Human Rights

[GTsail]

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....

I don't see the distinction you are trying to make. I thought that in the Trolley case, the mad philosopher put the "1" and the "5" into harms way by setting the trolley in motion. Doesn't this by your reasoning make the mad philosopher responsible for whoever dies?

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?
....

I'm making the assumption that the truck driver can't see the car (which I think you are implying in your question). If that's the case, then the truck driver can't be responsible. To him its just an accident. So the responsible person is the guy who forced you to drive without lights. He essentially killed you by putting you into a very dangerous situation. This would be similar to a situation where the mad philosopher forced you to stand on some train tracks where he knew a train would come by and kill you, because it was at night, and the train engineer would not be able to see you on the tracks.

In reality, of course, you shoot the plane down without hesitating because you don't trust the philosopher to let the people go afterwards, you assume they're already dead on the plane, etc....

But the passengers aren't dead when you shoot the plane down. You are killing them. The mad philosopher is not killing them. They would live if you did not shoot the plane down (that's the underlying assumption in my scenario). The mad philosopher intends to land the plane without killing any passengers (let's say that you know this because he's done it before).

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Vince_Fiero]

...
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.

You based that conclusion of my decision on ....

The trolley problem came up on page 11.
I then looked up my posts. On page 3X it comes back, Famine gives answers with yes and no, I saw no issue so I did not react.
On page 35 I finally do my first post on this subject.

It is generally accepted that it is wrong to kill an innocent human. Agreed?

Therefore, there is a correct answer.

The correct answer is to not intervene in the scenario. Let it happen without any input from you.

If you do not intervene, you did not hurt anybody. If you do intervene (via a utilitarian/mathematical approach to the problem) then you have consciously decided to kill another human - you have committed murder, whether you judge it by law or reason.

This study goes to show that the vast majority of humans are not able to control their animalian instincts during times of duress. They're unable to solve problems logically when situations at hand require it most. In these dire circumstances, they're unable to differentiate themselves from mere animals.

Congratulations, they found out that most humans are stupid! Tell us something we didn't know.

Let me be stupid.

You can save 5 people but you do not do it.
That is "none assistance to people in need" (AKA failing your duty to rescue) and might be judged as punishable by law. Although I doubt you have to fear a serious result in the above case.

The Human right to live does not equal the human sin to kill.
Those 5 people have a right to live as much as the other person has, it is unethical to intervene, who are you to decide who dies, but it might be unethical not to intervene, why not save the mathematical 4 lives that have a right to live. It is completely unethical to change your action if you know the 1 person, well yeh you can not win them all.

One of the only reasons not to intervene, that is accepted, is when intervening would put your own life in danger.

There is no such thing as a Human right to be spared of difficult choices.

I read clearly: it is unethical to intervene, who are you to decide who dies, but it might be unethical not to intervene,

I actually did not state what I would do.

I also had this misplaced brain fart:

One of the only reasons not to intervene, that is accepted, is when intervening would put your own life in danger.

that referred to this:

"none assistance to people in need" (AKA failing your duty to rescue)

I also did this post:

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.

So inact, when in doubt and do not believe what others say about other persons.

If you link:

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

to the trolley problem, that is something you are doing. The discussion is about logic and if logic permits to make that statement. It was not linked to the trolley problem.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

But the passengers aren't dead when you shoot the plane down. You are killing them. The mad philosopher is not killing them. They would live if you did not shoot the plane down (that's the underlying assumption in my scenario). The mad philosopher intends to land the plane without killing any passengers (let's say that you know this because he's done it before).

Respectfully,
GTsail

I seem to remain with, Killing is always wrong, the numbers do not matter.

You could try to intervene on the falling bomb, shooting that out of the air.
If that hits the aircraft you would still be killing the passengers, though. So some risk analysis should determine your choice.

Just to share with people, just before WWII, the Russians, with Stalin, saw a big threat for the state in counter-revolutionaries and enemies of the people. Their Credo was: "Better kill 5 innocent men then let 1 bad one get away", this for the good of the people. Some people today still seem to believe that was really needed.

Bringing it to this case: Better let 100.000 die then kill 50.
It does not sound nice, it is not what you would like, but at least you did the right thing.

 

[GTsail]

....
Bringing it to this case: Better let 100.000 die then kill 50.
It does not sound nice, it is not what you would like, but at least you did the right thing...

I agree that if you take the position that you can "never" directly kill an innocent person, then you must reach the conclusion that you state, that "Better to let 100,000 die than to kill 50". I think that logically, this would be derived from the initial theory.

That's why I posed my earlier question:

"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 great harm?"

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Danoff]

Correct worth is subjective.

Yes.

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

Not objectively.

The only possible methods you can use to determine the values of the 5 people to be more than the 1 person are subjective statements like "more people is better than fewer people".

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

Via subjective means.

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.

The lack of an objective basis to determine value results in an inability to measure value.

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.

I call them infinite only as an example to illustrate why multiplying the number of people doesn't change the outcome. In all possibility, the situation could be worse - one could use a subjective valuation that determines that fewer people is better. Attempting to justify a violation of human rights requires a subjective valuation of the worth of those rights (by the definition of human rights). Any subjective reasoning can be easily scrutinized.

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.

Yea, I've told this joke myself. It's funny, also it has been posted on here about a dozen times (I think once by me). Care to actually respond or did you just want to deflect?

I don't see the distinction you are trying to make. I thought that in the Trolley case, the mad philosopher put the "1" and the "5" into harms way by setting the trolley in motion. Doesn't this by your reasoning make the mad philosopher responsible for whoever dies?

There is no mad philosopher in the trolley case, there is just a runaway trolley and 5 people in harms way. You have the option to divert the cart to another track and involve someone who was not involved in the situation. It is your choice to put that person in harm's way.

