Human Rights

[TankAss95]

You're not responsible for saving anyone.

Is this a universal statement?

So if I saw a victim of a hit-and-run incident lying unconscious on the road, is it my responsibility to seek help? Could I be prosecuted for not interfering, if I have no excuse?
Or does it just apply in the kind of situation which we are discussing?

 

[Famine]

Is this a universal statement?

Yes (unless you are the person who has injured them, assuming that they did not merit injury).

So if I saw a victim of a hit-and-run incident lying unconscious on the road, is it my responsibility to seek help?

No.

Could I be prosecuted for not interfering, if I have no excuse?

In some territories, yes, though the law is irrelevant to the discussion (law can deny rights and thus law and rights are not the same).

 

[CMvan46]

Is this a universal statement?

So if I saw a victim of a hit-and-run incident lying unconscious on the road, is it my responsibility to seek help? Could I be prosecuted for not interfering, if I have no excuse?
Or does it just apply in the kind of situation which we are discussing?

Of course you have 0 responsibility to help but could you handle the fact that person may be either alive or less hurt if you had helped? That becomes up to a person's individual moral beliefs but puts 0 responsibility on you. It's your right to walk away, but as with most things there are always consequences.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Is this a universal statement?

So if I saw a victim of a hit-and-run incident lying unconscious on the road, is it my responsibility to seek help? Could I be prosecuted for not interfering, if I have no excuse?
Or does it just apply in the kind of situation which we are discussing?

I find this a good example:

1) That victim has no right to expect you to intervene. You are not responsible.
2) Morally (do the right thing) you would at least need to call help and avoid further injury.
3) Legally (but that is irrelevant to Human rights), except for searching help, you might even have to try to secure the parameter, without putting your own life in danger.

What is the difference between 1 and 2 now.

The example of the kid that was run over in china.
1) Responsibility: The Chinese learned not to intervene, since that would make them suspect number 1. There is no responsibility to intervene.
2) Morality: A majority of people seem to find it not moral to let this kid lay wounded in the street. Leading to the kid being hurt further.

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.

Not responsible we agree upon.
Morally obliged = it is a subject I struggle with, bounded rationality makes that you can not act on everything, but the choice not to act can be against good moral. I regularly play with the idea to stop living the life I have and dedicate my productivity to "... without frontiers", to act or not act on that is a moral choice I have to make and stand by.

I actually never stated there is a moral obligation to act and chose to let die one man to prevent the deaths of five. What I keep stating is that let die 5 can not be called a morally correct choice, as the point 2 above illustrates, it is the best legal advice though. To let die the 1 man is not moral, point 2 above illustrates this as well.

 

[Famine]

the choice not to act can be against good moral

Only if you are the one who caused the situation in the first place. Otherwise inaction is not immoral.

Choosing to act knowing that the action will kill an innocent is always immoral.

I actually never stated there is a moral obligation to act and chose to let die one man to prevent the deaths of five. What I keep stating is that let die 5 can not be called a morally correct choice, as the point 2 above illustrates, it is the best legal advice though. To let die the 1 man is not moral, point 2 above illustrates this as well.

Again you fundamentally misunderstand. You are not letting 1 man die - you are killing that one man through your actions and your actions alone.

The example of the kid that was run over in china.
1) Responsibility: The Chinese learned not to intervene, since that would make them suspect number 1. There is no responsibility to intervene.
2) Morality: A majority of people seem to find it not moral to let this kid lay wounded in the street. Leading to the kid being hurt further.

Inaction is not immoral except in two cases in this example. The person who first ran the child over (and then drove over her again) acted to cause her injuries and then did not act to to assist her. The second person who ran the child over acted to cause her injuries and then did not act to to assist her. It is not immoral for anyone else to not assist any more that it is not immoral for you to have not assisted her.

Third, and perhaps least moral of all, is the legislation that treats anyone who does assist as the person who caused the injuries without any other evidence. This leads to an even more peculiar legal situation than that in states where you are legally obliged to help - being legally obliged not to help - but it's just as bad.

 

[TankAss95]

^So the good Samaritan (Keep Christianity away from it. It's just an example) was immoral?
Doesn't this disobey the 'golden rule'?

