Human Rights

[Danoff]

That would have been ethically wrong, since the mechanic stated his fee up front. He said clearly he charges 25 an hour regardles if he manages to fix it. If he stated he charges 25 usd to fix it, one could make a case for the author that he isnt entitled to payment. He could have assumed it was a no cure, no pay offer.

But you never agreed to the mechanic's fee. You never told him to fix it.

 

[PocketZeven]

But you never agreed to the mechanic's fee. You never told him to fix it.

I am making assumptions here, but by asking that specific follow up question, the mechanic could have assumed I consented. And I could have argued I didnt give consent and the mechanic could have decided to just pack up and leave or start charging him now and then.

 

[Danoff]

I am making assumptions here, but by asking that specific follow up question, the mechanic could have assumed I consented. And I could have argued I didnt give consent and the mechanic could have decided to just pack up and leave.

Before we go too far down this road, let me give you another highly related and also in the book scenario to ponder on. This one is also real-world.

You're at a stoplight in your car. All of the sudden, while the light is red, a random dude sprays windshield cleaner on, and squeegees, the windshield. He then taps on your window to ask for money. Are you obliged to pay him? Does it matter if the windshield was spotless or filthy?

 

[Brett]

Before we go too far down this road, let me give you another highly related and also in the book scenario to ponder on. This one is also real-world.

You're at a stoplight in your car. All of the sudden, while the light is red, a random dude sprays windshield cleaner on, and squeegees, the windshield. He then taps on your window to ask for money. Are you obliged to pay him? Does it matter if the windshield was spotless or filthy?

No, I am not obliged to pay the person. They did the work without my consent. The condition of the windshield is not relevant.

 

[Danoff]

No, I am not obliged to pay the person. They did the work without my consent. The condition of the windshield is not relevant.

Ok, try this one:

Suppose that you have a set of parents who love you and care for you throughout your childhood, paying for food, clothing, shelter, education, and entertainment. You reach adulthood successfully and go on to become a productive member of society. Your parents later become old and ill, and require care. Are you obliged to care for them with your time and resources? You did not consent to being born or having them care for you while you were a child.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Here's an interesting moral/ethical dilemma for your consideration...the point of this hypothetical is to question whether you can be obliged without express consent.

No. It's evident that the verbal discourse that goes to completing the agreement of the contract's terms is incomplete. The only fault that might be levelled against the car owner is that they didn't tell the mechanic to stop touching the car until such a point as terms were agreed.

As it stands there is no contract and the car owner would be unwise to attempt to answer the mechanic's last question.

 

[Danoff]

No. It's evident that the verbal discourse that goes to completing the agreement of the contract's terms is incomplete. The only fault that might be levelled against the car owner is that they didn't tell the mechanic to stop touching the car until such a point as terms were agreed.

As it stands there is no contract and the car owner would be unwise to attempt to answer the mechanic's last question.

From that I can infer your answer to the squeegee man. What about the parental example?

 

[Dotini]

Today hundreds of thousands of Muslims are in concentration camps.

IN AN attempt to defend the gulag in which it has imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Uighurs and other Muslims in the Xinjiang region, China has tried to rebrand concentration camps as centers for “vocational training.” The goal, as a state television broadcast put it, is to “rescue ignorant, backward and poor rural minorities.” That description encapsulates the gross bigotry with which Chinese authorities view the Uighurs, against whom they have launched a massive campaign of cultural extermination.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.47ad1c7dfb25

 

[Danoff]

Consider one final scenario. You live in a country where rule of law persists. Organizations like the FDA exist to prevent people from selling you bad food or drugs. A military exists to fight your wars for you. A border patrol exists to keep people out of your region. Public schools exist to help achieve a mediocre level of education among the children in your area. You did not consent to any of this. Are you obliged to pay for it?

Here is the spectrum of presumed obligation for something you did not consent:

- Squeegee man
- Over zealous mechanic
- Your parents
- Your country

Do you distinguish between these?

 

[mustafur]

Well since it's China we better sweep it under the rug, since it will never be addressed so long as the CCP is in charge.

 

[Keef]

Do you distinguish between these?

We need answers @TenEightyOne, preferably in fewer words than before.

 

[Dotini]

Well since it's China we better sweep it under the rug, since it will never be addressed so long as the CCP is in charge.

Regrettably agreed. We can't take on moral crusades (by applying sanctions and military pressure) against China for slamming a million Muslims in concentration camps at the same time as we are applying tariffs due to intellectual property theft. It's just too much risk for open conflict and global meltdown. At least we (or some righteous nation with clean hands) can call it out as a human rights atrocity. The Nazis didn't pay for their concentration camps until after they were defeated in WWII. I expect war with China will happen someday. But I hope I won't be here to see it.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm not sure why @TenEightyOne should be the one singled out for answers or why there should be a word limitation on them.