I'm making the assumption that the truck driver can't see the car (which I think you are implying in your question). If that's the case, then the truck driver can't be responsible. To him its just an accident. So the responsible person is the guy who forced you to drive without lights. He essentially killed you by putting you into a very dangerous situation. This would be similar to a situation where the mad philosopher forced you to stand on some train tracks where he knew a train would come by and kill you, because it was at night, and the train engineer would not be able to see you on the tracks.

So even though the person who originated the situation is nowhere near the accident at the time and didn't execute the final physical movements that resulted in the accident, the guy who forced you into a dangerous situation is still responsible for the outcome. I agree wholeheartedly. This is the case with human shields.

But the passengers aren't dead when you shoot the plane down. You are killing them. The mad philosopher is not killing them. They would live if you did not shoot the plane down (that's the underlying assumption in my scenario). The mad philosopher intends to land the plane without killing any passengers (let's say that you know this because he's done it before).

Even if he's done it before you shouldn't assume that he will this time - that's what makes him "mad". But ignoring reality for a moment and assuming you know for certain that the passengers are alive, kidnapped, placed as human shields, and will survive if you don't shoot - you shoot anyway.

Consider the following scenario. A bad guy points a gun at you and intends to shoot, you point your gun at him to stop him from killing you, but when you pull the trigger, he throws an innocent bystander in the way (whom you hit and kill). Who is responsible for killing the bystander?

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Yea, I've told this joke myself. It's funny, also it has been posted on here about a dozen times (I think once by me). Care to actually respond or did you just want to deflect?

Not to mention "my take" makes it look extremely plagiarized.

edit: Nevermind. I've seen it so many times before. It's gotten old to me.

 

[GTsail]

.....Even if he's done it before you shouldn't assume that he will this time - that's what makes him "mad". But ignoring reality for a moment and assuming you know for certain that the passengers are alive, kidnapped, placed as human shields, and will survive if you don't shoot - you shoot anyway.
...

HA! No favorable assumptions allowed! I guess you can see the passengers in the windows? And they all have book deals set up for after their ordeal.

Aren't you violating "do not kill any innocents"? They will only be killed if you shoot-down the airplane.

Just being on the plane negates the human rights of these passengers? Have you asked these passengers for their opinion on this?

Why have you choosen to save the city of 100,000?

Why shouldn't you save the 50 passengers?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Danoff]

Why have you choosen to save the city of 100,000?

Why shouldn't you save the 50 passengers?

...because of this:

Consider the following scenario. A bad guy points a gun at you and intends to shoot, you point your gun at him to stop him from killing you, but when you pull the trigger, he throws an innocent bystander in the way (whom you hit and kill). Who is responsible for killing the bystander?

You have to know that I fully expected to be grilled over this. It was the tougher way for me to answer that the plane should have been shot down. The easy way out was to say "nope, it's like the trolley", but I don't see it the same way. Happy to be challenged though!

 

[GTsail]

.....There is no mad philosopher in the trolley case, there is just a runaway trolley and 5 people in harms way. You have the option to divert the cart to another track and involve someone who was not involved in the situation. It is your choice to put that person in harm's way.....

You're right Danoff, in the original Trolley Problem (as proposed by Ms Foot) the trolley is traveling down the tracks by accident.

In my examples, I've always been thinking/assuming that a mad philosopher put the trolley's/train's in motion and the mad philosopher somehow ensured that there were innocent bystanders stuck on the two tracks. I guess that this is not always the case with some of these scenarios.

If the trolley is in motion after an accident, does this make the trolley case similar to my earlier example of an airplane falling out of the sky after an accident?

Keef was proposing that since the plane suffered an accident, then you could steer the plane in any direction without immoral consequences.

Your post # 735 mentioned this issue. I'm going to have to think some more about what differences an "accident" vrs an "intentional act" caused by one of these "mad philosophers" that seem to populate this thread.

Back to the airplane shoot-down scenario.....

Its been proposed by Danoff that its ok to shoot down airplanes because the passengers have lost their absolute right to life because the mad philosopher put them in harms way. This is not something that I'm comfortable with because this eliminates the moral dilema in the situation. Neither doing nothing, nor shooting down the plane is immoral, so you get to chose whatever you wish. This seems to make the problem too easy because you have just taken away the absolute right to life for the passengers and you are now able to kill them with impunity if it furthers your objectives.

Let's look at the airplane problem another way:

Lets say that the city that's about to be bombed only has 10 people in it. And the airplane has 500 passengers.

Is it still moral to shoot down the airplane?

Would you shoot down the airplane? Why not?

I've got another example that highlight's my problem with Danoff's theory.

Cruise Liner:
Lets say that there is a mad philosopher who has commandeered a large cruise liner with 5000 passengers onboard. And he steers the ship so it runs down a small motorboat and kills the owner. Next he threatens to run down another motorboat with two fishermen on board. In an effort to prevent the killing of the two fishermen, the local harbor police call in an air-strike and blow the cruise liner to bits (which saves the two fishermen).

Using Danoff's proposed theory, this is perfectly moral because the passenger's lives can be forfeited once the mad philosopher put them in harms way.

It doesn't seem logical to me that one's absolute human right of life can completely disappear if there is a mad philosopher on the loose. How can your human right to life be taken away be the mere presence of a mad philosopher? I thought that your absolute right to life could only be taken away by your own actions (like when you kill someone else).

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Wolf-M]

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



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?

And human reason is always fallible. That's why it must be subjective.

It is a jump because you provided no proof that human beings are created equal.

The only argument you made is because it cannot be shown that might makes right, therefore human beings are created equal.

This is just plain wrong.