 

[FoolKiller]

^So the good Samaritan (Keep Christianity away from it. It's just an example) was immoral?
Doesn't this disobey the 'golden rule'?

Where did anyone say it is immoral to help when others are unaffected by your action?

 

[TankAss95]

Where did anyone say it is immoral to help when others are unaffected by your action?

So wait a minute. It is not immoral to not help a beaten up person on the road, yet it is not immoral to help him, either?

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Inaction is not immoral except in two cases in this example.

The 2 cases are both where they did act and should act to repair their mistakes.

So your statement is really: "Inaction is not immoral if your actions before were not immoral."

Do you know of some reference material on this?

So wait a minute. It is not immoral to not help a beaten up person on the road, yet it is not immoral to help him, either?

Just as 2 only possible choices both can be immoral they both can be moral.

 

[Famine]

The 2 cases are both where they did act and should act to repair their mistakes.

Correct. Just like I said, in fact. Their acts caused injury to an innocent that they were morally required to redress. To draw equivalency to the trolley problem, they were people who deliberately sent the trolley towards the five and who are morally culpable for any outcome.

So your statement is really: "Inaction is not immoral if your actions before were not immoral."

You're not responsible for saving anyone.

Is this a universal statement?

Yes (unless you are the person who has injured them, assuming that they did not merit injury).

You don't need to reimagine that which has already been stated.

Do you know of some reference material on this?

Rationality.

So wait a minute. It is not immoral to not help a beaten up person on the road, yet it is not immoral to help him, either?

Just as 2 only possible choices both can be immoral they both can be moral.

That doesn't bear any relevance to TankAss's question.

You are under no moral obligation to help or save anyone if you caused them no injury. That doesn't mean you can't choose to do so, just that you are not morally required to. The act of doing so is called "kindness" - unless mandated by some law or other legally requiring you to help others, and then it's called law-abiding.

 

[Danoff]

You are under no moral obligation to help or save anyone if you caused them no injury. That doesn't mean you can't choose to do so, just that you are not morally required to. The act of doing so is called "kindness" - unless mandated by some law or other legally requiring you to help others, and then it's called law-abiding.

Totally agree. Furthermore, the concept of kindness starts to lose meaning if we consider anything else to be immoral. Kindness becomes "required".

Take, for example, the child trapped in the burning building. There are 20 people who have escaped the burning building hoping someone will save the kid. One guy decides to go in after him, at great risk to himself, and saves the kid.

If the 20 people are immoral for not helping the kid, then the guy who went in after him is not a hero, he's simply not a horrible person. We don't give him a medal, we don't recognize him as a standout citizen, we simply throw rotten fruit at the 20 who did nothing and tell them they're lucky we don't cast them out of society... right?

Wrong.

The guy is a hero because he performed a tremendous act of kindness at great personal risk. We recognize him not because he is moral, but because he is beyond moral.

Similarly, it is not immoral to refuse to donate to charities that help people around the world. There is no moral obligation to help people, and if there were, we wouldn't get to say that the person who does donate to those charities is such a great person.

 

[Wolf-M]

Wow...this thread is still alive! Are we still on the trolley example or have we moved on? There's just one comment that caught my eye...

Only if you are the one who caused the situation in the first place. Otherwise inaction is not immoral.

My response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqVYUzHc5L8

Will this change your mind, Famine? : )


Perhaps this demonstrates another thing, that philosophical arguments are nothing but so. To this date I have still not found a satisfactory answer to counter the utilitarianist argument that the maximisation of happiness is always the right, or "moral", thing to do. A simple assertion that we should take rights seriously leads us to nowhere, for the definition and scope of a "right" is what determines whether we ought, or ought not, divert the train to save more people at the expense of the life of another.

 

[Famine]

My response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqVYUzHc5L8

Will this change your mind, Famine? : )

No. And in fact more specifically it shows exactly what you achieve when you hold legislation as correct above morality. And in fact in fact it was discussed at the time and in its own specific thread where pretty much the same thing was expressed.

The person who caused the situation in the first place did not act, immorally so. Others did not choose not to act, they were legally prevented from doing so and chose to obey the law. Except the second guy who also injured the girl.