Since I'm the only family member looking after my mum in her old age and my brothers and sisters only call her to hit her up for cash, I'll assume that they don't see it as an obligation and that I'm doing it for the same reason she looked after us in the first place.

It's easier to ignore a squeegee man's request for money than a government's. You can't just drive off and leave it standing in the road waving its rag.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Suppose that you have a set of parents who love you and care for you throughout your childhood, paying for food, clothing, shelter, education, and entertainment. You reach adulthood successfully and go on to become a productive member of society. Your parents later become old and ill, and require care. Are you obliged to care for them with your time and resources? You did not consent to being born or having them care for you while you were a child.

This is a difficult one - it's designed that way. There is no contract, there is no obligation. The parents procreated and made gifts of all the above. It's up to them to have saved enough resources to spend on their own care for the length of time they require such input. EDIT: There IS some legal standing for claims based on gifts/loans given to adult children, that's different... but I presume that's outside the scope of "gifting a childhood".

Of course, that's not how it happens in a world where humans feel moral responsibility although that shouldn't be part of a situation where a law can force a person to action.

 

[Exorcet]

It's easier to ignore a squeegee man's request for money than a government's. You can't just drive off and leave it standing in the road waving its rag.

That's a separate issue though. If the squeegee man could seize my car and imprison me for not paying, he'd still be in the wrong.

 

[Dotini]

Your parents later become old and ill, and require care. Are you obliged to care for them with your time and resources? You did not consent to being born or having them care for you while you were a child.

Morally and emotionally you are obliged to care for them. If you can do this but don't because you hate them, then the family has had a tragic breakdown along the way. Civilization won't end because of this, but it's been made worse. You've attained a higher status strength and power than your parents and you cynically but legally take advantage of that. In this real world, it's proof that the ends justify the means and might makes right.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not sure why @TenEightyOne should be the one singled out for answers or why there should be a word limitation on them.

Since I'm the only family member looking after my mum in her old age and my brothers and sisters only call her to hit her up for cash, I'll assume that they don't see it as an obligation and that I'm doing it for the same reason she looked after us in the first place.

It's easier to ignore a squeegee man's request for money than a government's. You can't just drive off and leave it standing in the road waving its rag.

This is a difficult one - it's designed that way. There is no contract, there is no obligation. The parents procreated and made gifts of all the above. It's up to them to have saved enough resources to spend on their own care for the length of time they require such input. EDIT: There IS some legal standing for claims based on gifts/loans given to adult children, that's different... but I presume that's outside the scope of "gifting a childhood".

Of course, that's not how it happens in a world where humans feel moral responsibility although that shouldn't be part of a situation where a law can force a person to action.

Morally and emotionally you are obliged to care for them. If you can do this but don't because you hate them, then the family has had a tragic breakdown along the way. Civilization won't end because of this, but it's been made worse. You've attained a higher status strength and power than your parents and you cynically but legally take advantage of that. In this real world, it's proof that the ends justify the means and might makes right.

First I wanted to say thanks for engaging in the scenarios. Too often with these hypotheticals it's easy to dismiss or pick apart the scenario instead of questioning the real underlying philosophical point.

For the parental case, I have pretty strong opinions. First, I want to say that there is a difference between an emotional bond that you want to honor and a moral obligation. You can help someone out of love and desire to see them smile without being obliged to do it. And I think that's an important distinction.

In each case there is a distinction between the scenario where you actually benefit, and a scenario where not only do you lack a benefit, but may even claim some harm. For example

- Squeegee man ultimately messes up a perfectly clean windshield
- Mechanic can't find the problem
- Parents abuse their children
- Country wages unjust war or oppresses minorities, even yourself

And of course there is the scenario where you benefit

- Squeegee man cleans a dirty windshield
- Mechanic fixes the car
- Parents provide for their children
- Government defends your rights

The author of the book believes, at least, that the mechanic fixing the car confers an obligation despite a lack of consent. He also believes that parents and government confer an obligation. He didn't weigh in on the beneficial squeegee man, probably because there is such a negative general sentiment to the squeegee man. I think that the author's intended conclusion is actually undermined by his examples, and, in the case of at least one reader, I found it a compelling argument for exactly the opposite conclusion.

From a certain perspective, I'm a pretty unique parent. I actually participated in selecting both of the contributions to two of my childrens' genetics. I selected my wife, and I selected a donor (she did too). From a perspective, they are genetically engineered humans. Specific genes that I carry I affirmatively chose not to give to my offspring, and gave them other genes instead. But how is this, really, fundamentally different than what all parents do? Even if they never consider a donor, or any other kind of genetic selection (including IVF resulting in embryos that can be tested), they still choose their mate, and they choose their own genetics and the genetics of their mate for procreation, even if that choice is by being unwilling to consider using alternative genetics.

