Human Rights

[Danoff]

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.

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.

.

 

[Dapper]

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.

What you are missing is morality does mean nothing. That is why we have laws, which are objective. Everyone has different morals, this is a fact and has been verified through testing... just like you and I have different views on the trolley scenario. Morality is subjective.

 

[Wolf-M]

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.
.

Read the book/watch the film The Oxford Murders. It'll answer your question.


And come on, where on earth did you provide me with an argumemt proving that rights are self-evident?

Wasn't all that you did was to make an assertion?

And because you think your assertion is right therefore it is universal truth?

.......sigh

 

[Danoff]

What you are missing is morality does mean nothing. That is why we have laws, which are objective. Everyone has different morals, this is a fact and has been verified through testing... just like you and I have different views on the trolley scenario. Morality is subjective.

See above.

The basis of law is not always objective, it is often based on popularity. The only morality I recognize is defined as acts that are consistent with human rights. That definition makes it objective. Any subjective definition by its very nature applies irrationally and only to the person doing the talking - so it is meaningless for everyone else and applies to no situation involving human interaction.

And come on, where on earth did you provide me with an argumemt proving that rights are self-evident?

"Might makes right" requires a subjective evaluation that the ability to produce force is objectively superior to the lack of ability to produce force. Since there is no objective basis for "might makes right", we are left with "all men are created equal". That equality results in the inability to justly initiate force. That establishes rights - and it is pure reason, not opinion.

 

[Wolf-M]

"Might makes right" requires a subjective evaluation that the ability to produce force is objectively superior to the lack of ability to produce force. Since there is no objective basis for "might makes right", we are left with "all men are created equal". That equality results in the inability to justly initiate force. That establishes rights - and it is pure reason, not opinion.

Allow me say this.

1) No one has proven, objectively, as a matter of mathematics or logic, that might makes right is immoral.

2) It is immoral because most (but not all) moral codes deem is wrong

3) So is the statement that all men are created equal. How do you prove that? Why are Asians created small and short in general; yet the opposite for Westerners? Why can some people be as intelligent as Albert Einstein, yet others dumb as swine?

4) This, even if framed in the language of reason, is nothing but a popular thought.

 

[Danoff]

Allow me say this.

1) No one has proven, objectively, as a matter of mathematics or logic, that might makes right is immoral.

It has no objective basis. If you disagree, please provide one. Might makes right as an objective standard requires the ability to produce force to be viewed somehow objectively superior.

2) It is immoral because most (but not all) moral codes deem is wrong

Morality is only meaningful when discussed in an objective sense (ie: applying to more than one person). The only objective definition for morality that i know of (please provide me with one if you know differently) is behavior that is consistent with human rights. Human rights are established via reason, thus morality (as defined above) is objective.

3) So is the statement that all men are created equal. How do you prove that? Why are Asians created small and short in general; yet the opposite for Westerners? Why can some people be as intelligent as Albert Einstein, yet others dumb as swine?

All of those would be subjective evaluations. The lack of an objective standard leaves mankind objectively equal. If would could establish an objective standard (which has never been done) we could consider some members of the human species objectively superior.

 

[Wolf-M]

It has no objective basis. If you disagree, please provide one. Might makes right as an objective standard requires the ability to produce force to be viewed somehow objectively superior.

It is not that I agree or not. It is for you, as the one who puts forward a proposition, to prove that your statement is more than a mere assertion.

The fact that might makes right has no objective basis does not, in any event, prove anything. It only shows that it is unproven.

It goes no way in proving that all men are created equal.

Reference from wikipedia " denying the antecedent"

Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.
Example
Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy.
Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for there to be clouds. Rain is a sufficient condition of cloudiness, but it is not necessarily true that clouds mean it is raining.

Morality is only meaningful when discussed in an objective sense (ie: applying to more than one person). The only objective definition for morality that i know of (please provide me with one if you know differently) is behavior that is consistent with human rights. Human rights are established via reason, thus morality (as defined above) is objective.



All of those would be subjective evaluations. The lack of an objective standard leaves mankind objectively equal. If would could establish an objective standard (which has never been done) we could consider some members of the human species objectively superior.