WIKIPEDIA

Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.
Arguments of this form are invalid. Informally, this means that arguments of this form do not give good reason to establish their conclusions, even if their premises are true.
The name denying the antecedent derives from the premise "not P", which denies the "if" clause of the conditional premise.
One way to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument form is with a counterexample with true premises but an obviously false conclusion. For example:
If Queen Elizabeth is an American citizen, then she is a human being.
Queen Elizabeth is not an American citizen.
Therefore, Queen Elizabeth is not a human being.

Same here.

Your argument is that

If [Might makes right], then [humans are created equal] is WRONG.

Because [Might makes right] is wrong, therefore [humans are created equal]


But that is a fallacy.

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.

Again, the same error....

That there is an objective basis for differentiation means that human beings are not created equal [this I agree].

But simply because there is no objective basis for differentiation does not prove that human beings are created equal.

Same fallacy - "denying the antecedent".


If P then Q.
[Not P] does NOT establish [Not Q]

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

Funny. When you are arguing with me whether human rights or morality is objective or subjective, you start the discussion by saying that "by definition human rights are objective; morality is objective".

There is perhaps really little point in this discussion.


---

(And I must confess that I am a bit disappointed that Famine did not respond to the point on morality being based on self-evidence)

 

[Danoff]

If [Might makes right], then [humans are created equal] is WRONG.

Because [Might makes right] is wrong, therefore [humans are created equal]

That's actually not my argument, but it's an interesting interpretation.

That there is an objective basis for differentiation means that human beings are not created equal [this I agree]. But simply because there is no objective basis for differentiation does not prove that human beings are created equal.

If that's my argument, how exactly did I say this?

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.

So there are scenarios where future proof could show that human beings are not equal. Perhaps someday we will discover that some human beings possess the spirits of an ancient alien race that created the universe, and other humans, who lack these spirits, are responsible for all of the cruel and twisted behavior we see in the world. If this turned out to be correct, I would definitely recant my position that human beings are equal. I would declare that human beings are not equal, and do not equally possess rights in light of this discovery. I would then claim that we should reclassify these two types into separate species for the purpose of understanding rights.

....the above paragraph acknowledges your criticism. Do you feel like you've won the argument? Do you think I've changed my position in the slightest? Do you think that this nullifies the rationality of considering human beings equal?

The lack of an objective basis for differentiating human beings leads to only one rational position - that human beings are equal. How is this in dispute? How can anyone justify any other position?

Furthermore, is this not what you expect? -> that some future basis for determining that human beings are not equal may be discovered.

If P then Q.
[Not P] does NOT establish [Not Q]

Thank you, I understand the appropriate application of Modus Tollens.

Funny. When you are arguing with me whether human rights or morality is objective or subjective, you start the discussion by saying that "by definition human rights are objective; morality is objective".

There is perhaps really little point in this discussion.

Yea I figured that would offend. You job is then to show me the error of my ways in even thinking that such a thing exists in the first place. Once you pound my argument to dust and leave me with the conclusion that only subjective definitions of morality or rights exist, I'll shut up.

 

[Wolf-M]

That's actually not my argument, but it's an interesting interpretation.



If that's my argument, how exactly did I say this?

Then what is your argument? Can you give a logical argument that supports that human beings are created equal? Or to the deeper question of whether morality is objective.

My argument is simple.

Morality is based on what we think is right or wrong, based on past experience and our desire maximise our chances of prosperity. The only way that can be done is to have a civil and orderly society, as opposed to a state of nature whether everyone is fighting against each other.

As to what ought or ought not be done in a civilised society, it involves making a value-judgment.

That's why it's subjective.

So there are scenarios where future proof could show that human beings are not equal. Perhaps someday we will discover that some human beings possess the spirits of an ancient alien race that created the universe, and other humans, who lack these spirits, are responsible for all of the cruel and twisted behavior we see in the world. If this turned out to be correct, I would definitely recant my position that human beings are equal. I would declare that human beings are not equal, and do not equally possess rights in light of this discovery. I would then claim that we should reclassify these two types into separate species for the purpose of understanding rights.

....the above paragraph acknowledges your criticism. Do you feel like you've won the argument? Do you think I've changed my position in the slightest? Do you think that this nullifies the rationality of considering human beings equal?

The lack of an objective basis for differentiating human beings leads to only one rational position - that human beings are equal. How is this in dispute? How can anyone justify any other position?


Thank you, I understand the appropriate application of Modus Tollens.

My criticism (no personal offence) is directed to the fact that you have not positively established a case that human beings are equal.

The fact that it cannot be shown that human beings are not equal does not show that they are equal. Basic principle of logic - it is a fallacy to deny the antecedent. It is however NOT modus tollens, which is denying the consequent, and is a valid form of argument.

Yea I figured that would offend. You job is then to show me the error of my ways in even thinking that such a thing exists in the first place. Once you pound my argument to dust and leave me with the conclusion that only subjective definitions of morality or rights exist, I'll shut up.


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.

I thought it is you who is positively making the assertion that morality is objective. It is your burden to prove that it is so; it is not my responsibility to disprove you. My only "criticism" in this respect that you have not shown such to be the case.

Yet for the sake of completeness I did provide you with my views as to why morality is subjective. See first paragraph of this reply.

 

[Danoff]

Then what is your argument? Can you give a logical argument that supports that human beings are created equal? Or to the deeper question of whether morality is objective.

My argument is that in the absence of an objective method for valuing one human being over another the rational position is equality, as you know. We can't function on the assumption that someday that will change - what we have to go on is what we know today, which is that there is no way to do it. That gives way to the rational conclusion of equality. There is nothing subjective here.

My argument is simple.

Morality is based on what we think is right or wrong, based on past experience and our desire maximise our chances of prosperity. The only way that can be done is to have a civil and orderly society, as opposed to a state of nature whether everyone is fighting against each other.

As to what ought or ought not be done in a civilised society, it involves making a value-judgment.

That's why it's subjective.

