Human Rights

[Dapper]

What caused the short?

How does this matter if was by accident or no malice was involved? I think that is assumed in the questions. But you're right, I think, it should say. Do you mind paraphrasing a scenario you got? And the answer you gave?

 

[Wolf-M]

I haven't gone through the other discussion and I must confess I know nothing about the incident apart from watching the Youtube clip and reading some related newspaper reports.

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.

Are you sure that there is such a law in China? This is the first time I've heard of this; my intuitive feeling is that something is lost in translation. It cannot be right that the law prevents citizens from helping others. It simply cannot be (even in Communist China).


Reality aside, what if, hypothetically, there were no such legal restrictions in place? (Even though I thought that it is agreed that morality transcends law and a law-abiding act may still count as "immoral").

Would the indifference manifested by the passing pedestrians (ie their inaction) amount to an immoral act?

Pretty cruel-hearted, if not outright despicable, behaviour. Hard to say that the inaction here fails to fall within the ambit of "immorality", in my opinion.

Or would you boldly argue that their cold-bloodedness, or non-feasance to be precise, in such context, is morally defensible? This proposition necessarily follows from your statement that one is not morally required to help others.

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.

But isn't your objection also a subjective one? That we assume the value of human beings to be infinite, that it cannot be compromised under any circumstances? How are we to prove that? (Not that I disagree with this view; it is however a value-judgment more than anything to do with logic or the like).

 

[Danoff]

Do you mind paraphrasing a scenario you got? And the answer you gave?

Well there was a question about carpet bombing during wartime - whether it is moral to use heavy-handed techniques that will kill civilians to end the war. That entirely depends on the origins of the war (not given) and the nature of the civilians and their government (not given). Can civilians be treated as combatants (eg: Japan during WWII)? Did your country start the war? Did the other country start the war?

I also got a vaccine question where you were asked whether you should tell the government to use a vaccine to stop a deadly virus even though you know it will cause some (fewer) deaths. The question left it ambiguous whether this was a government recommendation with the warning attached for voluntary vaccine usage or whether this was a government mandate requiring all citizens to take the vaccine. Totally changes the answer.

Edit:

In both cases I made assumptions to be able to answer the questions. In the wartime question I assumed that your country was in the right (in terms of the origins of the war) and that the government you were attacking would force civilians into fighting against you and marked it moral to carpet bomb.

In the vaccine question I assumed that it was a government mandate that people must use the vaccine and marked it immoral.

 

[Dotini]

a general question:

Do children a right to parents? More specifically, do children have a right to a mother and a father?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Danoff]

a general question:

Do children a right to parents? More specifically, do children have a right to a mother and a father?

What do you mean by that? Do children have a right to care? Or do children specifically have a right to two individuals being responsible for them that are comprised of 1 male and 1 female?

 

[Famine]

Are you sure that there is such a law in China? This is the first time I've heard of this; my intuitive feeling is that something is lost in translation. It cannot be right that the law prevents citizens from helping others. It simply cannot be (even in Communist China).

Yet it is. There have been multiple cases of "good samaritans" being prosecuted, fined and jailed on this basis - that only the guilty try to help.

Amusingly, there's talk of replacing the law with another one that makes it a criminal offence to not help someone requiring it... Ugh.

Reality aside, what if, hypothetically, there were no such legal restrictions in place? (Even though I thought that it is agreed that morality transcends law and a law-abiding act may still count as "immoral").

Would the indifference manifested by the passing pedestrians (ie their inaction) amount to an immoral act?

Pretty cruel-hearted, if not outright despicable, behaviour. Hard to say that the inaction here fails to fall within the ambit of "immorality", in my opinion.

Or would you boldly argue that their cold-bloodedness, or non-feasance to be precise, in such context, is morally defensible? This proposition necessarily follows from your statement that one is not morally required to help others.

As remarked at the time, no-one is required to help others. Those who do perform an act known as "kindness" and can be considered good people - unless it's made law to help, in which case there's no such thing as kindness in those situations and there's no good people, just criminals and the law-abiding.