Not quite.

The self-evident moral rules (even though they are not objective as a matter of principle) are self-evident because they represent the lowest common denominator of most human being's "irrational subjective" (as you put it) views of what is right or wrong.

But it is clear that the trolley example does not fall within the ambit of being self-evident.

While it is self-evident (again, it's still a subjective position) that it is wrong to kill others, it cannot be self-evident that the right of a human being to live is absolute and never be taken away to protect the interests of another human being.

Furthermore (in anticipation of your argument), it is not established that rights are objective.


This was my own "subjective" view of what a right is which I have posted almost a year ago. Of course I cannot prove it as objectively right; yet neither could you establish, objectively, that a contrary view is the absolute truth.

Wolf-M
In a state of nature, there can be no rights nor obligations. A "right" is a legal concept, it connotes an entitlement which may be enforced against some other human being. Similarly, the obverse of a right, namely an obligation, connotes a duty which others may enforce upon you.

[ed: "legal" as in a contractual relationship, not a reference to the law]

Without law and order, there can be no rights (nor obligations), unless of course you believe that they are conferred upon you by God.

What you do have, however, are freedoms. The freedom to do anything you like, including the freedom to murder anyone else.

It is because of this undesirable state ("a war of all against all") that, out of pragmatism and necessity, we all enter into a social contract from which certain rights and obligations stem, including human rights.


[Reference - extract from Thomas Hobbes: Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.]

---

It is an assumption under the social contract theory that human rights form part of the rights guaranteed by the ruler and enjoyed by the subjects.

Any government that fails to carry out its contractual obligation (the obverse of the citizens' right) therefore breaches the trust which the people have displayed by conferring power upon it. Consequence? The people will be entitled to withdraw their acceptance of the government's legitimacy.

---

Rights are not created by virtue of law, they are created by virtue of the social contract. Laws (or any rules) are only how the rulers implement their promise and discharge their obligations under the social contract.

When I have said that rights are a legal concept, the word "legal" is used in a loose manner, not referring to the actual laws that are promulgated by the state, but the mutually binding relationship that arises under the social contract.

 

[Danoff]

It is not that I agree or not. It is for you, as the one who puts forward a proposition, to prove that your statement is more than a mere assertion.

The fact that might makes right has no objective basis does not, in any event, prove anything. It only shows that it is unproven.

Might makes right is not objective because we lack an objective basis for it. If someone wants to come along and give me one, I'll gladly listen. Until then we lack an objective basis for might makes right - we lack an objective basis for any evaluation of our species that makes one person objectively superior to any other. Again, I'll gladly listen to anyone who claims that they have one.

If, for example, you believe in religion you might think that some families are divinely chosen to rule over men - and so you might support a monarchy. And you might even be correct, but I'd need a good deal proof before I'd be willing to subscribe to it.

In the absence of proof of some sort of objective evaluation, the only rational position is equality.

It goes no way in proving that all men are created equal.

The lack of an objective basis to differentiate individuals supports all men being equal. Unless you can supply an objective basis, that's the only rational position.

The self-evident moral rules (even though they are not objective as a matter of principle) are self-evident because they represent the lowest common denominator of most human being's "irrational subjective" (as you put it) views of what is right or wrong.

But it is clear that the trolley example does not fall within the ambit of being self-evident.

While it is self-evident (again, it's still a subjective position) that it is wrong to kill others, it cannot be self-evident that the right of a human being to live is absolute and never be taken away to protect the interests of another human being.

Luckily I'm not claiming that it's self-evident. I've gone out of way to explain that self-evidence is not my claim since otherwise one would have to subscribe to the notion that most people would agree on human rights.

Furthermore (in anticipation of your argument), it is not established that rights are objective.

By definition. Any other definition of rights nullifies the conversation since it doesn't apply to interpersonal interaction.

 

[Wolf-M]

Might makes right is not objective because we lack an objective basis for it. If someone wants to come along and give me one, I'll gladly listen. Until then we lack an objective basis for might makes right - we lack an objective basis for any evaluation of our species that makes one person objectively superior to any other. Again, I'll gladly listen to anyone who claims that they have one.