Subjectively one can argue that the "state of nature whether everyone is fighting against each other" is superior to "civil and orderly society". You'd be left hoping that the anarchists get out voted by the pro-society folks. The result is the rule of the mob, which has led to some of the worst offenses in human history (Nazi Germany being the classic example).

My criticism (no personal offence) is directed to the fact that you have not positively established a case that human beings are equal.

Both impossible and unnecessary. You can still use pure reason and logic to determine human rights objectively.

It is however NOT modus tollens, which is denying the consequent, and is a valid form of argument.

I did not claim that Modus Tollens was an invalid form of argument. Go back and re-read.

It is your burden to prove that it is so; it is not my responsibility to disprove you.

You missed the point -> I am not interested in discussing any morality or rights that are not objective (for obvious reasons). So any attempt to get me to consider the subjective definition for these terms is going nowhere. I'm happy to discuss the objective versions unless, of course, I become convinced they don't exist, at which point I'll just stop talking about it altogether. Subjective versions are pointless.

 

[Wolf-M]

My argument is that in the absence of an objective method for valuing one human being over another the rational position is equality, as you know. We can't function on the assumption that someday that will change - what we have to go on is what we know today, which is that there is no way to do it. That gives way to the rational conclusion of equality. There is nothing subjective here.

There is nothing objective in the sense we are discussing here.

Objectively speaking, most, if not all, human beings in civilised societies desire a set of moral code that includes, among others, human rights, and that is a rational position. So far so good. Yet what they desire (ie what is rational) is purely subjective.

As said previously, Famine's argument comes in. Human rights are innate. They represent the present rational position to adopt. That, however, as I argued, is merely the lowest common denominator of the subjective views of human beings in general - as we recognise that without those rights we cannot prosper.

Subjectively one can argue that the "state of nature whether everyone is fighting against each other" is superior to "civil and orderly society". You'd be left hoping that the anarchists get out voted by the pro-society folks. The result is the rule of the mob, which has led to some of the worst offenses in human history (Nazi Germany being the classic example).

Yes true! But what I am saying is that subjectively most people desire order and peace. Which is why we have human rights and the UN to regulate global order (whether this is successful is another story).

Both impossible and unnecessary. You can still use pure reason and logic to determine human rights objectively.

Maybe you just consider this for a moment - if you say a particular statement is the absolute truth, how would you test it?

If you say that in the trolley example killing another person to save others is never right, it is universally immoral, how do you prove that? When there exist contrary views, how do you deal with them? You claim that these people are dumb and ignorant and therefore they cannot grasp the eternal truth like you can?

Or is it more a value-judgment?

You missed the point -> I am not interested in discussing any morality or rights that are not objective (for obvious reasons). So any attempt to get me to consider the subjective definition for these terms is going nowhere. I'm happy to discuss the objective versions unless, of course, I become convinced they don't exist, at which point I'll just stop talking about it altogether. Subjective versions are pointless.

Again you got the burden of proof wrong. You need to start with convincing yourself that morality is objective.

And it's not just mere assertions. Objective logical proofs please.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yea, I've told this joke myself. It's funny, also it has been posted on here about a dozen times (I think once by me). Care to actually respond or did you just want to deflect?

Cool Story! Not sure what I'm deflecting, just thought I'd tell a joke since you brought up your sig. Not seeing why you're getting defensive when I'm just sharing a quick little joke, but okay .

 

[Danoff]

There is nothing objective in the sense we are discussing here.

Point out where this is subjective:

My argument is that in the absence of an objective method for valuing one human being over another the rational position is equality, as you know. We can't function on the assumption that someday that will change - what we have to go on is what we know today, which is that there is no way to do it. That gives way to the rational conclusion of equality.

Objectively speaking, most, if not all, human beings in civilised societies desire a set of moral code that includes, among others, human rights, and that is a rational position. So far so good. Yet what they desire (ie what is rational) is purely subjective.

Objectively speaking most people rely on subjectivity. Ok fine, what's your point?

Yes true! But what I am saying is that subjectively most people desire order and peace. Which is why we have human rights and the UN to regulate global order (whether this is successful is another story).

See above.

Maybe you just consider this for a moment - if you say a particular statement is the absolute truth, how would you test it?

In the strictest possible sense, you can't say that about anything except that you exist as defined as the thinker of your thoughts. Even Modus Tollens (which I'm glad to see you're not arguing with me on) which is pure logic cannot be considered absolute truth. Logic itself falls short of that description.

This does not mean we are paralyzed as a species. We have no choice but to proceed under the assumption that we know reality for what it is. This is a purely rational approach to existing within an imperfectly known reality (it is not subjective). We have no choice but to assume that we know logic and mathematics even though they cannot be considered absolute truth. Proceeding under the guise that mathematics and logic are the truth is the rational course of action given the knowledge at hand.

If you say that in the trolley example killing another person to save others is never right, it is universally immoral, how do you prove that? When there exist contrary views, how do you deal with them? You claim that these people are dumb and ignorant and therefore they cannot grasp the eternal truth like you can?

I'd claim that they are using subjective reasoning to come to that conclusion - and I am not.

Again you got the burden of proof wrong. You need to start with convincing yourself that morality is objective.

Done (at least as I define the term).

Cool Story! Not sure what I'm deflecting, just thought I'd tell a joke since you brought up your sig. Not seeing why you're getting defensive when I'm just sharing a quick little joke, but okay

Could have just said "deflect".

(specifically, this is what you're deflecting)

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

 

[Wolf-M]

Point out where this is subjective:





Objectively speaking most people rely on subjectivity. Ok fine, what's your point?

Objectively speaking, ie if one conducts a hypothetical survey, most people would agree with a certain set of moral rules.

Yet what is included in those rules is entirely a value-judgment.