We craft our children from the outset. And we make a thousand decisions along the way that ultimately influence them. Their brains become physically wired in response to our inputs. The difference between comforting an angry child and punishing an angry child, for example, has a physical manifestation in their brain. As a parent, you control their genes, and you literally shape their brain. You're not the only influence in that, but you are a major influence in it.

How can we justify this, morally?

You cannot. You do not have your child's consent to choose their genetics. You do not have your child's consent to shape their brain in a particular way. You make these decisions for them, hopefully because you believe that they would have chosen the same thing. But this initial transgression, your choice without their consent, your influence on the physical structure of their bodies and minds potentially against their will, makes you indebted to them for the rest of both of your lives. You had no right to do it, and you're accountable to them forever as a result.

So, in my view, it is the beginning of the relationship that entails that the parents are obliged to their children, and never the other way around. A parent can never ask their children to repay them for what they did not ask for and had no choice or consent in.

To test this conclusion, simply imagine a child who receives all of the love and care in the world, more love and care than you ever got, because that child is afflicted with a genetic disorder that renders them unable to function in society. Imagine parents who stand beside that child into adulthood and continue to care and provide for them for their entire lives, putting hours and resources into their care that dwarfs that of your own parents. Can those parents ever demand that their handicapped offspring repay them? Even if it is impossible for them to do so?

The parenting gamble is one you choose for yourself for your own ends. The responsibility never ends, and it never reverses.

 

[Brett]

Here's an interesting moral/ethical dilemma for your consideration which comes directly out of a (disappointing) book I just read (the book was titled "Justice").

Suppose you're at a gas station and your car breaks down. A mobile repair van eventually drives up, and a mechanic hops out to help you. He says, "I charge $25/hr. If I fix your car in 5 minutes, you owe me $25. If I spend an hour and can't fix your car, you still owe me $25". You ask a follow up question about how easy it is to fix, and he starts poking around without answering. Shortly after he says "well I haven't found the problem yet, but you still have 50 minutes". You say "wait a minute, I haven't agreed to hire you". He says "are you telling me that if I fixed your car right now you wouldn't pay me?"

How do you respond? The point of this hypothetical is to question whether you can be obliged without express consent.

That is a fairly scummy business practice. I would probably tell them to go pound sand, especially since they volunteered their help without my consent to the help.

Ok, try this one:

Suppose that you have a set of parents who love you and care for you throughout your childhood, paying for food, clothing, shelter, education, and entertainment. You reach adulthood successfully and go on to become a productive member of society. Your parents later become old and ill, and require care. Are you obliged to care for them with your time and resources? You did not consent to being born or having them care for you while you were a child.

Objectively, no. I did not have any input on being born or the care received. Subjectively, maybe. It would depend on how secure my finances are. Ultimately, that is probably no too because I am not ever likely to have enough to pay for more than my well being.

 

[Joey D]

Here is the spectrum of presumed obligation for something you did not consent:

- Squeegee man
- Over zealous mechanic
- Your parents
- Your country

Do you distinguish between these?

I only feel obligated to my parents, but only because I have a good relationship with them. I don't think anyone should have to take care of their parents if they don't want to though, it should be a personal choice.

The other three, I feel no moral obligation towards. However, I am legally obligated to country whether I like it or not. If I don't put up with the country's theft of my money, then I'm going to end up in prison.

 

[Danoff]

At it's core though, our forceful anger in the face of injustice (which is partly what political discussions are about) is helpful for getting rid of and suppressing those who are doing wrong. Richard Dawkins goes into length about why mutually beneficial genetics for things like picking the ticks out of the hair of your neighbor if they'll reciprocate and pick the ticks out of yours are beneficial to the group as a whole. And getting pissed off when they don't reciprocate is part of that.

I just ran across this post of mine in another thread and realized that it explains the concept of moral obligation in exchange for a benefit received from someone else. There is a strong biological urge to pick the ticks out of the hair of the monkey that picks the ticks out of yours - it kept our ancestors alive. It's that instinctual or emotional pull that tugs at you when you consider someone who has fixed your car, put food in your belly, or defended you from thieves and murderers without your consent... maybe even for the guy that cleans your windshield at a stoplight. But this response is optional from a moral perspective. I think it's interesting to note the biological origin of the impulse though.

 

[Keef]

humans feel moral responsibility

I think this at the core of the entire discussion here. And that you made this statement makes me think you haven't gotten to the core of it yet.