If, for example, you believe in religion you might think that some families are divinely chosen to rule over men - and so you might support a monarchy. And you might even be correct, but I'd need a good deal proof before I'd be willing to subscribe to it.

In the absence of proof of some sort of objective evaluation, the only rational position is equality.



The lack of an objective basis to differentiate individuals supports all men being equal. Unless you can supply an objective basis, that's the only rational position.

Why? How? Rational?

By using the word "rational" it connotes that you're using your own reason to come up with the statement that "the only rational position is equality". That doesn't seem like any argument I'm afraid; it's just (yet) another self-assertion.

You seem to be under the perception that there must be a right answer; and because there is no objective basis for arguing that might makes right, therefore equality among human beings must be the "truth". However, (1) there is also no objective basis for this statement; and (2) it is not true that there must be an absolute right answer.

I am not persuading you to subscribe to any views - I'm simply demonstrating that the universal truth can only lie in mathematics. Beyond that limited closed arena, everything is subjective.

And on the related note on religion - faith is believing without seeing. Those who attempt to persuade others to embrace a religion on the basis of human reasoning and logic are destined to fail.

Luckily I'm not claiming that it's self-evident. I've gone out of way to explain that self-evidence is not my claim since otherwise one would have to subscribe to the notion that most people would agree on human rights.



By definition. Any other definition of rights nullifies the conversation since it doesn't apply to interpersonal interaction.

On this point I would tend to agree with Famine - it is more plausible to say that it is self-evident (ie innate) than to derive the conclusion from your bare assertions.


Nonetheless any arguments based on self-evidence must be subjective, for the reasons elucidated above.

ME
The self-evident moral rules (even though they are not objective as a matter of principle) are self-evident because they represent the lowest common denominator of most human being's "irrational subjective" (as you put it) views of what is right or wrong.

But it is clear that the trolley example does not fall within the ambit of being self-evident.

While it is self-evident (again, it's still a subjective position) that it is wrong to kill others, it cannot be self-evident that the right of a human being to live is absolute and never be taken away to protect the interests of another human being.

Furthermore (in anticipation of your argument), it is not established that rights are objective.


This was my own "subjective" view of what a right is which I have posted almost a year ago. Of course I cannot prove it as objectively right; yet neither could you establish, objectively, that a contrary view is the absolute truth.

------------

By definition. Any other definition of rights nullifies the conversation since it doesn't apply to interpersonal interaction.

Then I would say that that is a misconceived assumption. It is the difference in opinion as to what amounts to a "right" that this debate has ensued.

As to my views (as regards the notion of a right), see my previous post.

 

[Danoff]

Why? How? Rational?

By using the word "rational" it connotes that you're using your own reason to come up with the statement that "the only rational position is equality".

That doesn't even make sense. "Rational" doesn't imply my own reason. It means reason.

That doesn't seem like any argument I'm afraid; it's just (yet) another self-assertion.

This is a jump for you? That the lack of a basis upon which to differentiate leads to the conclusion that one cannot differentiate? I don't know how that can possibly be described as anything besides rational. I even leave the possibility that sometime in the future someone may be able to come up with a means by which we could differentiate... what exactly is tripping you up?

You seem to be under the perception that there must be a right answer; and because there is no objective basis for arguing that might makes right, therefore equality among human beings must be the "truth". However, (1) there is also no objective basis for this statement; and (2) it is not true that there must be an absolute right answer.

Regardless of whether you think there must be a right answer or not, the lack of an objective basis for differentiation implies only one rational position. So what you wrote above doesn't really impact this discussion at all.

I am not persuading you to subscribe to any views - I'm simply demonstrating that the universal truth can only lie in mathematics.

Mathematics, of course, being derived from logic - which is where universal true exists (or the closest analog that we have).

And on the related note on religion - faith is believing without seeing. Those who attempt to persuade others to embrace a religion on the basis of human reasoning and logic are destined to fail.

I don't understand the relevance here. Are you implying that I have faith? Or are you suggesting that faith is the answer? I disagree with both.