In the strictest possible sense, you can't say that about anything except that you exist as defined as the thinker of your thoughts. Even Modus Tollens (which I'm glad to see you're not arguing with me on) which is pure logic cannot be considered absolute truth. Logic itself falls short of that description.


This does not mean we are paralyzed as a species. We have no choice but to proceed under the assumption that we know reality for what it is. This is a purely rational approach to existing within an imperfectly known reality (it is not subjective). We have no choice but to assume that we know logic and mathematics even though they cannot be considered absolute truth. Proceeding under the guise that mathematics and logic are the truth is the rational course of action given the knowledge at hand.

.............................

Ok, your argument, much to my surprise, is not even as sophisticated as I thought it to be.

It all boils down to one sentence:

"The only rational position to adopt is to recognise that human rights are objective/humans are equal."

.......

And you keep using negatives to prove a positive assertion (ie because we cannot show might is right therefore human beings are equal; because there are no other positions therefore my position is correct etc)

It's a wonder to see that you have not given up even to this date.

I'd claim that they are using subjective reasoning to come to that conclusion - and I am not.

Of course you are not using any reasoning. You are relying on a bare assertion.

---

I understand that you are proceeding under an assumption, and want the debate to be premised on that assumption. When no one challenges that assumption, that is not a problem. But when one challenges that assumption, you've got to respond to it, to positively prove that it is true, instead of asserting that it is right as a matter of human reason.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Um...okay since you want to be right.

It just reminded me of a joke, I thought I'd share it with you, I wasn't trying to deflect or detract the general flow of the conversation if you feel I have, then that's you. Not the intention of me.

 

[Wolf-M]

Just one more thing

Wolf-M
My criticism (no personal offence) is directed to the fact that you have not positively established a case that human beings are equal.


Both impossible and unnecessary. You can still use pure reason and logic to determine human rights objectively.

When you say logic, where's your logic? A logical proof involves a positive proof that the proposition is right, not by disproving alternatives and saying that the only rational position to adopt is the one you put forward.

 

[Dapper]

Morality can be tested against Human Rights.

I want to see it.

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.

The definition of moral is what is right and wrong, there is no doubt about that. The question is whether morals are objective or not. Where I decide what's right or wrong, like every other person, is my brain, the birth place of all things subjective. And there is no way of measuring morality as you say, but I'd like to see your attempt at quantifying and proving morality's objective "part".

Objective def
Things that strictly exist in one's brain (ie morals, rights etc) can't be objective if we go by any of the defintions.

 

[Danoff]

Objectively speaking, ie if one conducts a hypothetical survey, most people would agree with a certain set of moral rules.

Yet what is included in those rules is entirely a value-judgment.

Still waiting on the point.

Ok, your argument, much to my surprise, is not even as sophisticated as I thought it to be.

It all boils down to one sentence:

"The only rational position to adopt is to recognise that human rights are objective/humans are equal."

Not particularly close, and I'll consider it my fault for not communicating it to you clearly enough.

The just initiation of force between individuals requires a subjective value judgement (namely, might makes right), which relies on the arbitrary definition of the ability to produce force as superior to the lack of ability to produce force. The initiation of force between individuals is therefore of an arbitrary nature, and an objectively just interaction therefore excludes forcible coercion.

That's reason, and it assumes a few things - including (but not limited) the existence of individuals, and the existence of force. These assumptions are the rational conclusion of the knowledge we currently have of our universe. It is possible that individuals and force do not exist, but proceeding under those assumptions has no basis, and cannot be considered rational.

The logic starts from here, after the first right has already been established (freedom from force). Logic extends the freedom from force into other specific characterizations of it (including freedom of contract, property rights, right to life, intellectual property, economic structure, etc.).

There is nothing subjective above. So you see why I claim this:

You can still use pure reason and logic to determine human rights objectively

And you keep using negatives to prove a positive assertion (ie because we cannot show might is right therefore human beings are equal; because there are no other positions therefore my position is correct etc)

I'm not trying to positively prove that assertion, such a thing would be impossible in the face of the ability to question the existence of reality. What I am doing is proceeding under the assumption that the universe exists as we perceive it - which is all any of us ever do, and the only rational approach to existence.

It's a wonder to see that you have not given up even to this date.

Perhaps you're the guy to get me to do it - but not yet.

I understand that you are proceeding under an assumption, and want the debate to be premised on that assumption. When no one challenges that assumption, that is not a problem. But when one challenges that assumption, you've got to respond to it, to positively prove that it is true, instead of asserting that it is right as a matter of human reason.

That you keep picking at this means that you're missing the point. The assumption is not that human rights are objective - I'm just only interested in discussing objective knowledge. If everything you said were true, and rights do not exist and morality does not exist outside of purely subjective evaluation, I would cease to be interested in the topic and would stop discussing it.

What I'm telling you is that there is no reason to discuss subjective views of reality with me, because I put no value in them. You may not agree that human rights are objective, but unless you put no value in the concept of objective rights, you're probably still interested in the discussion - and so we have something to discuss.

Somehow every time I type that out it sounds more complicated than it is. Here's the beginning and end of that point. In regards to human rights I'm not interested in discussing anything that isn't objective. That doesn't assume anything about the nature of human rights or reality in general. It's simply a statement of what I'm willing to talk about and what I'm not. Hopefully that's clear. It has nothing to do with assuming the conclusion.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

"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 great harm?"

Respectfully,
GTsail

In my mind popped up.
Iran is believed to have a nuclear bomb. Iran/North Corea/China are believed to be crazy enough to use the Nuclear bomb. Their people are innocent.

There are only 2 options:
I destroy these countries or I do not.

Currently we try to change {soft destruction with international pressure} the systems so they would be less crazy.
This is a moral option, it does not kill anyone and helps the world.

To use the nuclear bomb first {after sabotaging their installations} is an immoral option. It kills the innocent people.