To this date I have still not found a satisfactory answer to counter the utilitarianist argument that the maximisation of happiness is always the right, or "moral", thing to do.

The utilitarian argument is facile. It requires two wholly unsafe assumptions - that all people are equal in value and equal in potential - without any kind of metric for either (nor a reason who gets to judge or why). It uses those assumptions to conclude that the death of one person is better than the death of five for no good reason and wholly ignores the difference between the death of people and the murder of people.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Still on the moral theme, I found this test OK (most was not to good on the net):

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/moralityplay/Default.aspx

The utilitarian argument is facile. It requires two wholly unsafe assumptions - that all people are equal in value and equal in potential - without any kind of metric for either (nor a reason who gets to judge or why). It uses those assumptions to conclude that the death of one person is better than the death of five for no good reason and wholly ignores the difference between the death of people and the murder of people.

I believe the not my responsibility = moral is facile as well.
So lets take the murder out of the story.

You dedicate your life ("I legend" type) to fight an illness and you find the cure. You tests are conclusive, you can help everybody that has the illness.
However to save someone with blood type AB you need 100* more drugs to save them then anybody else. You also knowing that the medicine available will not be able to save everyone, no matter what choice you make.
To select patients to treat, will you take into account the blood type of your patient?

P.S.: Assumptions, you can not change the margin you make on the product and you can reach all patients with the same ease.

 

[Famine]

I believe the not my responsibility = moral is facile as well.

You can believe what you like. It has been pointed out with reason and logic repeatedly. If you choose to believe otherwise, that's your call.

So lets take the murder out of the story.

Yes, why not? In a discussion where the important distinction is taking action that kills someone compared to not taking action to prevent their death, why not completely ignore the distinction? That'll help.

You dedicate your life ("I legend" type) to fight an illness and you find the cure. You tests are conclusive, you can help everybody that has the illness.
However to save someone with blood type AB you need 100* more drugs to save them then anybody else. You also knowing that the medicine available will not be able to save everyone, no matter what choice you make.
To select patients to treat, will you take into account the blood type of your patient?

P.S.: Assumptions, you can not change the margin you make on the product and you can reach all patients with the same ease.

Umm... what?

 

[BobK]

Wow...this thread is still alive! Are we still on the trolley example or have we moved on? There's just one comment that caught my eye...



My response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqVYUzHc5L8

For some reason Youtube wants me to create an account, sign in and create a channel before viewing that video, which I am unwilling to do. Can someone give us a capsule summary of that the video is all about?

 

[Famine]

It's the two year old Chinese girl who is run over by a truck driver, twice, then run over by a second vehicle a little while later. China has an anti-good-samaritan law which effectively states that anyone who helps an injured party is assumed to be guilty of injuring them, so no-one does.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

You can believe what you like. It has been pointed out with reason and logic repeatedly. If you choose to believe otherwise, that's your call.[/b]

From looking at the topic on the internet there are 2 ways of looking at moral, the rule based or the result based. Yes the rule based is rule based (clearly logic). However the other one is not made obsolete by that as you seem to believe, it also has a reason (what is the best result) and a logic (what action to take to reach this result). I seem to use both, in-action has results, so there is a moral implication.

Yes, why not? In a discussion where the important distinction is taking action that kills someone compared to not taking action to prevent their death, why not completely ignore the distinction? That'll help.

Umm... what?

Indeed you do not get it: To state that it is moral not to save the 5 is wrong in my logic, it will always be.

I actually noticed that good sites never ask you which is the best solution or the moral solution, it only asks you if it is moral to turn the switch.

e.g.: http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/carneades/Default.aspx

You dedicate your life ("I legend" type) to fight an illness and you find the cure. You tests are conclusive, you can help everybody that has the illness.
However to save someone with blood type AB you need 100* more drugs to save them then anybody else. You also knowing that the medicine available will not be able to save everyone, no matter what choice you make.
To select patients to treat, will you take into account the blood type of your patient?

P.S.: Assumptions, you can not change the margin you make on the product and you can reach all patients with the same ease.

I see no issue to answer: To select patients to treat, will you take into account the blood type of your patient?

