Human Rights

[Vince_Fiero]

Then you're killing kids in africa as we speak.

In my thoughts about ubermensch (in the sense of a leading class)before I indeed came to that conclusion, we do decide not to help and thus act. Actually our countries do send help to those kids in Africa and we paying taxes are thus saving some kids, but we could decide to be more active in this or other things.

However these kids have no human right whatever on our help, that is something completely different.

I get more and more the impression there is dogma about this "not act".

Let me repeat, 5 people die or 1 person dies, both are unethical according to me, but it is a choice that you make at that moment and you have to stand by your choice, not behind 'I did not act, so it is not my fault'.

 

[GTsail]

Danoff calls that trolley choice murder because it is - literally, the bystander decides "in order to save five, I must murder one".

In your example, the pilot doesn't intend to kill anybody, or at least you didn't specify whether or not he was.

As I've already said, your problem presents no moral dilemma. Not only does the pilot not want to kill people, but in your scenario his choices are to accidentally kill a few or accidentally kill a bunch. That's not a moral issue.

You seem as if you're suggesting that willfully killing one person is somehow less important that willfully killing a bunch of people...

As I mentioned to Danoff, the purpose of my Airplane Problem was to find a real-life example that was as close to the Trolley Case as possible.

So yes, it is the pilot's/passenger's intention to "kill" the group of 50 bystanders because he does not want to "kill" the group of 1000 bystanders. The airplane falling out of the sky is an accident, the pilots/passenger's action is not an accident. It has the specific purpose of trying to save as many lives as possible, but is intentionally hitting a smaller group of bystanders that would not be hit if the pilot did not change the direction of the airplane's descent. The "accident" has already occured, the pilot/passenger is faced with two options: 1) Do nothing and the plane will crash and kill 1000 bystanders, 2) manipulate the airplane's controls to avoid the grandstand filled with 1000 bystanders, but still impact the ground where there is a different group of 50 bystanders.

So back to my question to you in my post # 711 that you did not answer:

If there were 1000 members of your family on the main Trolley/Train track, and 50 members of your family on the side-track....

Would you throw the switch to send the trolley/train down the side-track? Or would you just stand there and let the trolley/train kill 1000 members of your family?

GTsail

 

[Vince_Fiero]

So back to my question to you in my post # 711 that you did not answer:

If there were 1000 members of your family on the main Trolley/Train track, and 50 members of your family on the side-track....

Would you throw the switch to send the trolley/train down the side-track? Or would you just stand there and let the trolley/train kill 1000 members of your family?

GTsail

You are trying to bring emotion in it, that is not the purpose, most us would get unethical I fear when emotions get too high.

P.S.: I might actually stand an exceptional resistance to this.

 

[GTsail]

You are trying to bring emotion in it, that is not the purpose, most us would get unethical I fear when emotions get too high.

Yes, somewhat, because I'm trying to make the choice "real" rather than just some academic problem that is totally antiseptic.

Lets say that the response to my question is "yes", Keef/Danoff would do nothing and let the Trolley/Train kill 1000 members of their family, because otherwise they would be "immoral" using their definition of human rights and morality.

My follow-up question would be:

So you are saying that if it was your family that was stuck on the Trolley/Train tracks (the 1000, and the 50), and it was your wife/spouse that was the participant that had to decide about throwing the switch or not. And she threw the switch to save 1000 members of your family.......

You would label your wife/spouse a murderer, call her "immoral" and prosecute her so that she would receive the death penalty for saving 1000 members of your family because her action caused the death of 50 members of your family?

And I guess the answer might be "yes", the wife/spouse acted immorally.

So my final thoughts on this matter would be that this would make me un-comfortable. I would not want to label the spouse "immoral".

So I would wonder if the theory behind this definition of human rights could be wrong.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Famine]

Let me repeat, 5 people die or 1 person dies, both are unethical according to me

Neither are unethical. What is unethical is if you act to cause the deaths. Inaction is not an action, so inaction is not an act that causes the deaths.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Inaction is not an action, so inaction is not an act that causes the deaths.

Fundamental philosophical difference, inaction is something you do, it is an act. Now you can not act on everything, there I can agree.

