Human Rights

[Danoff]

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.

Of course you do. I mean, unless she was a terrible person, in which case you might feel more strongly for random people you know nothing about. I guess my main question is whether this is, to you, a moral obligation, or honoring an emotional bond. The test for this is to present a hypothetical where you lack the emotional bond, such as in the case of the people in Africa.

 

[UKMikey]

Of course you do. I mean, unless she was a terrible person, in which case you might feel more strongly for random people you know nothing about. I guess my main question is whether this is, to you, a moral obligation, or honoring an emotional bond. The test for this is to present a hypothetical where you lack the emotional bond, such as in the case of the people in Africa.

Sigh. I guess this is an emotional bond, rather than a moral obligation, but I don't see it as societal pressure or a personal conscious decision either, unless it's that of my siblings.

I still don't see how strangers in Africa are as dependent upon me as my elderly parent though so it seems like a whacked out line of questioning to me. Why not use other elderly people in my street as an alternative example? I have less excuse not to take care of them than people I've never met in another country.

 

[Danoff]

Sigh. I guess this is an emotional bond, rather than a moral obligation, but I don't see it as societal pressure or a personal conscious decision either, unless it's that of my siblings.

I still don't see how strangers in Africa are as dependent upon me as my elderly parent though so it seems like a whacked out line of questioning to me. Why not use other elderly people in my street as an alternative example? I have less excuse not to take care of them than people I've never met in another country.

I was specifically looking for an example where you're lacking emotional connection, including an emotional bond based on national or local community. It's helpful that the genetics are far removed too... just to filter out biological responses.

 

[Rallywagon]

Why can't it be both an emotional bond and a moral obligation? Why cant the moral obligation be driven by the emotional bond?
I certainly would see leaving your parent(s) in the street to fend for themselves as a morally ill thing to do. I also feel confident saying its morally ill to allow starving people in Africa to suffer, if you have some sort of means to help, but, the emotional bond would set the "moral priority" on helping your parent(s) first.

 

[Danoff]

Why can't it be both an emotional bond and a moral obligation? Why cant the moral obligation be driven by the emotional bond?

It could. There's no reason why you can't have an emotional reason to avoid doing something immoral.

I certainly would see leaving your parent(s) in the street to fend for themselves as a morally ill thing to do.

Why? Does your answer change if you were a victim of abuse at the hands of your parents? If so, why?

I also feel confident saying its morally ill to allow starving people in Africa to suffer, if you have some sort of means to help, but,

Then you should send literally your last dollar.

the emotional bond would set the "moral priority" on helping your parent(s) first.

You've defined a scenario where you're morally obliged to give more than you can possibly give (thereby making you an immoral person for giving anything less than everything), and so you're performing triage based on emotion?

 

[Rallywagon]

It could. There's no reason why you can't have an emotional reason to avoid doing something immoral.

Why? Does your answer change if you were a victim of abuse at the hands of your parents? If so, why?

Sure, because the emotional imperative driving the moral decision changes.

Then you should send literally your last dollar.

If you want to take it to that extreme. However, most people have other moral obligations to consider first. While we should consider others, you must consider yourself first.

You've defined a scenario where you're morally obliged to give more than you can possibly give (thereby making you an immoral person for giving anything less than everything), and so you're performing triage based on emotion?

Everyone is immoral to some extent. Some take it to the extremes, Jainist and Sadists as example. Most of us find a comfort zone of morality/immorality in which to live day to day and not be burdened by guilt.

 

[Danoff]

Sure, because the emotional imperative driving the moral decision changes.

If you want to take it to that extreme. However, most people have other moral obligations to consider first. While we should consider others, you must consider yourself first.

Everyone is immoral to some extent. Some take it to the extremes, Jainist and Sadists as example. Most of us find a comfort zone of morality/immorality in which to live day to day and not be burdened by guilt.

It sounds like "morality" to you is really just whatever you feel emotionally. That can lead to some contradictory notions of morality, such as having a moral obligation to more people than you can possibly fulfill... or having a moral obligation to yourself that conflicts with your moral obligation to others.

I'm not sure that can be described as morals or morality. It sounds more like purely emotionally driven behavior, which will change with each person, and over time for a given person.