Yes, I would exclude people with type AB from the treatment and treat more people, that is a moral choice, without killing being involved.

 

[Famine]

From looking at the topic on the internet there are 2 ways of looking at moral, the rule based or the result based. Yes the rule based is rule based (clearly logic). However the other one is not made obsolete by that as you seem to believe, it also has a reason (what is the best result) and a logic (what action to take to reach this result). I seem to use both, in-action has results, so there is a moral implication.

*sigh* Still? Really?

The results aren't relevant. The "best" result is irrelevant and requires you to determine that "one person" is less than "five people" without any metric or reasoning. What's relevant is that if you act, you cause death but if you do not act, you do not cause death.

Indeed you do not get it.

I do not get what your hypothetical situation is aiming at. Aside from it being quite hard to read - which is understandable - it's unrealistic (researchers do not prescribe drugs) and appears not to be a choice at all as there's no outcome issues.

To state that it is moral not to save the 5 is wrong in my logic, it will always be.

It's five, 35 year old, unemployed, career benefits scroungers who are shouting expletives at you - and the one is a direct relative of yours who you love dearly.

This is why logic is not subjective and there's no such thing as "my" logic. It's according to your feelings that five people are more than one person based on the assumption that all people are of equal value and equal potential, despite the fact that they aren't and without an objective metric to reach that conclusion.

Acting to kill one is an act of you causing harm to another. Not acting to prevent the deaths of five is not an act of you causing harm to another. The former is immoral and the latter is not.

I actually noticed that good sites never ask you which is the best solution or the moral solution, it only asks you if it is moral to turn the switch.

Which it isn't. You are acting and you are causing death.

I see no issue to answer: To select patients to treat, will you take into account the blood type of your patient?

Yes, I would exclude people with type AB from the treatment and treat more people, that is a moral choice, without killing being involved.

If you do not act, all die but not from your actions. You are not to blame. If you act, some still die but not from your actions. You are not to blame. If you choose a different action, some still die but not from your actions. You are not to blame.

It's actions that cause others to come to harm that are immoral. So what's the problem in your unrealistic situation?

 

[BobK]

Murdering an innocent person is immoral, end of discussion IMO. Circumstances such as the trolley car problem don't change that one inescapable fact.

 

[Danoff]

Murdering an innocent person is immoral, end of discussion IMO. Circumstances such as the trolley car problem don't change that one inescapable fact.

This is why we don't negotiate with terrorists.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Lets clarify things a bit.

1) Out of the tests on the internet I found out I would not change the switch, but only marginally so.
2) Out of the test on killing it shows I always think killing is not a moral choice, no matter what the result.

Now the real issues I have with what you call logic:

It's five, 35 year old, unemployed, career benefits scroungers who are shouting expletives at you - and the one is a direct relative of yours who you love dearly.

This is why logic is not subjective and there's no such thing as "my" logic. It's according to your feelings that five people are more than one person based on the assumption that all people are of equal value and equal potential, despite the fact that they aren't and without an objective metric to reach that conclusion.

Since:
1) it is a human right to be seen as an individual.
2) since you have no objective metric to reach a conclusion that one is more then the any other

5 is more worth that 1. That is logic.

Not assuming that all people are of equal value and equal potential is called discrimination. I'm not saying that discrimination is not something that happens and can be moral (in competitive advantage etc...), it has no place in judging human rights and mostly the arguments used for discrimination are incorrect (nationalist movements in the past and current, apartheid, etc...).

It's actions that cause others to come to harm that are immoral.

No it is not.
Actions = responsibility
Actions and Results = morality

It is more moral (=good) to be a hero, but you have no responsibility to be a hero.

If you do not act, all die but not from your actions. You are not to blame. If you act, some still die but not from your actions. You are not to blame. If you choose a different action, some still die but not from your actions. You are not to blame.
....
So what's the problem in your unrealistic situation?

The case was just to prove this: "You do not get it"
What you talk about is responsibility and you are fully correct on what you say in the frame of responsibility. You can express this in black and white.

Moral is about what is what is good and bad, what a society accepts, it is a lot more about different shades then it is about black and white. My world is not black and white. Morality is not about responsibility it goes above that.