But isn't your objection also a subjective one? That we assume the value of human beings to be infinite, that it cannot be compromised under any circumstances? How are we to prove that? (Not that I disagree with this view; it is however a value-judgment more than anything to do with logic or the like).

Their innateness (is that a word? Meh) does this for us.

 

[Wolf-M]

Their innateness (is that a word? Meh) does this for us.

This is truly the trump card, the ultimate argument

 

[Dotini]

What do you mean by that? Do children have a right to care? Or do children specifically have a right to two individuals being responsible for them that are comprised of 1 male and 1 female?

Either, but I was thinking more on the lines of the latter.

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[Tesla]

I wouldn't say they neccessarily do. While it is beneficial to a child to have someone to nurture them - throughout younger life especially - this means they will eventually inherit some of their parent's viewpoints on some things (religion being a major example here) rather than making their own unbiased and informed decision on such matters. While this isn't true in all cases (my parents never talked to me about it, and while they were both christians I was never forced or encouraged to go to church) it certainly applies in a majority from what I've experienced.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Another ludicrous example.

To say it is irrelevant to you does not make it less relevant to me. It actually helped me to some insights and that is the relevance of discussion. Attitude can block discussion and does not add value. But this is not my problem.

Sorry but the story was the best way I thought about the problem formulation at the time.

What I wanted to know:
1) Is it most important to "Not act"
2) Is it most important you improved the situation.
3) You do not care.

Issues I have using the "I'm not responsible I do not care" moral (I still believe this closest to basic consequentialist moral reasoning, see reference in link below):
1) If you let 2 die where 1 could be saved (=not act is important), you are creating a society that states to people it is bad to be a hero. This is a contradiction, hero is good by definition.
2) it most important you improved the situation: this is the utilitarian view, so not coherent with the "I'm not responsible I do not care" moral
3) This is coherent with the "I'm not responsible I do not care" moral. It goes again against my moral that you have to assume your choices.

So mapping this to culture:
1) Apathic: as long as I can not be held responsible, I don´t care about the others.
2) Altruistic: I try to help the community and put myself at risk for this.
3) Anarchistic: I do not care as long as it does not violate Human rights.

-------------------------------------
From my understanding out of the discussion (documenting this is an essential step, too often skipped):

Found this reference that basically confirms all views: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

The question then is only whether any moral constraints or moral options need to be added to the basic consequentialist factor in moral reasoning. (Kagan 1989, 1998) If no objection reveals any need for anything beyond consequences, then consequences alone seem to determine what is morally right or wrong.

The arguments used against what I said were "basic consequentialist moral reasoning" and this is correct in most cases.

To dismiss cases that do not fit "basic consequentialist moral reasoning" is just confirming that it fails and that there is a cultural view needed on top. This means still to me that it is no universal moral, there is a cultural part in a moral, but " If no objection reveals any need for anything beyond consequences, then consequences alone determine what is morally right or wrong." and that is a universal principle.


We actually only disagree on wording (nothing to do with the logic):

In my view you can not say that:
Letting 5 people die where you can prevent it is a moral choice.

However you can say that:
In a case where there is 1 option that clearly violates Human rights and there is an other option that does not violate Human rights, the choice is obvious, the one that does not violate the Human rights.

I repeat in my moral:
Letting 5 people die where you can prevent it is an immoral choice.
However this might be the best choice available.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

a general question:

Do children a right to parents? More specifically, do children have a right to a mother and a father?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

It is turning things around.

There is not Human right on having parents.

There are however social implications:
1) Parents that act to have children have the responsibility to care for them till they are independent. When you are considered independent is cultural.
2) Society can accept that people do contribute (taxes or gifts to not public organisations) to institutions that give children care when no one else can provide it. God Mother and God Father systems are an other solution to this. But all are social rights; that provide care to all children in that society.
3) The father, mother situation is no a right. e.g.: You can not have legal proceedings against anyone when your father dies, based on the the fact that your mother takes up her responsibility alone.