Nonetheless any arguments based on self-evidence must be subjective, for the reasons elucidated above.

As you know, there is no reason to aim any of that discussion at me.

Then I would say that that is a misconceived assumption. It is the difference in opinion as to what amounts to a "right" that this debate has ensued.

Take it to be the definition of what I am saying. I'm not interested in discussing any other definition.

 

[Dapper]

The basis of law is not always objective, it is often based on popularity. The only morality I recognize is defined as acts that are consistent with human rights. That definition makes it objective.

It is proven 90% of people recognize a different morality than you. Your definition is wrong and morality is subjective.

Any subjective definition by its very nature applies irrationally and only to the person doing the talking - so it is meaningless for everyone else and applies to no situation involving human interaction.

That is why we have laws and meaningful conversation about laws.

 

[Danoff]

It is proven 90% of people recognize a different morality than you. Your definition is wrong and morality is subjective.

Meaningless. See sig.

 

[Dapper]

Meaningless. See sig.

Morality =/= Rights.

 

[Danoff]

Morality =/= Rights.

I've already been over this.

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.

 

[Dapper]

I've already been over this.

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

But you are still wrong, I've been over that. I think you having never convinced anyone since I've been here is evidence this is a meaningless conversation.

If morality were objective there would be no discussion. No one argues the presence of a chair or that driving drunk is illegal, they are objective. The trolley scenario is argued because it is an opinion based on morality. It is proven that everyone does not do the same thing, some flip the switch and some do not. Therefore, their view on morality must be different because that is what their decision was based on. Morality is subjective, the trolley is empirical proof.

 

[GTsail]

More fun with Trains and Planes:

Scenario One:
Suppose there was a mad philosopher who put a bomb on a train and sent it barrelling down the track towards a city of 100,000. Suppose there was a Bruce Willis/James Bond type who jumped on the train because he knew there was a switch in the engine compartment on the train, that if thrown, the train would switch to a side-track and would travel down to an un-used mine and when the train blows up it would not kill anyone because no one lived near the un-used mine anymore.

Should the BW/JB type throw the switch?

Scenario Two:
Suppose that at the last second, the mad philosopher told the Bruce Willis/James Bond type that there was now a guard living at the un-used mine.

Should the BW/JB type refrain from throwing the switch?

The above two situations are very similar to what's been discussed (and answered) earlier in this thread, so they got me thinking about other similar, but more complex situations:

Scenario Three:
Suppose the mad philosopher put a bomb on the train and sent it barrelling down the track towards a city of 100,000. Suppose that there was a Bruce Willis/James Bond type who saw this (but wasn't on the train), but he knew that there was a track-switch further up the track, that could change the direction of the train to a side-line, so the train would travel down the side-track to an un-used mine (and this would kill no one since no one lived near the un-used mine).

Should the BW/JB type race ahead of the train and throw the switch?

Scenario Four:
Suppose that the mad philosopher doesn't like getting his trains diverted, so he puts an innocent passenger on the train. The innocent passenger is placed in a locked room on the train that has a time lock that will open in 2 minutes. Further suppose that the train is traveling fairly slowly so that the innocent passenger will be able to get off the train safely once the room un-locks in 2 minutes, but only if the train continues along the main-line. Further suppose that the track switch is only 1 minute ahead of the train. So if the BW/JB type rushes ahead of the train and throws the switch, he will end up killing the innocent passenger, who will not be able to exit the locked room, though the city of 100,000 will be saved.

What should the BW/JB type do?

Should he throw the switch and kill the innocent passenger and save the city? Or should he do nothing and allow the train to continue on and destroy the city, but save the passenger who gets off the train when the room un-locks in 2 minutes?

Thinking some more about scenario # 4, I feel that its almost a typical hostage situation where some un-lucky person gets caught up in a bad situation. Does this un-lucky person have the absolute right to life? Or could there be horrible situations where it might be "better" or more "moral" to accept the death of this person if a substantial number of others were saved?