I guess you like this song less then I do:

FAITHLESS LYRICS: Mass Destruction

We need to find courage, overcome
Inaction is a weapon of mass destruction
Inaction is a weapon of mass destruction
Inaction is a weapon of mass destruction

N.B. they really say it 3 times

 

[dylansan]

If inaction could be immoral, you could end up in situations where, no matter what you do (or don't), you have to do something immoral. You could be held morally accountable just for being in that situation, even if someone else put you in that position. And that doesn't make sense.

There's always an ethical solution to a problem, and in many of the ones discussed in this thread, the ethical choice is to do nothing. If that was immoral, you could be held accountable for murder every time a person dies and you don't stop it.

And it doesn't make sense to say the death of someone in unethical. An event is not a person; it can't be held accountable. Only a person's choices can be unethical.

 

[Famine]

Fundamental philosophical difference, inaction is something you do, it is an act.

No, it isn't.

Our actions are what we are responsible for - if I punch a puppy in the face, I'm responsible for that action. I am not responsible for inaction - if someone else punches a puppy in the face I'm not responsible for that action nor preventing it. None of us are responsible for the actions of others and none of us are responsible for preventing the actions of others. As Danoff has repeatedly pointed out to you, if we are responsible for the actions of others and our inaction in preventing them, you are responsible for every death that has ever occurred and you are a murderer.

Inaction is not an action any more than atheism is a belief.

If you act to cause the death of others, you are responsible for those deaths. If you do not act and others die, whatever set in motion the cause that had the effect of others dying is responsible for those deaths - you are not.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

No, it isn't.

Our actions are what we are responsible for - if I punch a puppy in the face, I'm responsible for that action. I am not responsible for inaction - if someone else punches a puppy in the face I'm not responsible for that action nor preventing it. None of us are responsible for the actions of others and none of us are responsible for preventing the actions of others. As Danoff has repeatedly pointed out to you, if we are responsible for the actions of others and our inaction in preventing them, you are responsible for every death that has ever occurred and you are a murderer.

Inaction is not an action any more than atheism is a belief.

If you act to cause the death of others, you are responsible for those deaths. If you do not act and others die, whatever set in motion the cause that had the effect of others dying is responsible for those deaths - you are not.

But 1 dead or 5 dead you did not start the trolley, so the deaths are not your responsibility. But 1 dead or 5 dead it was your choice since you were directly involved near the switch and you need to assume your choice.

Both choices act or inact are basically immoral since it is not up to you to choose.

We can agree on responsibility:

You do not change the switch, it was not your responsibility to change it, so it is difficult to accuse you.
You change the switch, you are directly responsible for changing the way the trolley goes and you can be held responsible more easily.

===================================================

If inaction could be immoral, you could end up in situations where, no matter what you do (or don't), you have to do something immoral. You could be held morally accountable just for being in that situation, even if someone else put you in that position. And that doesn't make sense.

There's always an ethical solution to a problem, and in many of the ones discussed in this thread, the ethical choice is to do nothing. If that was immoral, you could be held accountable for murder every time a person dies and you don't stop it.

And it doesn't make sense to say the death of someone in unethical. An event is not a person; it can't be held accountable. Only a person's choices can be unethical.

That is why I keep repeating both choices are immoral.
But it goes to far for me that all your choices need to be moral, you are not accountable for all that happens.

 

[Danoff]

You would label your wife/spouse a murderer, call her "immoral" and prosecute her so that she would receive the death penalty for saving 1000 members of your family because her action caused the death of 50 members of your family?

And I guess the answer might be "yes", the wife/spouse acted immorally.

So my final thoughts on this matter would be that this would make me un-comfortable. I would not want to label the spouse "immoral".

Yes, the spouse acted immorally. Not the worst kind of immoral, mind you, but it is immoral behavior and I would understand and expect prosecution for those actions. I would not expect the death penalty though, given that even though she killed 50 people, they were killed for at least the perception of doing right by the 1000 who lived. I don't see execution as a proportionate response to that (this goes for non-spouses of mine as well).

I'm not sure what is exactly proportionate, but it's not the death penalty. Violating someone's rights is not as dangerous to society when it's done for a positive and beneficial reason than it is when it's done for no reason, or simply for personal gain. Stealing bread from a wealthy man to feed a starving child, while an immoral act and a violation of property rights, is not as dangerous to society as stealing money for personal gain. In part because acts of altruism are less likely to become a way of life. I don't really care to go in to what society deems an appropriate and proportionate response to these crimes though. I'm more interested in judging, less so in sentencing.