What is moral responsibility? Can you feel it? Does it exist? How and why?

I don't think "feeling" moral responsibility is happening in the situation of a person caring for their elderly parents. They're not feeling a moral responsibility, they're feeling the pressure of societal values. Values and moral principles are two very different things. Some cultural values dictate that a child be subservient to their parents throughout adulthood while other cultural values say the child should leave the nest with no reason to come back. Which of these are wrong and which one is not wrong?

 

[UKMikey]

I don't think my mum would survive without me. If I were to walk away she'd probably starve to death. I see that very much as a moral responsibility rather than societal pressure.

 

[Rallywagon]

I agree with Mikey. I think most of the time it is a moral obligation. Your parents gave you life, changed your diapers and raised you. I think that would drive a moral obligation when they are in need more than any societal pressure.

 

[Biggles]

We craft our children from the outset. And we make a thousand decisions along the way that ultimately influence them. Their brains become physically wired in response to our inputs. The difference between comforting an angry child and punishing an angry child, for example, has a physical manifestation in their brain. As a parent, you control their genes, and you literally shape their brain. You're not the only influence in that, but you are a major influence in it.

How can we justify this, morally?

You cannot. You do not have your child's consent to choose their genetics. You do not have your child's consent to shape their brain in a particular way. You make these decisions for them, hopefully because you believe that they would have chosen the same thing. But this initial transgression, your choice without their consent, your influence on the physical structure of their bodies and minds potentially against their will, makes you indebted to them for the rest of both of your lives. You had no right to do it, and you're accountable to them forever as a result.

So, in my view, it is the beginning of the relationship that entails that the parents are obliged to their children, and never the other way around. A parent can never ask their children to repay them for what they did not ask for and had no choice or consent in.

To test this conclusion, simply imagine a child who receives all of the love and care in the world, more love and care than you ever got, because that child is afflicted with a genetic disorder that renders them unable to function in society. Imagine parents who stand beside that child into adulthood and continue to care and provide for them for their entire lives, putting hours and resources into their care that dwarfs that of your own parents. Can those parents ever demand that their handicapped offspring repay them? Even if it is impossible for them to do so?

The parenting gamble is one you choose for yourself for your own ends. The responsibility never ends, and it never reverses.

Couple of points: "the apple does not fall far from the tree". Although the implication of this is hereditary, my sense from personal experience is that it is based much more on nurture than nature. This applies very markedly to people's political, religious & philosophical leanings. In most cases they don't seem to be based primarily on rational or intellectual analysis, but on upbringing & exposure. The political divide in the US right now pretty clearly illustrates this.

Secondly: as a parent of young children you may feel that parenting is a long & (sometimes) arduous process (& of course as the parent of a disabled child that may continue indefinitely), however, as I have learned from personal experience, looking after elderly parents who are afflicted with physical or mental ailments can itself turn into a very long (sometimes longer than your childhood) process. And elderly parents can turn out to be somewhat less "cute" than young children to deal with.

 

[Danoff]

I don't think my mum would survive without me. If I were to walk away she'd probably starve to death. I see that very much as a moral responsibility rather than societal pressure.

Is that just your mom or would anyone whose life depended on you be entitled to your help?

 

[UKMikey]

Is that just your mom or would anyone whose life depended on you be entitled to your help?

If their life already depended on me, then I feel that to walk away would be a moral decision.

 

[Danoff]

If their life already depended on me, then I feel that to walk away would be a moral decision.

Can you elaborate on what it means to "already depend" on you? I think you anticipated my next question, which was going to be about people starving in Africa who depend on you.

 

[UKMikey]

Can you elaborate on what it means to "already depend" on you? I think you anticipated my next question, which was going to be about people starving in Africa who depend on you.

Why would they depend on me in particular? It seems like a left field way to go about convincing me to abandon my parent (or adopt several hundred strangers).

 

[Danoff]

Why would they depend on me in particular? It seems like a left field way to go about convincing me to abandon my parent.

I'm not trying to convince you to abandon anyone. I'm asking you to examine your moral obligation. Does it come from a place of need? Because there are other people who you can save. I think you choose this one in particular out of personal preference (which is fine, but which doesn't help differentiate actual moral obligation from others).

 

[UKMikey]

I'm not trying to convince you to abandon anyone. I'm asking you to examine your moral obligation. Does it come from a place of need? Because there are other people who you can save. I think you choose this one in particular out of personal preference (which is fine, but which doesn't help differentiate actual moral obligation from others).

More like convenience as she lives under the same roof as me, not on another continent. Whether it's a biological need or not I feel it for my mum more strongly than I do for the starving millions of Africa.