Your argument comes down to when they shoot first we will be destroyed, so we should shoot first. An immoral desicion.

Validation of this decision would be. If we do not shoot them and they shoot first, we will shoot back and all life on the planet will die due to nuclear pollution.

But your decision to shoot back and kill the innocent is an immoral decision. It is actually you that kill all the life on earth by shooting back.

Now that is the end of the story when you leave value out of it.

I fundamentally believe that this is correct, you should not shoot back it is immoral, not to shoot back is immoral as well since you do not protect others from the mad governments.

My choise "Let them kill us" is based on:
1) If you shoot first you do not follow the moral option to negotiate.
2) Killing everything can not be justified, so has less value (oeps even here subjective, I value that some life survives).

If you accept that there is culture and value.
You will say things like, my culture values people with my logical reasoning more then people with other logical reasoning. This justifies to defend myself and shoot first, otherwise the more value, my people will disappear.

In the case of killing the others win, you do not have a choice but to let them win:
1) Or they convinced you into their logic
2) Or they kill you

In the case of no killing, there will be diversity and fear, but it is the only way you can let your moral survive, independent if it is better or not. You only hope is that your moral decision to convince the other is successfull.

This is the whole point of discussion: agree on the universal parts and recognising the cultural differences.

Edit: I found an "inact" angle on this.
In the case of killing, you inact, it is them who are responisble for their win. In the case of act you are responsible for their win. Do you really want to give them victory?

Back to your case: You do not shoot, numbers are not important.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

A next thought, I made a new post:Now the next step on this Nuclear problem.

I take the only moral choice to convince the others not to attack me.

Now you have a choice how to do this:

1) I'm honest and I will say "I will never attack your people." since attacking is an incorrect moral choice.
They could see this as an opportunity, act to kill and win. => This is an immoral choice, it goes against my Human right to defend my Human Rights.

2) I'm lying. => this is immoral.
I tell them that we have a space shield that will make their attack futile, if they try to destroy us, we will not hesitate to destroy them fully, we have more capability (to make this convincing I need the weapons) and we have the allies that will help us realise this till every single one of them is annihilated. I will let documents leak how serious I take Nuclear weapons and how essential it is to react on any attack on myself, ....

Both are immoral choices.
1) Goes against Human Rights.
2) Goes against saying the truth.

I value Human Rights higher then lying, so I ly, my goodness will I ly.

I choose to be immoral, since there is no moral alternative, it is the best choice according to my moral rules, using value (subjectivity).


If they held the same values and fears, they are doing exactly the same.
We will be convincing each other we are crazy enough to launch a nuclear bomb, never getting to the truth that we understand that a nuclear war is illogical (See film WarGames).

Another fact on Stalin. Even if Stalin had no respect for life and certainly not the one of US citicens (except for Rooseveld whom he deeply respected ref), he exactly had the strategy to ly to the US about his nuclear capabilities and by fear avoid that the US used "might is right" to impose capitalism in the Bolshevik fiefdoms.

 

[BobK]

You based that conclusion of my decision on ....

The trolley problem came up on page 11.
I then looked up my posts. On page 3X it comes back, Famine gives answers with yes and no, I saw no issue so I did not react.
On page 35 I finally do my first post on this subject.



I read clearly: it is unethical to intervene, who are you to decide who dies, but it might be unethical not to intervene,

I actually did not state what I would do.

In that case I misunderstood your position, for which I apologize.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I want to see it.

you know it yourself, see what follows

The definition of moral is what is right and wrong, there is no doubt about that.

That we call the reference for evaluating Human Rights is cultural (language), but it does not matter how you call it. I go for this definition of Human Rights (at this moment):

A right is something you can defend.
There are Human Rights that every human has, since there are things a human can not accept others would do to him.
I assume the exact definition of Human is unimportant at this stage, sufficient is ... the ability to defend their rights.

Thus To have a consistent set of rules the human can not infringe the Human Rights of anyone else either, thus all humans have the same human rights.
Thus Human Rights are universal for humans.
Thus it is wrong (opposite of right) to act against Human Rights, it is against the definition of right, since if you do not accept someone else has the right then you can not defend it for yourself anymore.
Thus A morality (in sense of right and wrong) is wrong if it does not respect Human Rights. You can measure A morality (in sense of right and wrong) against Human rights.

And there is no way of measuring morality as you say, but I'd like to see your attempt at quantifying and proving morality's objective "part".

You morality has the subject "right". There are rights that are universal as proven above, Human Rights (or whatever you call it). Your morality is about wrong, as this is everything that is not right and there are universal rights so there is universal wrong. The universal parts are objective.


This thread is based on the principle that you should remove the subjective (cultural, value, ...) part of the definition.

So their conclusions are not wrong when you add the point that you value the subjective part more and thus do not value a definition without a subjective part. On top of that if you add your subjective part to their logical reasoning, you will come to a logical reasoning that has an objective part. A logical reasoning that you will value with assumptions you will value. It is up to you to create that reasoning.

In my case:
My morality is about being able to assume your choices (Good v.s. Bad), not about right and wrong, it is language (subjective) but the principles stay, no matter how you call it.

So why do I apply human rights, in what I call my morality.
Immoral is what is objected by rules in my moral.
A moral choice (good) always invalidates an immoral choice (bad).
The best choice is the choice that holds most value (subjective) according to my moral in the available choices.
I can assume my choice by choosing the best choice.
If I end up with best choices that I can not value differently, I try to inact, since I have no basis on which to take a responsibility. (Thanks Famine)
I can not evaluate all choices due to Bounded Rationality.

Thus: My choices are guided by my concept of rights. I can not accept that people would not respect my rights, but for that I need to respect their rights.
Since: This is exactly part of my definition of Human Rights, Human rights are part of my moral.

