive, or how many Thank You letters they send the doctor, they have been denied that right any way you slice it, no pun intended. In fact, you can plainly see the natural reaction that occurs when somebody realizes they have been duped, in real life as well in movies and whatnot. The, "WTF bro you cut off my arm!" reaction. People know when their rights have been violated, and they react naturally to such a circumstance even though their life was on the line.

Then society comes along and tells them to forgive the nice man, because society is stupid. Everybody reacts naturally to rights violations, but they don't understand the rights violations. That's why doctors are forgiven for violating personal property rights every time they amputate a limb or end a life without - or with somebody else's - consent.

Unless of course the patient's Will stated that their permission was previously given for such procedures to take place...

 

[GTsail]

Is it ok to throw the switch?

My answer for this question would be "Yes"

I feel that the situation is akin to a soldier in a war zone.

Its ok (relatively) for a soldier to sometimes cause the death of an innocent person while pursuing his/her soldierly duties, because the soldier is trying to end/prevent some greater evil.

So, in my train example, throwing the switch is trying to prevent the greater evil being perpetrated by the "mad philosopher" of killing 100,000 people.

So this switch throwing action, which causes the death of an innocent (which would normally be considered extremely wrong) becomes ok.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Keef]

My answer for this question would be "Yes"

That's immoral. By acting in that situation to save many but sacrifice one, you have played God and chosen who lives or dies. You have effectively committed manslaughter, possibly even murder depending on how good the prosecution's attorney is.

I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." That basically underlines the philosophy of utilitarianism, which is just flat-out wrong.

 

[Danoff]

I'll go ahead and answer it. The moral decision, sad to say it, is to do nothing and let the person die.

....

Unless of course the patient's Will stated that their permission was previously given for such procedures to take place...

....so important to have someone else that you've chosen to act on your behalf in those scenarios. Guardianship is a very key role.

The doctor can also choose to do something immoral hoping that the person won't mind the outcome when given the information. That's a big risk though. Violating someone's right in the hope that they'll be glad you did is a valid course of action, but one that can have pretty serious consequences if the gamble goes the wrong way.

 

[GTsail]

That's immoral

Perhaps.

Its why I have a hard time answering my first question about whether the action is moral or not.

I haven't yet been able to come to a conclusive answer for that one.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[hambone8611]

Personally I flip that switch in a heartbeat, to me it is not a question of morality, but one of leadership, and I consider myself to be a very moral person, having said that if I’m that guy on the losing end I expect to be sacrificed and I’ll have no hard feeling in those last moments, but hay that’s just me

 

[Danoff]

Personally I flip that switch in a heartbeat, to me it is not a question of morality, but one of leadership, and I consider myself to be a very moral person, having said that if I’m that guy on the losing end I expect to be sacrificed and I’ll have no hard feeling in those last moments, but hay that’s just me

At least you're consistent... constantly willing to force others to make sacrifices because you would make them.

 

[hambone8611]

At least you're consistent... constantly willing to force others to make sacrifices because you would make them.

Forced sacrifice is nothing new, the trolley scenario is a weak example at best with no real world likelihood, that makes it too easy to answer no, however if the scenario were one of a hostage situation could you sacrifice one to save the many?, so again it is not a question of morality but of leadership

 

[arora]

I agree with this 'leadership' assertion, someone once said.....

the greatest evil is a good man doing nothing, or some sort

 

[Keef]

so again it is not a question of morality but of leadership

Would you rather lead by setting a moral precedent, or lead by setting a precedent that will allow future rights violations in the name of the "greater good" and other phrases that sound warm and fuzzy but have historically led to the destruction of great societies?

 

[Dapper]

If the doctor leaves the person alone and lets them die, he is off the hook morally. He did not kill the patient, the infection killed the patient.

Not in this world. I am pretty sure that would add a lot of "hooks". Unless there is a DNR (do not resuscitate) order, it is the law the doctor keep the person alive. The circumstance you describe is called murder.

Where is the line? How many people can die to save one person's "human rights"? Lets say on one end of the train tracks is one person. On the other end, where the train is now heading, is the rest of the human population. You'll just let one person live? ...That is just silly. But what about two people live and the rest of the world dies, it that ok?