 

[Rallywagon]

I dont believe I am speaking of emotions. Certainly there is overlap and I believe morals can charge emotion or perhaps vice versa. We certainly have adjectives for these notions such as moral outrage. But no, I am not speaking of emotion, I am playing off your hypothetical. You were using strangers to establish whether Mikey was being emotional or moral. If morality in this hypothetical is to be that taking care of strangers is morality, than Mikey choosing to take care of his mother isnt just emotion, its morality prioritized by emotion.
In that notion of emotionally prioritized morality, yourself however should rank as number one. In order to fulfill a moral obligation to as many as possible to the best of your abilities, you must be at the best you can be. You cant do that in any other position in this "scale."
In that sense of scale, it's up to you to decide how far to take that obligation. I think it's on each individual to decide for themselves what that obligation entails and at what point it is or is not immoral for them to not be obliged.

 

[Danoff]

I think it's on each individual to decide for themselves what that obligation entails and at what point it is or is not immoral for them to not be obliged.

So your moral obligation is determined by your emotional attachment (it determines the priority of your obligation), and it's up to each individual to assess whether they are morally obligated, based on their emotions. Right?

That sounds like emotionally driven behavior to me, which is not consistent from one person to the next.

 

[Rallywagon]

So your moral obligation is determined by your emotional attachment (it determines the priority of your obligation), and it's up to each individual to assess whether they are morally obligated, based on their emotions. Right?

That sounds like emotionally driven behavior to me, which is not consistent from one person to the next.

Sure does. Which is exactly what I said from the get go and you agreed with.
I also dont know that morals are either static, nor consistent from person to person. A good example would be spanking kids. Some see it as moral to teach discipline and not let loose a spoiled, irresponsible person on the world, others see it as amoral and abusive towards the child with no positive outcome.
Edit: I also believe morals have changed a lot over the history of man, and has been highly influenced by the powers that be, IE, religion, governement mandate, etc. Some morals can be fairly static and universal, killing in coldblood, rape, such things, some are more fluid like the example above and changes with time and social shifts.

 

[Danoff]

Sure does. Which is exactly what I said from the get go and you agreed with.

I said "There's no reason why you can't have an emotional reason to avoid doing something immoral."

So, for example, if it is immoral to murder, you might also have an emotional response that encourages you not to murder. Or if it's immoral to abandon your grandmother, you might also have an emotional response to avoid doing so. That wasn't meant to suggest that morality is based on emotions.

I also dont know that morals are either static, nor consistent from person to person. A good example would be spanking kids. Some see it as moral to teach discipline and not let loose a spoiled, irresponsible person on the world, others see it as amoral and abusive towards the child with no positive outcome.

Are you saying that you personally do not think there is one right answer to that question?

 

[Rallywagon]

I said "There's no reason why you can't have an emotional reason to avoid doing something immoral."

So, for example, if it is immoral to murder, you might also have an emotional response that encourages you not to murder. Or if it's immoral to abandon your grandmother, you might also have an emotional response to avoid doing so. That wasn't meant to suggest that morality is based on emotions.



Are you saying that you personally do not think there is one right answer to that question?

Im saying it depends on who you ask. I think morals are fairly subjective and will even change depending on a given situation. We can all agree murder is amoral yes? Ok, but is it still amoral if that person is about to press a button that will cause 1000 deaths and only you can stop them and only then by murdering them?
How about premarital sex? Most religious people will see this as amoral, most secularists will not.

 

[Danoff]

Im saying it depends on who you ask. I think morals are fairly subjective and will even change depending on a given situation. We can all agree murder is amoral yes? Ok, but is it still amoral if that person is about to press a button that will cause 1000 deaths and only you can stop them and only then by murdering them?
How about premarital sex? Most religious people will see this as amoral, most secularists will not.

I agree that murder is immoral. Sipping coffee would be amoral. I would say that you can morally defend the rights of others (1000 deaths) from a would-be murderer on the basis that the would-be murderer has forfeit his rights, that's not murder, it's killing.

It comes down to a question of what morality means. Is it a personal notion that guides your actions? A conscience? The way an act feels?

Here's a definition:

Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

‘the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed’

1. 1.1count noun A particular system of values and principles of conduct.
   ‘a bourgeois morality’
   
   
2. 1.2 The extent to which an action is right or wrong.
   ‘the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons’

Each of these speaks to something outside the individual. "Principles", "a system", "an action is right or wrong". Each of those could be interpreted as being internal, your own personal principles, your own personal system, your own personal assessment about whether an action is right or wrong. But That's not how the definition is written. And it's not how any of the examples are written - they apply externally to the speaker.