Now a lot more tricky.
Forcing your mother to have a new relationship would be against her social right on "freedom to associate with the other humans as you like". Your parents gave up the right not to associate to you by creating you.
Why do I not call this a Human right, it is a right you only get when you become independent. A dependent child can does not have the right to choose all by itself independently, to distance itself from its parents and choose other "better" parents, but it can ask it by law.

 

[Famine]

To say it is irrelevant to you does not make it less relevant to me.

I didn't. I said it was ludicrous, because it has no basis in reality (doctors are trained to triage - to treat those who need it most and to concentrate on those with the best chance of survival). It also bears no relation to what the issue you have with the trolley problem is, because there is no option to act to kill. The same was true of your equally ludicrous pharmacologist hypothetical - unrealistic and a different issue.

Acting to kill is immoral. You've decided you have a problem with this and thus removed it from discussion. If you were unwilling to discuss it, why not just say so and save time?

Issues I have using the "I'm not responsible I do not care" moral (I still believe this closest to basic consequentialist moral reasoning, see reference in link below)

So I pointed out where this was wrong, why this was wrong, provided you with a soundbite alternative and you're still peddling this crap?

1) If you let 2 die where 1 could be saved (=not act is important), you are creating a society that states to people it is bad to be a hero. This is a contradiction, hero is good by definition.

Flat wrong. If you murder one rather than not saving two, you are creating a society that states all people are of equal value and potential, that there is no reason to improve yourself or the world around you - as you will always been of equal value as someone else who didn't bother - and that the murder of an innocent is acceptable when weighed against larger numbers. This is the end point of the utilitarian view and this is a society we would call stagnant and fascist.

2) it most important you improved the situation: this is the utilitarian view, so not coherent with the "I'm not responsible I do not care" moral

Flat wrong. It is most important you do not act immorally. Murder is immoral.

3) This is coherent with the "I'm not responsible I do not care" moral. It goes again against my moral that you have to assume your choices.

I have no idea what this actually means, but I note you say "my moral" as if it's subjective. Again.

So mapping this to culture:
1) Apathic: as long as I can not be held responsible, I don´t care about the others.
2) Altruistic: I try to help the community and put myself at risk for this.
3) Anarchistic: I do not care as long as it does not violate Human rights.

You can sum it up much more easily, particularly if you understand the problem.

• Immoral - I would murder an innocent to prevent harm coming to more people.
• Moral - I would not murder an innocent.
• Amoral - I don't care. What's for tea?

Your hypotheticals which have no "Immoral" option miss the point by a very, very wide margin.

Aaaaand we're still where we were in October - you're still trying to find a way to say that it's not moral to let five people die. Hey, no-one likes to see anyone die, but you're arguing in favour of the immoral choice (murder) over the moral one (inaction) in a two option system. There is no simpler way of saying this than:

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

 

[Vince_Fiero]

It also bears no relation to what the issue you have with the trolley problem is, because there is no option to act to kill.

I have no issue with the trolley problem. You made that up, that is your issue, nothing to do with me.

Acting to kill is immoral.

That was clear to both of us from the beginning.

You've decided you have a problem with this

No, you have decided I have a problem with this, again nothing to do with me.

and thus removed it from discussion. If you were unwilling to discuss it, why not just say so and save time?

There is no added value in discussing it, since we agree. You keep bringing it back and I agree with your point. I do see any value in discussing the point we agree upon.

you're still peddling this crap?

You stating this is crap does not bring any logic or extra value to the discussion.

If you murder one rather than not saving

By bringing murder in the equation you avoid again working on the issues I have. This does not help progress on the issues I have.

I have no idea what this actually means, but I note you say "my moral" as if it's subjective. Again.

This point might get my issues to progress. I stated there is a universal part to the moral = not violate human rights. But there are moral questions that are answered by this and how you fill that in is cultural. I do not impose my culture to others, so it is my moral.

Your hypotheticals which have no "Immoral" option miss the point by a very, very wide margin.