So the following situation came to mind:

Scenario Five:
Suppose there is an airplane flying towards a large city of 100,000, with a mad philosopher onboard, and you know that its going to drop a large and powerful bomb of some sort on the city. Is it "correct" to shoot down the airplane before it can drop its bomb, even though there are some 50 innocent passengers onboard the airplane (and the passengers would live if you don't shoot the plane down)?

Is the moral choice to shoot down the plane?

Or since this would directly take the lives of the innocent passengers, should you allow the plane to drop its payload and try to catch the mad philosopher once he lands the plane?

We currently have jets flying CAP's over New York City and Washington DC. Can they shoot down airborne threats, or must they first insure that no innocent passengers are onboard?

Is a society rendered impotent and un-able to defend itself when faced with a mad philosopher/terrorist/criminal if the life of an innocent hostage would be forfeited in the prevention of some greater harm?

Respecfully,
GTsail

 

[Danoff]

But you are still wrong, I've been over that. I think you having never convinced anyone since I've been here is evidence this is a meaningless conversation.

If morality were objective there would be no discussion. No one argues the presence of a chair or that driving drunk is illegal, they are objective. The trolley scenario is argued because it is an opinion based on morality. It is proven that everyone does not do the same thing, some flip the switch and some do not. Therefore, their view on morality must be different because that is what their decision was based on. Morality is subjective, the trolley is empirical proof.

People disagree on whether the Earth is flat - and that question has an objective answer. Disagreement proves exactly nothing. Again, this has been explained repeatedly.

More fun with Trains and Planes:

Scenario One:
Suppose there was a mad philosopher who put a bomb on a train and sent it barrelling down the track towards a city of 100,000. Suppose there was a Bruce Willis/James Bond type who jumped on the train because he knew there was a switch in the engine compartment on the train, that if thrown, the train would switch to a side-track and would travel down to an un-used mine and when the train blows up it would not kill anyone because no one lived near the un-used mine anymore.

Should the BW/JB type throw the switch?

Yes.

Scenario Two:
Suppose that at the last second, the mad philosopher told the Bruce Willis/James Bond type that there was now a guard living at the un-used mine.

Should the BW/JB type refrain from throwing the switch?

No, he should assume the mad philosopher is lying and throw the switch. Our hero should use his own knowledge of the situation (un-used mine) and make up his own determination. Trusting the mad philosopher is a bad call here.

If the hero believed the philosopher for whatever reason, he should not throw the switch.

Scenario Three:
Suppose the mad philosopher put a bomb on the train and sent it barrelling down the track towards a city of 100,000. Suppose that there was a Bruce Willis/James Bond type who saw this (but wasn't on the train), but he knew that there was a track-switch further up the track, that could change the direction of the train to a side-line, so the train would travel down the side-track to an un-used mine (and this would kill no one since no one lived near the un-used mine).

Should the BW/JB type race ahead of the train and throw the switch?

Yes.

Scenario Four:
Suppose that the mad philosopher doesn't like getting his trains diverted, so he puts an innocent passenger on the train. The innocent passenger is placed in a locked room on the train that has a time lock that will open in 2 minutes. Further suppose that the train is traveling fairly slowly so that the innocent passenger will be able to get off the train safely once the room un-locks in 2 minutes, but only if the train continues along the main-line. Further suppose that the track switch is only 1 minute ahead of the train. So if the BW/JB type rushes ahead of the train and throws the switch, he will end up killing the innocent passenger, who will not be able to exit the locked room, though the city of 100,000 will be saved.

What should the BW/JB type do?

Throw the switch and see if the Mad philosopher decides to go through with his plan to kill the passenger. In this case, it's not the hero who is killing the passenger, it's the mad philosopher.

Scenario Five:
Suppose there is an airplane flying towards a large city of 100,000, with a mad philosopher onboard, and you know that its going to drop a large and powerful bomb of some sort on the city. Is it "correct" to shoot down the airplane before it can drop its bomb, even though there are some 50 innocent passengers onboard the airplane (and the passengers would live if you don't shoot the plane down)?

Is the moral choice to shoot down the plane?

Toughest of all of the scenarios. Tougher than the trolley.

Yes. This is a human shield scenario where the bad guy claims to be hiding behind innocent lives. He is responsible for killing them by aiming a weapon at you and hiding behind them, if in-fact the hostages exist.