I believe to have come to the conclusion that good is not purely subjective, at least there is a part in it that is universal (respect of Human Rights). What had to be proven.

As you see moral is subjective for me, it is about value you put on a choice, so inherently subjective, it does not remove that a part is objective and that it always is linked to human rights.

Objective def
Things that strictly exist in one's brain (ie morals, rights etc) can't be objective if we go by any of the defintions.

If you do not value a logical reasoning, you should state why you do not value the used definitions/assumptions.

I do not value your definition that rights are just in someones brain, because of the Human Rights definition above that is valuable and makes Human Rights universal (=Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices) = many brains even if they do not talk to each other. I do believe that you find very similar rights in the Bible, the Qur'an, Buddhist principles, philosophy, etc... but that is a consequence that is coherent, not proof, the logic above is proof.

Responsibility is about the act you did, the commitment you made with those acts, that is purely objective (Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices). The definition of Danoff "Morality = acts that are in concurrence with human rights", has 2 objective elements so is objective.

 

[GTsail]

.....
My choise "Let them kill us" is based on:
1) If you shoot first you do not follow the moral option to negotiate.
2) Killing everything can not be justified, so has less value (oeps even here subjective, I value that some life survives).
.....

Do you believe that self-defense is immoral?

Or is self-defense moral if it kills a terrorist/criminal/mad philosopher, but only if this lethal action does not kill any other innocent bystanders?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Do you believe that self-defense is immoral?

Or is self-defense moral if it kills a terrorist/criminal/mad philosopher, but only if this lethal action does not kill any other innocent bystanders?

Respectfully,
GTsail

We go again on definitions (this lead to too many posts already and too long):

Killing is immoral. The reason does not matter.

A lot of people seem to call the best choice that comes out of a moral reasoning a moral choice. But that means that sometimes killing is immoral and sometimes killing is moral, depending on the circumstances. So I do not value that definition of a moral choice, it makes the moral rules unclear. A moral choice is a choice that does not violate my moral rules.

So killing in self defense is still immoral, still killing.
Now the choice to let someone kill you, is also immoral. You should be able to defend your right to live.

So Killing is immoral, you are faced with 3 choices: to kill or to be killed or to talk.

Talking is moral, so you talk, a moral choice always invalidates the immoral. The person shoots at you, that invalidates the talking (but again correct moral puts the bad person in the advantage). Police has this rule in many countries I believe.

Correct moral seems to come out of the fact that you believe in good in people or bad in people.
I believe in good people, I apply a correct moral that respects the human right to live.
I believe all people are bad, so why should I not be bad? This makes that you have an invalid moral and give up on your human rights.

Remains Kill or to be killed: here it becomes subjective and I fundamentally believe that can not be avoided:

I would value myself higher then the (terrorist/criminal/mad philosopher) and believe talking will not stop the shooting, if they shoot at me I shoot back.

Imagine the person shooting is the Director-General of the UNESCO, that has good reason (but misinformed) to believe you threaten her life (so she is defending herself where she should not). I would probably keep talking, since I value myself less then that person (my wife is fully independent, I have no children) and hope they have a correct moral.

Edit: I have trouble to apply my "if in doubt inact" rule here, it gives even more advantage to an attacker, shooting from your side would put you in a position where people can assume you have the wrong moral, always.

================
In the Nuclear war case I made arguments for the government to lie, since it was the best choice. It is immoral for a government to lie, but it can be the best choice. If there is an other moral choice, like keep quiet, the government should never lie!

 

[Wolf-M]

Still waiting on the point.




Not particularly close, and I'll consider it my fault for not communicating it to you clearly enough.

The just initiation of force between individuals requires a subjective value judgement (namely, might makes right), which relies on the arbitrary definition of the ability to produce force as superior to the lack of ability to produce force. The initiation of force between individuals is therefore of an arbitrary nature, and an objectively just interaction therefore excludes forcible coercion.

That's reason, and it assumes a few things - including (but not limited) the existence of individuals, and the existence of force. These assumptions are the rational conclusion of the knowledge we currently have of our universe. It is possible that individuals and force do not exist, but proceeding under those assumptions has no basis, and cannot be considered rational.

The logic starts from here, after the first right has already been established (freedom from force). Logic extends the freedom from force into other specific characterizations of it (including freedom of contract, property rights, right to life, intellectual property, economic structure, etc.).

That's the logical fallacy of your argument:

Just because you cannot show objectively there is a just initiation of force (whatever that means) does not, in any event, positively establish your conclusion that objectively we are always free from the use of force.

Premise: If [we can show objectively there can be just initiation of force] then [we do not have freedom from force]

Your argument: Because we cannot show [objectively there can be just initiation of force], therefore NOT[ we do not have freedom from force], ie we have freedom from force.

That's just denying the antecedent as I've stated many many times.

There is nothing subjective above. So you see why I claim this:


I'm not trying to positively prove that assertion, such a thing would be impossible in the face of the ability to question the existence of reality. What I am doing is proceeding under the assumption that the universe exists as we perceive it - which is all any of us ever do, and the only rational approach to existence.

If you cannot prove that assertion positively, then it's not objective. Isn't it simple as that?

How can one claim a proposition being objective without it being objectively verifiable???

That you keep picking at this means that you're missing the point. The assumption is not that human rights are objective - I'm just only interested in discussing objective knowledge. If everything you said were true, and rights do not exist and morality does not exist outside of purely subjective evaluation, I would cease to be interested in the topic and would stop discussing it.

What I'm telling you is that there is no reason to discuss subjective views of reality with me, because I put no value in them. You may not agree that human rights are objective, but unless you put no value in the concept of objective rights, you're probably still interested in the discussion - and so we have something to discuss.