Getting back to the examples though, in every scenario the ends will never justify the means. It defies logic to say that an action becomes justified depending on how well it works out. For example, if you think murdering someone is a justifiable action depending on how many people you're saving, what happens if it goes south? Let's say you try to flip that lever but the lever gets jammed. The trolley gets to the intersection and flips off the rail entirely - hitting a propane tank which detonates - killing all 6 people. Was your action suddenly immoral? Your presumably moral action to save 5 people just resulted in 6 deaths and 0 lives saved. If the ends justify the means, then the means in this case are not justified - and flipping that lever was a justifiable action up until the point where the track jammed - and then it became immoral again.

Nonsense. Morality means nothing if it is determined by outcome. And if morality is not determined by outcome, then the ends do not justify the means. If the ends do not justify the means, then murdering an individual to save more individuals is not a moral act.

 

[GTsail]

Yes, the spouse acted immorally. Not the worst kind of immoral, mind you, but it is immoral behavior and I would understand and expect prosecution for those actions. I would not expect the death penalty though, given that even though she killed 50 people, they were killed for at least the perception of doing right by the 1000 who lived. I don't see execution as a proportionate response to that (this goes for non-spouses of mine as well)....

Are you saying that the spouse took the "right" action even though it was "immoral"?

GTsail

 

[Famine]

But 1 dead or 5 dead you did not start the trolley, so the deaths are not your responsibility.

Correct.

But 1 dead or 5 dead it was your choice since you were directly involved near the switch and you need to assume your choice.

Only. If. You. Act.

Both choices act or inact are basically immoral since it is not up to you to choose.

Subject/object conflict. If it's not your choice, it cannot be morally judged.

That is why I keep repeating both choices are immoral.

Yes, you keep repeating it. It doesn't make it any more correct for repetition. The problem seems to be that you cannot see beyond 1 vs. 5. It's just a numbers game to you - 1 is less than 5, so killing 1 is better than killing 5. There is no reason to suppose that every life is equal and that 1 life is less than 5 lives, so this must be discarded. You're now left with a choice of either acting and causing death (immoral) or not acting and not causing death (moral).

Action that causes death confers responsibility on the actor. Inaction is, by its very definition, not action and confers no responsibility.

 

[Danoff]

Are you saying that the spouse took the "right" action even though it was "immoral"?

No not at all. Just saying that sentencing has to take motive into account.

 

[Keef]

So yes, it is the pilot's/passenger's intention to "kill" the group of 50 bystanders because he does not want to "kill" the group of 1000 bystanders. The airplane falling out of the sky is an accident, the pilots/passenger's action is not an accident. It has the specific purpose of trying to save as many lives as possible, but is intentionally hitting a smaller group of bystanders that would not be hit if the pilot did not change the direction of the airplane's descent. The "accident" has already occured, the pilot/passenger is faced with two options: 1) Do nothing and the plane will crash and kill 1000 bystanders, 2) manipulate the airplane's controls to avoid the grandstand filled with 1000 bystanders, but still impact the ground where there is a different group of 50 bystanders.

I've already told you this is not a moral dilemma. You have not committed an immoral act if you accidentally kill somebody because of circumstances that were beyond your control. Whether the airplane runs into the whole group or just a few people, the pilot has not violated morality whether he tries to save the thing or not. Either way, the crash happened through no fault of the pilot. The airplane's failure was the cause of the crash.

So back to my question to you in my post # 711 that you did not answer:

If there were 1000 members of your family on the main Trolley/Train track, and 50 members of your family on the side-track....

Would you throw the switch to send the trolley/train down the side-track? Or would you just stand there and let the trolley/train kill 1000 members of your family?

The moral decision would be to stand there and do nothing, because if you choose to switch the track, you have murdered people.

Morality does not depend on the numbers, or who they are. There is no gray area in morality. It is black or white. Life, liberty, and property are black and white. It's a very simple concept.

Correct.You're now left with a choice of either acting and causing death (immoral) or not acting and not causing death (moral).

Action that causes death confers responsibility on the actor. Inaction is, by its very definition, not action and confers no responsibility.

A little British wisdom to use as a blindingly bright guiding light.