That is your point. Again nothing to do with me.
My issue is that moral goes above the choice where Human rights are violated, I just wanted to make that clear.

Aaaaand we're still where we were in October -

In my opinion, it is not me who is stagnating. I just persist to explain my point. Sorry if I'm clumsy with words.

you're still trying to find a way to say that it's not moral to let five people die. Hey, no-one likes to see anyone die,

It was clear to me that you also agree on this, it is moral to save people when you can save them. So also no point in discussing this further.

but you're arguing in favour of the immoral choice (murder) over the moral one (inaction) in a two option system.

That I m "arguing in favour of the immoral choice (murder)" is only in your head. Nothing to do with me.

I argue that both have to be expressed as immoral. That the murder is against human rights and thus the wrong choice has nothing to do with the fact that the other option is immoral. That is why I keep removing the murder out of cases, the murder in it only takes the attention away from my point.

P.S. Famine if you intend to quote where you got the conclusions from above where I state "it has nothing to do with me" I think it is best to do this in a personal message. I really believe it is irrelevant to the progress in this thread.

 

[Famine]

In my opinion, it is not me who is stagnating.

That the murder is against human rights and thus the wrong choice has nothing to do with the fact that the other option is immoral.

Oh look. Exactly where we were in October - with you insisting that not acting when morality does not require it is immoral because some people die through the acts of another. And you're not the one who is "stagnating"? Please.

You're just simply flat refusing to recognise that inaction is not action. Still. As you were back in October. That it is moral to act to prevent harm or theft (you may intervene if you choose), that it is moral not to act to prevent harm or theft (you are not required to intervene) and that it is immoral to act to cause harm or theft (you may not injure or take from an innocent). That not acting to prevent harm so you don't act to cause harm is moral (not murdering one to save five), but that acting to cause harm so you don't act to prevent harm is immoral (murdering one to save five). And no, we're not taking murder out of the equation to suit - it's part of it.

It really is that simple. We've been all round the houses over the nature of whether inaction is an act (it isn't), whether five people are automatically more than one person (they aren't), whether morality is subjective (it isn't) and you've even reached the point of utterly misrepresenting the fact that it is not immoral to not act by pretending it means "I'm not responsible I do not care" despite repeated points that it's only in the case where morality is observed rather than legally requiring people to act or refrain from acting that you find out where the good people are

Acting to kill is immoral. Not acting and allowing harm is not immoral.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

And no, we're not taking murder out of the equation to suit - it's part of it.

I you want to include murder in the formulation below, it is only to suit your own purpose. Repeating that it is part of it does not make that more true.

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

Maybe a focus and reformulation like this can explain my issue better:


Something is moral when it is not called immoral according to your morality.

"To let 5 people die when you can prevent this"
is immoral in my morality since it opposes my rule:

It is the right thing to help others. (This is based on the fact that I would hope they would help me whenever they can).

Since this is fully logic to me and I do not see a logic that refutes it, I still believe I will repeat it till I die. Yes that is stagnation, but correct things are correct till proven otherwise.

Remark: it does not give me rights on the help of others, it does not make the others responsible to provide me help, it is just a moral rule.
========================================================

"To let 5 people die when you can prevent this"

can be moral if you say that you have no rule to make this immoral. This can be a valid moral, since no human right is violated in the statement above.

I actually saw an other alternative formulation: "It is a the right thing to help others, but this is purely optional."

Although this can be yet an other valid moral, the basis for the "but this is purely optional" is against my moral "you have to assume your choices" and this makes for me "but this is purely optional" an immoral statement, thus can not be part of my moral.
=======================================================

Now the inconsistency I see.

whether morality is subjective (it isn't)

This is your opinion and tells a lot more about you then about anything else. Actually the failure to recognize that your own culture guides your decisions and that other correct ones exist is according to me the most common justification for unfairly judging others.

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

Apart from containing some prohibitions on harming some others, different moralities can differ from each other quite extensively.