The difference between this and the trolley example is that here the bad guy put the innocents in harms way in an attempt to prevent you from defending yourself. This is vastly different from you grabbing someone who was not involved and sacrificing them to solve the situation.

 

[GTsail]

Yes. This is a human shield scenario where the bad guy claims to be hiding behind innocent lives. He is responsible for killing them by aiming a weapon at you and hiding behind them, if in-fact the hostages exist.

The difference between this and the trolley example is that here the bad guy put the innocents in harms way in an attempt to prevent you from defending yourself. This is vastly different from you grabbing someone who was not involved and sacrificing them to solve the situation.

I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but is it really any different than the trolley situation?

In the trolley case, its still the mad philosopher who put the trolley in motion, and its the trolley that will kill either the "1" or the "5". So does this mean that the mad philosopher is responsible for whatever outcome is reached and therefore either outcome would be a "moral" choice because it was the mad philosopher who put the vehicle in motion?

In my airplance scenario # 5, the mad philosopher does not intend to kill the passengers. Killing the passengers would be the result of the shoot-down, and would not come from the actions of the mad philosopher. Your feeling is that it would be ok to kill these passengers because they are in the way?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[niky]

If you know that you are potentially causing the death of one, even though you are not the one who put the bomb there, then you are killing that person.

The "Human Shield" situation is an interesting one. And a tough one, but if you are in a defensive position rather than an offensive one, then I feel you would be fully justified in shooting down the plane... given that there are bombs on the plane and that there are innocent civilians on the plane. He could be lying about both, but then, in the absence of bombs, he could simply drop the plane on the city.

 

[Dapper]

People disagree on whether the Earth is flat - and that question has an objective answer. Disagreement proves exactly nothing. Again, this has been explained repeatedly.

The Earth being round can be tested an proven.💡
None of your rhetoric can. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Any test on morality shows it to be subjective. And this isn't new.

 

[Danoff]

I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but is it really any different than the trolley situation?

Yea, I find it technically different. In the one case, the people were forced into harm's way by someone else. In the other case, you are forcing them into harm's way. You direct the trolley to someone who was not involved.

It is very parallel in many ways, but I think that's a critical distinction.

In reality, of course, you shoot the plane down without hesitating because you don't trust the terrorist (philosopher) to let the people go afterward, you assume they're already dead on the plane, etc. etc. There is no such thing as certainty that their lives are going to be saved.

In the philosophical situation where you can pretend that you know for certain that their lives are going to be saved, it's more difficult (but only because of the unrealistic part of the test). Still, you take the plane out with the knowledge that those passengers were forced into the situation by the terrorist and that he is responsible for what happens to them.

Let me ask a counter question.

Let's say a guy forces you into a car with no headlights at night, and says a bomb will go off if you don't drive over 50 mph. While you're trying to keep it over 50 a semi-truck hits you and kills you. Who is responsible for your death?

The Earth being round can be tested an proven.💡
None of your rhetoric can. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Any test on morality shows it to be subjective. And this isn't new.

Step back for a second and realize that you conceded my point - that "If morality were objective there would be no discussion" is a false statement.

 

[Dapper]

Step back for a second and realize that you conceded my point - that "If morality were objective there would be no discussion" is a false statement.

That isn't your point! You think morality is objective while morality does not meet any qualification to be considered objective, unlike the earth being round. Objects, laws and the Earth being round can all be tested and verified unlike morality. Like I already said, a morality test proves morality to be subjective.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

You think morality is objective while morality does not meet any qualification to be considered objective, unlike the earth being round. Objects, laws and the Earth being round can all be tested and verified unlike morality. Like I already said, a morality test proves morality to be subjective.

Wrong.

Morality can be tested against Human Rights.
When you do that you come to a part of morality that is universal. That part Danoff and Famine correctly defend, I did not see any logic that can refute it.