 

[Danoff]

I've already told you this is not a moral dilemma. You have not committed an immoral act if you accidentally kill somebody because of circumstances that were beyond your control. Whether the airplane runs into the whole group or just a few people, the pilot has not violated morality whether he tries to save the thing or not. Either way, the crash happened through no fault of the pilot. The airplane's failure was the cause of the crash.

I think you're dodging a little (not that I didn't do something similar). Supposing the trolley is on the rail by accident (much like the aircraft is out of control by accident). If I'm to play devil's advocate, you're in an accidental circumstance either way, and you can choose to act to guide the trolley (aircraft) toward fewer people or not.

The problem with the aircraft example is that it's feels wrong to say you'd do nothing because it is wrong. You'd do something, you'd try to stop the crash - which presumably you can't do with the trolley. I think that's a fatal flaw in the aircraft example - it tries to pretend that the avenue we would all jump to immediately doesn't exist for some reason - so any other action seems out of place.

 

[dylansan]

I have to say I find this thread really fascinating, especially with all the great minds posting in it recently. I may just have to go back and read the whole thing.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

The problem seems to be that you cannot see beyond 1 vs. 5. It's just a numbers game to you - 1 is less than 5, so killing 1 is better than killing 5.

Incorrect: 1 death is just as bad as 5 for me, so there is no correct moral decision. That is what I kept repeating.

There is no reason to suppose that every life is equal and that 1 life is less than 5 lives, so this must be discarded.

You just made it a discriminating decision, since the one could be "better" then the others.

You're now left with a choice of either acting and causing death (immoral) or not acting and not causing death (moral).

for me people that think deciding "not acting" is moral is that these people do not understand morality: it is good since you can get away with it (nobody can put responsibility on you)?

So I'm not saying you should be held responsible, but even if you are not responsible, it remains immoral.

 

[Famine]

Incorrect: 1 death is just as bad as 5 for me, so there is no correct moral decision. That is what I kept repeating.

And yet you're still wrong. Any decision that results in you acting and knowing that, as a result of your act, any number of innocent people die is an immoral one - you have chosen to act knowing you will kill at least one innocent person.

Acting in the knowledge that you will cause the death of an innocent is immoral. Inaction is, by definition, not an act and thus not an action that causes the death of an innocent and thus not immoral.

You just made it a discriminating decision, since the one could be "better" then the others.

I didn't make it a "discriminating decision" (whut?). I pointed out that it is not a factor that can be considered. Even if you believe that one life is automatically less than five lives, which it isn't.

for me people that think deciding "not acting" is moral is that these people do not understand morality

Yeah. All those things you're not acting on right now that result in people dying? They're your fault. All of them.

See how that works? No, no-one else does either. So why are you still peddling this line that you know is indefensible?


Inaction is, by definition, not an act. If you act knowing you're going to kill an innocent, you have committed murder. If you do not act, you have committed nothing whether or not anyone dies. The former is immoral. The latter is moral.

 

[Dapper]

Considering 90% of the population does kill the one person by hitting the switch instead of the letting the other five die, letting one die instead of five is "in accord with standards of right or good conduct"(thefreedictionary.com) in this particular population.

 

[Famine]

Considering 90% of the population does...

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). - Ayn Rand

That.

 

[Dapper]

That.

Where does morality come from or how does it get defined? Anyway you put it, morality comes from within us somehow. Saying that 90% is immoral is impossible. What they, the general population, think defines what is moral and what is immoral.

 

[Famine]

Where does morality come from or how does it get defined?

Rights.

Anyway you put it, morality comes from within us somehow. Saying that 90% is immoral is impossible. What they, the general population, think defines what is moral and what is immoral.

Rights are not subject to majority vote.

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). - Ayn Rand

Please read the thread from the start. This is old ground that need not be retreaded.

 

[Dapper]

Rights.

And those are made by us.

Rights are not subject to majority vote.

History says you are wrong.

Please read the thread from the start. This is old ground that need not be retreaded.

Your point doesn't need retreaded either. 💡 You did 5 times on the last page alone.

 

[Famine]

And those are made by us.

Nope. Rights are inherent and not subject to majority vote. This is also old ground.

History says you are wrong.

Do not confuse rights with laws. Rights exist even when laws take them away or fail to recognise them. This is also old ground.

Your point doesn't need retreaded either. 💡

You asked a question already answered by the quote you responded to.