Seems to be refuted by you, but I did not see any logic behind that refute, except "My logic is the only valid", "there must be a black and white view" or "there has to be a universal law". All these are cultural aspects that can be defended, but that does not make them universal law. In my culture there is plenty of diversity within morals. The definition of language, like the term "moral" is actually cultural as well, that is why discussion on the term itself is needed to clarify your view.

As remarked at the time, no-one is required to help others. Those who do perform an act known as "kindness" and can be considered good people.

The above quote states that kindness is good. I see no logic in having a moral judgement "good" and saying this is not included in your moral, accept for infringing "you have to assume your choices". That the latter is not part of your moral, does not make it wrong, that I have it in my moral does not make it universal.

 

[dylansan]

"To let 5 people die when you can prevent this"
is immoral in my morality since it opposes my rule:

It is the right thing to help others. (This is based on the fact that I would hope they would help me whenever they can).

Since this is fully logic to me and I do not see a logic that refutes it, I still believe I will repeat it till I die.

So it is immoral to not help others? Every time you don't help someone, that is immoral? Because that would mean every second that you're helping someone, every penny you own that you don't donate, you are committing an immoral act, by your own definition.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Pretty cruel-hearted, if not outright despicable, behaviour. Hard to say that the inaction here fails to fall within the ambit of "immorality", in my opinion.

A good example, immorality can be your opinion, but only if it does not infringe the human rights of others.
However that it is immoral according to you does not make it any responsibility for the others to act. They are indeed 2 different subjects.

But isn't your objection also a subjective one? That we assume the value of human beings to be infinite, that it cannot be compromised under any circumstances? How are we to prove that? (Not that I disagree with this view; it is however a value-judgment more than anything to do with logic or the like).

I think this is a view that should be supported, yes it makes sense to us, but we recognize that it is subjective.

The answer:

Famine
Their innateness (is that a word? Meh) does this for us.

I had to look this up:

in·nate; adjective(of a quality, feeling, etc.) that you have when you are born
SYN inborn:

So a confirmation that it is subjective, a feeling. Something that can not be defended as a universal logic.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

So it is immoral to not help others? Every time you don't help someone, that is immoral? Because that would mean every second that you're helping someone, every penny you own that you don't donate, you are committing an immoral act, by your own definition.

I understand this is the most difficult part of my morality to accept.

Yes at this moment I make a lot of immoral choices, people I could help and do not help. This is because my first responsibility as an adult is to take care of myself, it is not my responsibility to take care of the others. I assume my immoral choices (not helping others), and I assume that the moral choice I make (helping myself) I make it since it covers my responsibilities.

Behind this is Bounded Rationality (Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences 1978 Herbert A. Simon "for his pioneering research into the decision-making process within economic organizations"):

Concept that decision makers (irrespective of their level of intelligence) have to work under three unavoidable constraints: (1) only limited, often unreliable, information is available regarding possible alternatives and their consequences, (2) human mind has only limited capacity to evaluate and process the information that is available, and (3) only a limited amount of time is available to make a decision. Therefore even individuals who intend to make rational choices are bound to make satisficing (rather than maximizing or optimizing) choices in complex situations.

 

[Famine]

I you want to include murder in the formulation below, it is only to suit your own purpose. Repeating that it is part of it does not make that more true.

It. Is. Part. Of. The. Issue. It doesn't go away because Vince_Fiero decides it's unhelpful and he wants to ignore it.

Maybe a focus and reformulation like this can explain my issue better:

Sure, let's reword everything so it says exactly the same thing all over again. That'll help

Something is moral when it is not called immoral according to your morality.

Wrong. There is no such thing as "my" morality. Again. Morality is objective. Again. You're pretending otherwise. Again.

"To let 5 people die when you can prevent this"
is immoral in my morality

"Your" morality is irrelevant. It is not immoral to allow any person or people to die.

since it opposes my rule:

"Your" rule is irrelevant to morality.