Moral questions are:
Is it good to exclude people from treatement (this is discrimination)?
Is it good to work on first come first served basis and let more people die then with other criteria?
These questions do not handle: are you responsible for them dying.

That is why the killing (a clear immoral act) is irrelevant on judging the other action as moral or not.

 

[Famine]

Now the real issues I have with what you call logic:

Since:
1) it is a human right to be seen as an individual.
2) since you have no objective metric to reach a conclusion that one is more then the any other

5 is more worth that 1. That is logic.

Oooh, so close. You're almost there. Two minor points are in your way. First, I'm not drawing any conclusion that one is more than any other. Second, you have no objective metric to reach a conclusion that five individuals are more than one.

Five people are not necessarily "more worth" than one. Nor is one person necessarily "more worth" than five. There is no possible objective way to reach a conclusion either way (so "5 is more worth than 1" is not logical) and better still, you are not permitted to make that judgement.

So that's the utilitarian argument right out of the window and we're left with "Kill people" or "Do not act". Again. Since "do not act" does not require you to harm people it is moral. Since "kill people" requires you to harm people it is immoral. Done.

Not assuming that all people are of equal value and equal potential is called discrimination.

Nope. It's called humanity. Assuming that all people are of equal value and potential is the foundation stone of socialism (and communism) and it fails because people are not of equal value and potential. We are a glorious mix of sizes, shapes, abilities, ambitions, intelligence, feelings and every possible parameter you can imagine - and some you can't.

Discrimination is something wholly different and not relevant to this current topic.

No it is not.

Yes it is. Established through logic and rationality. If you're going to refute that, do so. Don't just go "No it is not" - or every thread in this forum would simply consist of "Yes it is", "No it isn't".

Actions = responsibility
Actions and Results = morality

Tripe. Intending to kill someone innocent is immoral regardless of whether you succeed.

The case was just to prove this: "You do not get it"
What you talk about is responsibility and you are fully correct on what you say in the frame of responsibility. You can express this in black and white.

Moral is about what is what is good and bad, what a society accepts, it is a lot more about different shades then it is about black and white. My world is not black and white. Morality is not about responsibility it goes above that.

Moral questions are:
Is it good to exclude people from treatement (this is discrimination)?
Is it good to work on first come first served basis and let more people die then with other criteria?
These questions do not handle: are you responsible for them dying.

That is why the killing (a clear immoral act) is irrelevant on judging the other action as moral or not.

And again, tripe. Morality is independent of what a society accepts. Do we really have to remind you of the immorality and societal acceptance of slavery again? Really?

Your "hypothetical" shows that you do not get it. You've removed "kill people" from the equation because you don't see how "kill people" is different from "don't save people" - and have demonstrated this on numerous occasions - and simply want to ignore the distinction by pretending it isn't there. You then come up with a scenario where all possible conclusions are "don't save people" and pretend that because some conclusions involve fewer people not being saved, they are more correct which again uses the irrelevant and immoral utilitarian argument of the more the better.

Actions that cause harm to innocents are immoral. Inaction in preventing harm is not - the initial actions that caused the harm to come about are. Killing one person to save five is immoral. Not preventing five people from dying is not. Not preventing any number of people from dying is not.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

My conclusion is that the morality propagated by Famine is close to:If it is not my responsibility I do not care. => I see this as a valid morality.

However I do not agree you can call this the only valid morality.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Adapt the moral above and mine to the train case:

If it is not my responsibility I do not care:
1) Kill is immoral
2) Not save 5 is moral
Obvious choice, I choose 2)

If it is not my responsibility I look at the result:
1) Kill is immoral
2) Not save 5 is immoral
Not obvious choice, I choose 2) since killing is an act I do not want do ever.

Different morality with very similar values and results.

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

Next case (to help progress, I'm conscious what comes next):

A mother in the process of giving birth arrives at a hospital. The mother and the child are dying. The doctor concludes he can only safe one, even if trying to safe both.

options:

1) The doctor does not intervene and lets both die.
2) The doctor discriminates between the 2. She tries to save first the one that has most worth and then the other.

