Human Rights

[Famine]

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?

Yep.

The only life you can give away is your own.

 

[Dapper]

Yep.

The only life you can give away is your own.

And you called my opinion abhorrent.

 

[Famine]

It still is. You don't get to say what happens to others' lives or bodies. Only your own.

In a choice between two actions that lead to a death that is not your own, either action is immoral. Inaction is not.

 

[Keef]

And you called my opinion abhorrent.

It is abhorrent. You support the killing of innocent people.

EDIT: Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about your rebuttal. Two sentences is easier than two (or five) paragraphs while I'm thinking about doing homework.

 

[Dapper]

It is abhorrent. You support the killing of innocent people.

No, you support the killing of an entire species for an idea. A silly idea is not worth the extinction of a species.

It still is. You don't get to say what happens to others' lives or bodies. Only your own.

In a choice between two actions that lead to a death that is not your own, either action is immoral. Inaction is not.

Your opinion is disgusting. You can't grasp that your neighbors will is all you have. But for the fabric of (human) society you are no more than any other being.

 

[Keef]

No, you support the killing of an entire species for an idea. A silly idea is not worth the extinction of a species.

I wouldn't have killed them, the train would have killed them. My hands are clean son. Cherry Blossom. Bath & Body Works.

 

[Dapper]

I wouldn't have killed them, the train would have killed them. My hands are clean son. Cherry Blossom. Bath & Body Works.

Just like the doctor is guilty of murder, so are you.

 

[Famine]

You can't grasp that your neighbors will is all you have.

My neighbour is an irritating troll slag who I'd gladly run over with a train. If my existence was so built around her will, I wouldn't be alive.

Your opinion is disgusting.

So long as someone who believes they have dominion over the bodies and lives of other people thinks that, I'll be happy.

Complete this sentence: "I have control over the body or life of any other human, to do with as I will, because..."


You don't, of course. Nor does it get any more compelling if you inflate the numbers. You can only relinquish one life - your own. What's disgusting is making the call to force someone else to do it against their will rather than doing it yourself.

 

[Dapper]

My neighbour is an irritating troll slag who I'd gladly run over with a train. If my existence was so built around her will, I wouldn't be alive.

And the other 5 billion neighbors?

So long as someone who believes they have dominion over the bodies and lives of other people thinks that, I'll be happy.

I only have dominion over my role in society. 💡

 

[Keef]

I only have dominion over my role in society. 💡

Which is?

 

[Famine]

And the other 5 billion neighbors?

I only have dominion over my role in society. 💡

You're saying you have the right to decide which of two people or groups of people should die. The only way you can do that is if you believe you have a right to others' bodies or lives if it suits you. Do you believe this, why and do others have the right to your body or life if it suits them?

 

[Dapper]

Which is?

It is at least not being a detriment to our species survival.
I think this thread is really about narcissism.

You're saying you have the right to decide which of two people or groups of people should die. The only way you can do that is if you believe you have a right to others' bodies or lives if it suits you. Do you believe this, why and do others have the right to your body or life if it suits them?

Do you notice you say "You say..." a lot?

No, no, no. You'll just misconstrue things until it fits your point of view, this is clear.

 

[Keef]

It is at least not being a detriment to our species survival.

You'll need to explain to me how one would be a detriment to the species if they had no direct role in its survival, in your example, because I'm just not gettin' it.

 

[Dapper]

You'll need to explain to me how one would be a detriment to the species if they had no direct role in its survival, in your example, because I'm just not gettin' it.

Sitting on your moral high horse and letting the population die when you could do something to keep the species alive, but remember you don't do anything because of an idea and let the species essentially die off, is being detrimental to our species. Gettin it now?

If you are deemed the person to make a decision or not, you are directly responsible, even if you do nothing.

 

[Famine]

Do you notice you say "You say..." a lot?

I can't very well refer to things other people say without referring to things other people say.

No, no, no. You'll just misconstrue things until it fits your point of view, this is clear.

Oh, please don't tell me you're going on a deny-a-thon for this one too...

I think this thread is really about narcissism.

Absolutely. Those who believe they have any right to say what can occur to other people's bodies and end other people's lives are demonstrating alarming narcissism.

I don't have the right to end your life. Why would you ever think that I do?

Sitting on your moral high horse and letting the population die when you could do something to keep the species alive, but remember you don't do anything because of an idea and let the species essentially die off, is being detrimental to our species. Gettin it now?

A species prolonged by an act of murder.

If you are deemed the person to make a decision or not, you are directly responsible, even if you do nothing.

You are deemed the person to make a decision over your own life only. Action that causes the death of an innocent third party is immoral. Always.

 

[Keef]

If you are deemed the person to make a decision or not...

Well duh, I never argued against that point. If the about-to-be-sacrificed give you permission to send them off in order to save the others, then go right ahead.

But in your example, you never stated whether or not their permission was given.

 

[Dapper]

I can't very well refer to things other people say without referring to things other people say.

Of course you can. You use the quote function until you need to twist, or wriggle, what others have said. I never said, or implied, any action I would take would be because it suits me.