Somehow every time I type that out it sounds more complicated than it is. Here's the beginning and end of that point. In regards to human rights I'm not interested in discussing anything that isn't objective. That doesn't assume anything about the nature of human rights or reality in general. It's simply a statement of what I'm willing to talk about and what I'm not. Hopefully that's clear. It has nothing to do with assuming the conclusion.

But the point is that in relation to human rights they're simply values and values are always subjective. I'm afraid that even though you want to discuss human rights as an objective matter, that is not possible. No philosopher has ever claimed that human rights are "objective" in the sense that we can say whether abortion, for example, is objectively right or wrong..

The most they say is that the human rights are self-evident.

Thus: My choices are guided by my concept of rights. I can not accept that people would not respect my rights, but for that I need to respect their rights.
Since: This is exactly part of my definition of Human Rights, Human rights are part of my moral.

I believe to have come to the conclusion that good is not purely subjective, at least there is a part in it that is universal (respect of Human Rights). What had to be proven.

What you have said shows that human rights are subjective.

We can say that objectively speaking (as a matter of hypothetical survey), most people would agree that certain things are immoral, eg killing others. But it is far from clear that most people agree that the lives of one cannot be sacrificed to save many others, ie the question of whether a human right is absolute.

But what the people agree, and what you agree ("as part of [your] moral"), is entirely a subjective matter.

It only happens that most people value something deemed so important that they call them "human rights".

Value judgment, my friend, is always subjective.

 

[Danoff]

Just because you cannot show objectively there is a just initiation of force (whatever that means) does not, in any event, positively establish your conclusion that objectively we are always free from the use of force.

Not sure exactly what you're getting at here. I never claimed that we are always free from the use of force - so not sure why you're trying to say that I don't support that conclusion. I said this:

The initiation of force between individuals is therefore of an arbitrary nature, and an objectively just interaction therefore excludes forcible coercion.

That doesn't mean forcible coercion doesn't exist. It means that such an interaction is subjectively motivated.

Premise: If [we can show objectively there can be just initiation of force] then [we do not have freedom from force]

That's not my premise.

Your argument: Because we cannot show [objectively there can be just initiation of force], therefore NOT[ we do not have freedom from force], ie we have freedom from force.

...and that's not my conclusion.

You're being very sloppy with these arguments with the goal of trying to fit them into an improper use of Modus Tollens. You seem hell bent on that, actually.

Try this one:

A=Force
B=Subjectivity

A->B
Not B
--------
Not A

Or... to restate:

The just initiation of force between individuals requires a subjective value judgement (namely, might makes right), which relies on the arbitrary definition of the ability to produce force as superior to the lack of ability to produce force. The initiation of force between individuals is therefore of an arbitrary nature,

A->B

and an objectively just interaction therefore excludes forcible coercion.

Not B -> Not A

This is not strictly legit, I'm shoehorning the argument into the language you want to speak here - but it's not a complete picture.

Is that what you're looking for? I don't understand why you're having so much trouble with this. Force is subjective and arbitrary and so with the goal of avoiding the subjective and arbitrary we must exclude force. There is no denying the antecedent.

If you cannot prove that assertion positively, then it's not objective. Isn't it simple as that?

If that were true then the objective conclusion that the sun would come up tomorrow would be not objective. Given the evidence at hand, the only rational conclusion would be that the sun will come up tomorrow - and there is nothing subjective about that conclusion. It isn't provable, but it is purely rational. It rests on the basis that the rational approach to reality is to proceed given what we know.

 

[Wolf-M]

Not sure exactly what you're getting at here. I never claimed that we are always free from the use of force - so not sure why you're trying to say that I don't support that conclusion. I said this:



That doesn't mean forcible coercion doesn't exist. It means that such an interaction is subjectively motivated.



That's not my premise.



...and that's not my conclusion.

You're being very sloppy with these arguments with the goal of trying to fit them into an improper use of Modus Tollens. You seem hell bent on that, actually.

Try this one:

A=Force
B=Subjectivity

A->B
Not B
--------
Not A

Your argument is

If force then subjective.

Not subjective therefore not force???!!!


What argument is that??

And I must say again, you are not using modus tollens. You are denying the antecedent, which is why your argument is invalid as a matter of logic.

Or... to restate:



A->B



Not B -> Not A

This is not strictly legit, I'm shoehorning the argument into the language you want to speak here - but it's not a complete picture.

Is that what you're looking for? I don't understand why you're having so much trouble with this. Force is subjective and arbitrary and so with the goal of avoiding the subjective and arbitrary we must exclude force. There is no denying the antecedent.

I'm sorry I dont seem to find your statement to fit within logic terms.

Premise: If A then B. Conclusion: Not B then Not A

is a valid argument


So I re-run your argument

If [might is right] then [human rights are subjective]?

You can only show that [might is right] cannot be established as a matter of objectivity. You can't even show that might is right is WRONG objectively.

Even, giving you the benefit of doubt, that you can manage to establish that, at most you can show that A is wrong; ie [might is right] is wrong (which I do not agree), it does not follow that "human rights are subjective" is also wrong.

If that were true then the objective conclusion that the sun would come up tomorrow would be not objective. Given the evidence at hand, the only rational conclusion would be that the sun will come up tomorrow - and there is nothing subjective about that conclusion. It isn't provable, but it is purely rational. It rests on the basis that the rational approach to reality is to proceed given what we know.

You are mixing ideas.

The fact that the sun would come up tomorrow is established by empirical evidence.

There is no evidence that establishes that human rights are objective.

That's the crucial difference.

And one point you finally got right - yes, as a matter of philosophy, the sun will come out tomorrow is merely a statement. It is not objectivity verifiable that the sun will come out tomorrow. In that sense you cannot say that as a matter of objectivity, the sun will as a matter of course come out tomorrow.

IN ANY EVENT, this has the support of empirical evidence which your proposition lacks.