Since this is fully logic to me

"Your" logic is irrelevant. Logic is objective. There is no subjective logic, only misapplication or correct application from an unsound premise ("your" logic).

and I do not see a logic that refutes it

The right to live is not the right not to die. No logic requires you to uphold a non-existant right.

Remark: it does not give me rights on the help of others, it does not make the others responsible to provide me help, it is just a moral rule.

Morality (objective) is based on the logical (objective) support of rights (objective). It cannot be a "moral rule" to support non-existant rights. It cannot be a "moral rule" for you to act in one way but others to act a different way - you have a right to live and others have a right to live. You have no obligation to prevent them from dying and they have no obligation to prevent you from dying.

This is your opinion

No it isn't. Morality is objective. If it were subjective, anyone could perform any act and cite their own morality as justification for it without penalty.

All these are cultural aspects that can be defended, but that does not make them universal law. In my culture there is plenty of diversity within morals. The definition of language, like the term "moral" is actually cultural as well, that is why discussion on the term itself is needed to clarify your view.

Law is irrelevant. Culture is irrelevant. These are subjective terms and ideas. Morality is objective.

The above quote states that kindness is good. I see no logic in having a moral judgement "good" and saying this is not included in your moral

"Good" (and "Evil") is not a moral judgement - and there's no such thing as a "moral judgement", as judging requires subjectivity. "Moral", "Immoral" and "Amoral" are terms of morality. If someone chooses to run out into the road to push a baby out of the way of a truck, they are not acting according to morality but according to an inbuilt desire to prevent harm coming to the innocent*.


And we're still back at October, where you're trying to find a way to claim that allowing five people to die is immoral and thus equally as bad as the immoral act of murdering someone.

I wonder... would you have the same problem if we reduced the innocents in the trolley problem to one each side? Do not act and one innocent dies, pull the switch and one innocent is murdered by you...

* Of course the truck driver might see the baby and swerve to avoid it, running it over as the good samaritan pushes it to a different place. Through the good samaritan's desire to prevent harm, he's performed an action which unwittingly caused harm, as has the truck driver. Through their actions, the child dies and had neither acted the child would have lived. Both are responsible for the child's death, but neither has offended against morality - just as neither acted according to it to prevent the child's death. Have fun with that one.

I had to look this up:

So a confirmation that it is subjective, a feeling. Something that can not be defended as a universal logic.

What utter crap. Did you even read the definition you quoted? "Innate" means "that you have when you are born" according to what you quoted. It cited examples of "a quality" or "a feeling", in that a quality can be innate and a feeling can be innate. It didn't say "innate means a feeling". Now you're even misrepresenting language.


I'm done with you. If all you want to do is misrepresent everything until you come up a way of showing you're right, there is no point engaging with you - you'll just pretend what anyone says means what you pretend it does.

 

[BobK]

So let me get this straight, in clear, unambiguous terms. According to Vince_Fiero, there are circumstances under which it is okay to murder an innocent person. Correct?

Simple yes-or-no question.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

So let me get this straight, in clear, unambiguous terms. According to Vince_Fiero, there are circumstances under which it is okay to murder an innocent person. Correct?

Simple yes-or-no question.

no

Sorry but there is a level that you can not simplify below:
This reference: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

There is a basic statement: "basic consequentialist factor in moral reasoning" makes you responsible for your acts, so if you kill you are a killer, always.

Your statement would defend a utilitarian view without responsibility for personal acts, that can not be defended.

However this is not all:

The question then is only whether any moral constraints or moral options need to be added to the basic consequentialist factor in moral reasoning. (Kagan 1989, 1998) If no objection reveals any need for anything beyond consequences, then consequences alone seem to determine what is morally right or wrong.

I'm done with you. If all you want to do is misrepresent everything until you come up a way of showing you're right, there is no point engaging with you - you'll just pretend what anyone says means what you pretend it does.

Sadly enough I share the feeling.

 

[Famine]

In one post he manages to misrepresent BobK and himself. Priceless.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

In one post he manages to misrepresent BobK and himself. Priceless.

Sorry do not get it.