 

[Famine]

Of course you can. You use the quote function until you need to twist, or wriggle, what others have said. I never said, or implied, any action I would take would be because it suits me.

Course not.

Let's play the "Dapper said this, but he actually meant something subtlely different" game again, shall we

It still is. You don't get to say what happens to others' lives or bodies. Only your own.

In a choice between two actions that lead to a death that is not your own, either action is immoral. Inaction is not.

Your opinion is disgusting.

Implication: Inaction in the decision "Switch or don't" to kill one innocent or kill many innocents without consent is "disgusting" to you. You would take action and kill one innocent or kill many innocents without consent.

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.

Implication: You would kill one innocent to save billions without consent.

Your words, again. No twisting needed, again. Except from you, to wriggle out of what you said, again. Oh, and direct questions asked of you ignored, again.


You know, if you have no interest in discussion and simply want to proselytise (and deny everything that makes you look bad, or contradicts your beliefs), we have religion threads.

 

[GTsail]

I do not think that Famine's opinion is disgusting.

It is a very principled and extremely consistent position/opinion.

I don't think that it helps our argument to imply otherwise.

We may disagree with it, but I don't think that it can be labeled disgusting.

I think that we should get back to discussing what is the "right" opinion, rather than throwing around adjectives at each other.

Of course, for me, its easy to contemplate Famine's position because I agree with it 99% of the time. I too agree that killing innocent people is immoral.

Its just that I can envision a few situations where I feel that it might be "OK" to overrule this strict position.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[homeforsummer]

I think it's a fairly simple position, to be honest, and I can't see what the fuss is about.

In any situation where you'd be making a decision between one person dying and hundreds of people dying, you're still making a decision on someone else's life. It would therefore be morally wrong to make either choice, regardless of how many people would die if you didn't. The only decision you could morally make would be whether to sacrifice your own life to save someone else.

 

[Danoff]

I think it's a fairly simple position, to be honest, and I can't see what the fuss is about.

In any situation where you'd be making a decision between one person dying and hundreds of people dying, you're still making a decision on someone else's life. It would therefore be morally wrong to make either choice, regardless of how many people would die if you didn't. The only decision you could morally make would be whether to sacrifice your own life to save someone else.

On what basis is it immoral to not intervene in a situation you had no part in?

 

[Famine]

Just interpreting hfs here, he looks like he's just said "decision" when he means "action" - he's noted that any intervention which requires the non-consensual death of someone isn't a moral choice - and he's left the null position of inaction as a default. Aside from that default, the only decision you could morally make, yadda yadda.

 

[Danoff]

I see, I thought he was saying that either throwing the lever or not throwing the lever is akin to murder... and so there was no course of action (including inaction) that could be considered moral.

I think you might be right, that he was simply saying that taking an action that causes an innocent person to die is immoral.... not acting being the only moral choice.

Can we invent a scenario in which you have no choice but to act? That would be something.

 

[homeforsummer]

Just interpreting hfs here, he looks like he's just said "decision" when he means "action" - he's noted that any intervention which requires the non-consensual death of someone isn't a moral choice - and he's left the null position of inaction as a default. Aside from that default, the only decision you could morally make, yadda yadda.

^ This. Slightly poor choice of words on my part.

 

[Dapper]

You would kill one innocent to save billions without consent.

There you go. 👍
Just remember that this action would not be for my benefit.

 

[Danoff]

There you go. 👍
Just remember that this action would not be for my benefit.

Who it benefits changes nothing. The ends do not justify the means.

 

[Dapper]

Who it benefits changes nothing. The ends do not justify the means.

You think "human rights" is more important than humans? How is that rational?

 

[Danoff]

You think "human rights" is more important than humans? How is that rational?

How much is one life worth? How much are 100 lives worth? How much are the 100 lives worth if those people are all guilty of petty crimes? How much is the one life worth if that guy invented calculus? How much is the life of an accomplished artist worth? How much is the life of an unaccomplished artist worth? Is the life of an artist worth more than the life of an engineer? Less? If more, how much more? If less? How much less?

There is only one objective answer - that there is no objective basis to value anyone's life or thoughts or experiences above the life or thoughts or experiences of anyone else. It is impossible to say that the lives of 1000 people are worth more than 1 because it is impossible to objectively value a human life.

That's how it's rational.

 

[Dapper]

There is only one objective answer - that there is no objective basis to value anyone's life or thoughts or experiences above the life or thoughts or experiences of anyone else. It is impossible to say that the lives of 1000 people are worth more than 1 because it is impossible to objectively value a human life.

I agree. But who cares about being objective? Especially considering the basis for your reasoning is subjective.

That's how it's rational.

But it is not rational to think one person, who can't do anything to be valued because there is no one else to appreciate it, is more valuable than the rest of our species.

 

[Danoff]

I agree. But who cares about being objective? Especially considering the basis for your reasoning is subjective.

Explain.... without saying logic is subjective.

But it is not rational to think one person, who can't do anything to be valued because there is no one else to appreciate it, is more valuable than our species.

Good thing I didn't say that. I specifically said that valuation was not possible.