Now go back and read the thread from the start if you actually want to participate. I'm not going to be responding to any further questions that are answered by the quote you've already responded to (twice). No effort from you to participate (and no benefit to the discussion) = no effort from me to indulge you.

 

[FoolKiller]

History says you are wrong.

I present you with the thousands of years old understood difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.
For example, most human beings feel that murder, rape, and theft is wrong, regardless of whether a law governs such conduct or where the conduct occurs, and is thus recognizably malum in se. In contrast, consider driving laws. In the U.S., people drive on the right-hand side of the road. In the UK and other states of the Commonwealth, people drive on the left-hand side. Violation of these rules is an example of a malum prohibitum law because the act is not inherently bad, but is forbidden by law, as set forth by the lawmakers of the jurisdiction. Malum prohibitum crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the act is prohibited by the law of the state.

You are trying to argue against a very old concept.

 

[Dapper]

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.
For example, most human beings feel that murder, rape, and theft is wrong, regardless of whether a law governs such conduct or where the conduct occurs, and is thus recognizably malum in se. In contrast, consider driving laws. In the U.S., people drive on the right-hand side of the road. In the UK and other states of the Commonwealth, people drive on the left-hand side. Violation of these rules is an example of a malum prohibitum law because the act is not inherently bad, but is forbidden by law, as set forth by the lawmakers of the jurisdiction. Malum prohibitum crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the act is prohibited by the law of the state.

No one chooses to divert the trolley because of a law. I mean, "most human beings feel that" is what I pointed out. Malum in se is defined by human beings by your source.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

See how that works? No, no-one else does either.

Yes, I do and I explained before, with the African/Asian/South American kids I let die, which I still find immoral. But I'm not responsible for saving them.
I fundamentally believe there are situations where there is no good choice, just the least bad. Responsibility <> Morality.

So why are you still peddling this line that you know is indefensible.

You make a choice in this test case, let die 1, let die 5.
You still state I chose to let 5 die and that is moral, this is something I will never understand and I believe people that see this as moral do not assume (and it is hard) the consequences of their choice.

Yes I agree that the choice let die 5 leaves no responsibility at your side, since you do not have the responsibility to save them. However not being blamed does not mean it is a good choice. On the other hand it is also true that when 90% does something that does not make it automatically a good choice either.

 

[Famine]

Yes, I do and I explained before, with the African/Asian/South American kids I let die, which I still find immoral. But I'm not responsible for saving them.

You're not responsible for saving anyone.

You make a choice in this test case, let die 1, let die 5.

You fundamentally misunderstand then. The choice is "let 5 die or cause 1 to die".

You agree you're not responsible for saving some African/Asian/South American kids by not making the choice to do so - why do you assume responsibility for saving some people on a train by not making the choice to do so?

 

[Vince_Fiero]

why do you assume responsibility for saving some people on a train by not making the choice to do so?

Moral <> Responsibility

Einstein and Nobel in the end cursed some of their inventions (dynamite/atomic bomb) because they were used to kill by others, where they found that immoral, they are not responsible for the immoral use of their inventions, but they still felt bad.
=============================================

Different subject:

Many time people did mention "Freedom of Expression" and "no right not to be haressed".

For me in the end they moved to social rights, not fundamental human rights, but that is irrelevant.

In France, a man died last week, the man tried to bing a wondering child back to the school it came from, but people did misunderstand and saw the person as a sexual pervert, the next week they saw him again and a mob of 10 mums kept him hostage till the police intervened, since the person was accused of abduction they arrested the person for questioning, then he had an hart attack after being arrested and passed away.

In Italy a girl lied to explain how she lost her virginity (her parents sent her to a gynecologist to check regularly), stated she was raped by gypsies, the next what happened is that a mob of villagers raided the camp of gypsies.

It is clear that the mums and the villagers were wrong taking action on their own to me. However it was free speech giving rubbish that lead to misunderstandings and I see the primary responsibility there. Where you should not be pursued for expressing your opinion, I still believe that harassment of an other is something you should answer for.

 

[Famine]

Moral <> Responsibility

Then explain to me why, through your inaction, you feel neither responsible for nor morally obliged to prevent the deaths and injuries to everyone who has ever died, but feel that you have a moral obligation to act and kill one man to prevent the deaths of five.

You don't, of course.