Lets try to be clear, from what I read the clearest example against a pure utilitarian view (not respecting Human Rights) is this:

Transplant. Imagine that each of five patients in a hospital will die without an organ transplant. The patient in Room 1 needs a heart, the patient in Room 2 needs a liver, the patient in Room 3 needs a kidney, and so on. The person in Room 6 is in the hospital for routine tests. Luckily (for them, not for him!), his tissue is compatible with the other five patients, and a specialist is available to transplant his organs into the other five. This operation would save their lives, while killing the “donor”. There is no other way to save any of the other five patients (Foot 1966, Thomson 1976; compare related cases in Carritt 1947 and McCloskey 1965).

and this is guiding when there are violations of Human Rights involved (Like killing).
If no objection reveals any need for anything beyond consequences, then consequences alone determine what is morally right or wrong.


The only discussion is the definition of moral.
If you include cases that do not violate human rights, you get several morals and you lose the ability to be objective about the complete moral.

You can not deny however there is an objective part that can be measured.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

... The only morality I recognize is defined as acts that are consistent with human rights. ...

The only objective meaning for morality that I have ever found is to describe acts that are in concurrence with human rights (also objective).

This is exactly the issue. Different definitions.
Responsibility is concerning acts that are consistent with human rights. You do not need an other word to say the same thing.

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.

What do you call the the way you decide the best between different options where you have no responsibility?

Generally people call that morality, I´m ready to accept other words, not other principles.

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?

Logic:
Immoral is when it is against one of my moral rules.
One rule is: It is immoral to not respect Human Rights.
Killing is against the human right to live. Killing is immoral, the context is irrelevant.

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.

Yes in my moral (reaching the best choice) the value of immorality diminishes with "infringing human rights". It can become an immoral, but defendable choice to infringe their human rights. That this is the best choice does not make it moral (there is no logic in that).

Logic: to state someone "forfeited their own rights" is against the human right that every human has Human Rights. So can not be in my moral rules.

In my definition Human rights are innate: impossible "to forfeited their own rights", impossible to change something innate.
You can have moral (the best choice) reasons to not respect Human Rights, that is there is not a more moral option.

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

That makes that we can argue, it does not make it right.
The logic and arguments are based on assumptions, to not recognise your assumptions is wrong (in my moral).
I can state my assuptions, I can state the logic behind them, that makes it reasoning, it does not make it right.

The whole basis of discussion is that we could be wrong. Your assumptions against other assumptions.
Assumptions hold untill proven invalid or less worth (sadly not objective).
I have a lot the impression discussion here is, I change your assumption to prove your logic is wrong, where the assumtions are the basis of value of the result of the argument.
Logic as a system can not be wrong, but your logic (I guess many misuse this as a wrong abbreviation for your logical reasoning) can miss logical steps and be based on wrong assumptions.
Making the assumption invalid does not make the logic system invalid but the conclusion/argument.

There is always a choice.

True.
But the choise is not always what we want, e.g."Kill or not to be killed in self defence situations"
There is no logic in stating there is always a moral choice, why would there be?

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.

Human rights are the basis, to defend you own Human Rights.
I believe generally this is called consistency "Do not do to an other what you you would not want them to do to you.

If you can not defend your Human Rights, human rights do not exist. Since my assumption is that a right is something you can defend.

It is acceptable to do what you can morally justify. I find this fague myself, but I do not believe all knowledge can be expressed in language (concept of know how).
That is one of the reasons why killing for me is always immoral, you need to be limited to immoral choices only before you can use one of these choices.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

5 is more worth that 1. That is logic.

Subjective.

Correct worth is subjective.

Conclusion: Saving 5 people is better then saving 1 person.

OK show my assumptions wrong.

Assumption saving a person is good.
Assumption the more good you do the better it is
Assumption there is no way to differentiate objectively persons

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.

This:

we can also not determine multiple people more valuable than one

is a an illogical assumption, it refutes mathematical definitions.
You can always determine a value.

You can not agree with the assumed value of the subjects, that you do not agree does not make that you can not have a logic that determines value.
You can prove the assumption wrong, thus the conclusion invalid, that does not make the logic wrong.