Statement of BobK:

According to Vince_Fiero, there are circumstances under which it is okay to murder an innocent person.

Do you not agree: That statement would defend a utilitarian view without responsibility for personal acts, that can not be defended?

Your reaction above confirms that there is a reciprocal feeling:

I'm done with you. If all you want to do is misrepresent everything until you come up a way of showing you're right, there is no point engaging with you - you'll just pretend what anyone says means what you pretend it does.

 

[Wolf-M]

As regards Vince Fiero's conclusion that morality is subjective, I have to say that I agree with it - in fact that was my intention when I agreed that morality is "innate".

Famine is certainly not the first one to make such suggestion: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law ; search for the word "reason"


But what is natural, or innate, to me is not what is also natural or innate to another person.

The assumption that there is one eternal golden truth somewhere out there in the wild that is for us to "re-discover" by virtue of human reasoning is a fairy tale, if I may say so.

It certainly does not appear to everyone that the proposition advanced by Famine is the only correct answer; hence this discussion.

Many more examples: abortion, euthanasia etc

Morality has to be subjective.

[Famine] No it isn't. Morality is objective. If it were subjective, anyone could perform any act and cite their own morality as justification for it without penalty.

I would think that it's the opposite. Anyone can perform any act and cite their own morality as justification for it. With impunity or not, that is a matter for the law not morality.

[Bobk] So let me get this straight, in clear, unambiguous terms. According to Vince_Fiero, there are circumstances under which it is okay to murder an innocent person. Correct?

Simple yes-or-no question.

It is not that straightforward. As a matter of law, there are common law jurisdictions that recognise (correct me if I'm wrong) necessity as a defence to murder.

As a matter of morality, one may just cite necessity (for the protection of one's or another's well being) as a justification for killing an innocent party. (http://www.nullapoena.de/stud/explorers.html if you haven't read this before)

Whether or not you agree with it, or find it persuasive, naturally, is your own opinion, an opinion shaped by your global view of what is wrong or right.

 

[Famine]

As regards Vince Fiero's conclusion that morality is subjective, I have to say that I agree with it - in fact that was my intention when I agreed that morality is "innate".

Rights are innate. Morality is the logical extrapolation of rights, regarding acts that do or do not violate them. Since Rights are innate and immutable (equal in regards that they are inviolable - thus infinite, denying utilitarianism) and morality is the logical extrapolation of the application of acts regarding them, morality is as objective as logic and the rights themselves.

Rights are absolute. Acts that offend them are immoral, acts that respect them are moral.

But what is natural, or innate, to me is not what is also natural or innate to another person.

Except rights. And thus morality.

I would think that it's the opposite. Anyone can perform any act and cite their own morality as justification for it. With impunity or not, that is a matter for the law not morality.

That would be "legal penalty".

It is not that straightforward. As a matter of law, there are common law jurisdictions that recognise (correct me if I'm wrong) necessity as a defence to murder.

Law regards all acts of deliberate killing to be murder. Law accepts reasoned arguments that permit an act of deliberate killing - always a conflict of rights, or threatened conflict of rights - as a defence to murder.

Morality regards all acts of deliberate killing to be murder. Logic permits morality to accept as moral an act of deliberate killing - always a conflict of rights, or threatened conflict of rights - as a justification for murder.


In the "trolley problem" there is no conflict of rights nor threatened conflict of rights and there is no defence nor justification to murder. Here's an example that is morally justified (under "threatened conflict of rights") and, fortunately, legally justified too (not in the UK - the cop that fired the round would never work as a cop again).

 

[Vince_Fiero]

It is not that straightforward. As a matter of law, there are common law jurisdictions that recognise (correct me if I'm wrong) necessity as a defence to murder.

I would still call it immoral to kill, even in self defense.
The fact that the other one is violating the Human rights of others, makes that there are arguments to say their human rights can be infringed upon. But who are we to decide which level of human rights can be infringed?
Sometimes there is not other choice than defend yourself.
I see it as a human right that you can defend your human rights, but not by all means.