I can not call the first intervention moral, but the second one I can, so 2 is an obvious choice for me in this case. The doctor does not have responsibility to do 1 or 2 in my view of human rights.

PS: I believe that a reference to a definition as the link above and explaining that a pure utilitarian view "producing the greatest good as the goal of morality" without taking responsibility for individual acts can not be defended as a morality; would have reduced discussion. This in no means is equivalent to "If it is not my responsibility I do not care" is the only option.

 

[Famine]

My conclusion is that the morality propagated by Famine is close to:If it is not my responsibility I do not care.

Then you are flat wrong. If you absolutely have to have it broken down to a soundbite, try:

You are under no moral obligation to help or save anyone if you caused them no injury. That doesn't mean you can't choose to do so, just that you are not morally required to. The act of doing so is called "kindness" - unless mandated by some law or other legality requiring you to help others, and then it's called law-abiding.

However I do not agree you can call this the only valid morality.

As repeatedly described to you, it is the only one that can be arrived at from earlier absolutes with logic.

Next case (to help progress, I'm conscious what comes next):

A mother in the process of giving birth arrives at a hospital. The mother and the child are dying. The doctor concludes he can only safe one, even if trying to safe both.

options:

1) The doctor does not intervene and lets both die.
2) The doctor discriminates between the 2. She tries to save first the one that has most worth and then the other.

I can not call the first intervention moral, but the second one I can, so 2 is an obvious choice for me in this case. The doctor does not have responsibility to do 1 or 2 in my view of human rights.

Another ludicrous example. The doctor triages and tries to save the one with the best chance of survival. The doctor is not the killer of whichever individuals die. As with your previous ludicrous pharmacology example there is no outcome which requires the individual to kill another. Both are contrary to the trolley problem which has one - immoral - outcome requiring the individual to kill another and another - moral - outcome that requires the individual to do no harm whatsoever.

 

[Danoff]

5 is more worth that 1. That is logic.

Subjective. This assumes more people are worth more than one person. Each individual's worth is impossible to evaluate objectively, and so we must treat all people equally and we can also not determine multiple people more valuable than one. One person's rights are to be considered of infinite worth (because we can't measure it objectively), multiplying the number of people arrives at the same value.

Not assuming that all people are of equal value and equal potential is called discrimination.

There is nothing that says people are of equal potential or equal value. What we know is that we do not know the value or potential of the people involved - and so we cannot assume that 5 people are worth more than 1 (or the other way around).

 

[Dapper]

There is nothing that says people are of equal potential or equal value.

You said. In fact, that is how you, not me, objectively reason humans' rights. Do elaborate please.

 

[Danoff]

You said. In fact, that is how you, not me, objectively reason humans' rights. Do elaborate please.

Each individual's worth is impossible to evaluate objectively, and so we must treat all people equally and we can also not determine multiple people more valuable than one.

This is in regards to rights alone... not all human behavior.

 

[Dapper]

A Harvard study asked: You and 5 others are in the arctic all wearing electric warming suits that are all electrically connected while outside away from shelter working. One person develops an electrical short and is draining the power source that is keeping everyone warm. You are the only one that notices (I think this was part of the scenario), and you are left with 2 choices. You can do nothing and everyone will die from the extreme cold, or you can cut the one person out of the circuit so there is enough power to keep you and the 4 others warm until you get back to the shelter leaving the one person to die. What do you do?

Edit-
http://moral.wjh.harvard.edu/index2.html
Here is the link to the study/quiz. Beware that there are several paths the study may take you on. My mom took it and it gave her a different set of questions/scenarios than me, but I don't know if it is all random or what. But go enough times and you'll get the trolley-esque questions.

 

[Danoff]

Took the test - which appears to be written by people who do not understand morality at all. Often the key ingredient is left out of the question - indicating that the person who wrote the question did not understand the important information. I did not get the question about the electric warming suits, but it suffers from a the same complaint I had with the rest of the test.

What caused the short? The answer may depend on that. "You don't know" leads to a different answer than "You did" or "The guy did" or "Someone else did". Regardless, it would be moral to cut yourself out of the circuit to save the others. There are other moral options depending on the answer to "what caused the short".