"One person's rights are to be considered of infinite worth (because we can't measure it objectively)

1) worth is subjective we agree on that, so cultural
2) definition: you can call something infinite, because it is the conclusion of an increasing series that does not stop.
Human rights are innate, the do not increase. So it is illogical to call them infinite, it is against mathematical principles.
3) You bring in the assumption that rights are important/violated, that assumption proves that your logic is wrong, I do not use that assumption above.

multiplying the number of people arrives at the same value.

This is a compelling statement and innate I believe it. But it is not logical since it is based on the invalid assumption that human values are infinite (see above).

Edit: So although I believe it, and your logical argumentations follow the logical system, the statement holds no value for me since the assumption is illogical.

 

[dylansan]

2) definition: you can call something infinite, because it is the conclusion of an increasing series that does not stop.
Human rights are innate, the do not increase. So it is illogical to call them infinite, it is against mathematical principles.

What? Infinite does not mean constantly increasing. Things can be innately infinite, if they start infinite and remain that way. The series you add to get infinity has nothing to do with change or increase of rights over time.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

What? Infinite does not mean constantly increasing. Things can be innately infinite, if they start infinite and remain that way. The series you add to get infinity has nothing to do with change or increase of rights over time.

I agree that concept of infinite was quickly from my memory. It is still the concept that makes most sense to me.

5.
Mathematics .
a.not finite.
b.(of a set) having elements that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a subset that is not the given set.

a) when is something "not finite"?
b) I do not see the context of this definition
So I agree: You can give Human Rights infinite value if you define it as "not finite", my mistake.

Edit: found some other definition: http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/infinity.html

Infinity is not a real number
Infinity is not a real number, it is an idea. An idea of something without an end.
Infinity cannot be measured.

The "An idea of something without an end." comes closes to my series. However my argument was still invalid, since infinity is, it does not evolve. That it is generally linked to series, does not make it a series.

===========
Got carried away again (sorry):
It does not change that value remains subjective and that the assumption to include Human Rights is not needed in a correct logic.

If you use an assumption like "Human Rights have infinite value", you can build a correct logical argumentation. However my point is that the outcome is not worth a lot to me since I do not see the logic behind "Human Rights have infinite value" or why this element is so important.
The valuation of groups of humans as a logical issue, seems to be inherently linked to culture (value).
The amount of the good you do, is probably as well, even if I tried to remove value from the formulation. You can reject the assumption that you should do good and come to the conclusion "I do not care". That is logical as well.

That is just the point, logic as a system is irrefutable.
But build on definitions (like moral) & assumptions. You value these assumptions, that makes it cultural. I appreciate the effort done in this thread to remove the cultural bit, I disagree that this is successful (Anglo-Saxon values dominate) and I disagree that this makes it the only correct logical reasoning possible. It makes it a reference, probably the best measurement point you can have.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

The "Human Shield" situation is an interesting one. And a tough one, but if you are in a defensive position rather than an offensive one, then I feel you would be fully justified in shooting down the plane... given that there are bombs on the plane and that there are innocent civilians on the plane. He could be lying about both, but then, in the absence of bombs, he could simply drop the plane on the city.

Out of all the discussions here I clarified some clear rules in my head, I do not believe it changed my values or the decisions I would take, but it will accelerate the decision.

When in doubt, inact.

when you act you take responsibility, this has to be based on facts, not hunches.

Imagine the court case: 10 Milj people died since you did not shoot down a plane with 50 innocent people and 1 mad man with a bomb.
Defense: I did not kill the people. All measures were taken to avoid bombs on the aircraft, the only reference was an unreliable source. It was the best choice to call the bluff.

then imagine the reverse, you shot but there was no bomb.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Meaningless. See sig.

The Ayn Rand sig? I've been meaning to get to that

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year-old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Just my take of course on Ayn Rand.

 

[BobK]

Correct worth is subjective.

Conclusion: Saving 5 people is better then saving 1 person.

No argument there. However, murdering one person to save five is clearly immoral, and you yourself agreed that murdering a person is not okay, regardless of circumstances.

Let's make one thing perfectly clear: deliberately killing an innocent person who is no threat to you or anybody else, has done nothing wrong and isn't about to, is murder. And that's the choice you made in the trolley car problem.