As a matter of morality, one may just cite necessity (for the protection of one's or another's well being) as a justification for killing an innocent party. (http://www.nullapoena.de/stud/explorers.html if you haven't read this before)

I would still call it immoral to kill.
In the link (I only read a part) one of the issues is that one person did not agree with the time of the procedure of killing someone for the others to feed upon. I would have waited till all agree or one died naturally or someone volunteered. Not act and let people die, might be immoral to me, but killing is a rule I would not pass over.

 

[Biggles]

Rights are innate. Morality is the logical extrapolation of rights, regarding acts that do or do not violate them. Since Rights are innate and immutable (equal in regards that they are inviolable - thus infinite, denying utilitarianism) and morality is the logical extrapolation of the application of acts regarding them, morality is as objective as logic and the rights themselves.

Ah! That's settled then! No point in further discussion. Thank you for cutting through centuries of philosophical inquiry & giving us the correct answer. 👍

 

[Famine]

Always a pleasure.

 

[Danoff]

It certainly does not appear to everyone that the proposition advanced by Famine is the only correct answer; hence this discussion.

Lack of agreement does not mean there is no correct answer - or that the answer provided is incorrect. People still think the world is flat, the fact that they disagree is not proof that there is no answer to the question "is the world flat?". There is an objective answer (given a reference frame), and that objective answer is correct and indisputable regardless of whether everyone agrees.

Many more examples: abortion, euthanasia etc

There are correct answers to these issues.

Morality has to be subjective.

On the contrary, subjectivity means it has no meaning whatsoever. If what is moral to you is not moral to me, morality means nothing at all. It is simply an emotional justification that differs from person to person and has no bearing on what anyone else should think about any action.

By contrast, morality has to be objective to be meaningfully discussed between individuals. The only objective meaning for morality that I have ever found is to describe acts that are in concurrence with human rights (also objective). Any other definition of morality is not worth discussing because it holds no rational meaning to anyone, and only even holds irrational meaning to the person doing the talking.

I would still call it immoral to kill, even in self defense.

What possible basis do you have for this statement other than it feels icky to you?

Objectively, when someone initiates force against you they have forfeited their own rights. This makes it moral (an action within the bounds of human rights) to use force to defend yourself.

But who are we to decide which level of human rights can be infringed?

We're human beings with brains that can grasp logic.

Sometimes there is not other choice than defend yourself.

There is always a choice.

I see it as a human right that you can defend your human rights, but not by all means.

What means do you think are morally acceptable to defend your rights and what basis do you have for determining that those means are acceptable? Why do you think that deadly force is unacceptable? Please use objective reasoning to establish this as, otherwise, there is no reason for anyone else to subscribe to this notion.

 

[Wolf-M]

I do not understand why it has to be insisted that there can be only one universal answer - I thought I had demonstrated the opposite a year ago when I first joined the debate but apparently I failed.

This matter is no different from debating whether God exists.

By arguing that there is ONE set of morality applicable to each and every scenario, you are ignoring the many other sets of moral codes/views that exist in this world.

Maybe one should look up the definition of morality before going further on? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
("a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code")


While some may have expressed their own views of what is right and what is wrong, that does not make it the only truth out there, so to speak.

Different people subscribe to different values.

Isn't that obvious in the first place? The ignorance and disparagement of other systems of belief, values, to the extent of asserting that others must be wrong, not only wrong as a matter of personal opinion, but wrong as a matter of universal principle, is the cause of animosity and conflicts across the world.


Yes, I would boldly say, that there is no point in arguing morality as a philosophical subject. Why is the case that for hundreds of years we are simply recycling the arguments from Aristotle to J S Mill, David Hume, Jock Locke etc and the like? Because one can, at most, construct a worldview of morality that is not susceptible to logical flaws or self-defeating arguments But that is the end - we cannot prove or disprove the validity of the moral arguments , to use terms of "logic" as some here become so obsessed with.'

There is no logic in morality; only personal opinion.