Is it possible to have your own personal moral code? Sure. Is it possible to have your own moral code that only applies to you? Uh... I'm not sure we're talking about morals anymore. I fully recognize that morality is not an easy word to pin down. That's why I focused this thread on the notion of human rights, something a little more concrete. But I think it's safe to say, of morality, that it's not your conscience, it's not your emotions, or your instinct, or your preference. It's not what you consider to be a good idea, or what your personal preference.

Morality is what you think is right or wrong for everyone to do in a given situation. And I think if you don't believe that exists, or you don't have an idea of what that should be, that you believe morality does not exist, or at least that you do not have a moral code.

What do you think?

 

[Rallywagon]

I agree that murder is immoral. Sipping coffee would be amoral. I would say that you can morally defend the rights of others (1000 deaths) from a would-be murderer on the basis that the would-be murderer has forfeit his rights, that's not murder, it's killing.

It comes down to a question of what morality means. Is it a personal notion that guides your actions? A conscience? The way an act feels?

Here's a definition:


Each of these speaks to something outside the individual. "Principles", "a system", "an action is right or wrong". Each of those could be interpreted as being internal, your own personal principles, your own personal system, your own personal assessment about whether an action is right or wrong. But That's not how the definition is written. And it's not how any of the examples are written - they apply externally to the speaker.

Is it possible to have your own personal moral code? Sure. Is it possible to have your own moral code that only applies to you? Uh... I'm not sure we're talking about morals anymore. I fully recognize that morality is not an easy word to pin down. That's why I focused this thread on the notion of human rights, something a little more concrete. But I think it's safe to say, of morality, that it's not your conscience, it's not your emotions, or your instinct, or your preference. It's not what you consider to be a good idea, or what your personal preference.

Morality is what you think is right or wrong for everyone to do in a given situation. And I think if you don't believe that exists, or you don't have an idea of what that should be, that you believe morality does not exist, or at least that you do not have a moral code.

What do you think?

I think it stinks of Hume's law. What one might consider axiomatic, may not be so. I sure believe morals exist. I think there are many that are universal. But I think there is also an "ethical grey zone" if you will. And while we may think, those universal morals ought to be set in stone, that is not to say they are.

 

[Danoff]

I think it stinks of Hume's law. What one might consider axiomatic, may not be so. I sure believe morals exist. I think there are many that are universal.

And what morals do you think those are, and how do you reconcile Hume's law? And back to my question, can you derive obligation without consent?

 

[Rallywagon]

And what morals do you think those are, and how do you reconcile Hume's law? And back to my question, can you derive obligation without consent?

I dont know that you do reconcile Hume's law. I mean, this has been one of the great philosophical debates, it's one of the prime arguments coming from the religious and honestly, I dont think their is reconciliation.
As for the question of obligation without consent. Maybe. I dont think intrinsically you can, but, there is a chance you can after the act. In the example you used of the car (without addressing the fact a mechanic would not have touched a car without a signed consent form, for this reason). Since the mechanic never got consent, the mechanic essential did the investigation and the supposed fix for free. There is no obligation on the behalf of the motorist since they didnt say yes. However, there is the chance that said motorist may find an ethical imperative to pay the mechanic after the fact.

 

[Danoff]

I dont know that you do reconcile Hume's law. I mean, this has been one of the great philosophical debates, it's one of the prime arguments coming from the religious and honestly, I dont think their is reconciliation.

Ayn Rand did it by defining the problem more specifically - to humans. She attempted to identify intrinsic attributes of humans that result in... implications for behavior. My own solution is to define a self-consistent framework and then leave it up to the individual whether to adopt that framework, with logical implications resulting from the choice of whether or not to adopt it. So I make no ought statements, just an acknowledgment of the implications of choices. It's very similar to Ayn Rand's approach, but with a few satisfying tweaks.

As for the question of obligation without consent. Maybe. I dont think intrinsically you can, but, there is a chance you can after the act. In the example you used of the car (without addressing the fact a mechanic would not have touched a car without a signed consent form, for this reason). Since the mechanic never got consent, the mechanic essential did the investigation and the supposed fix for free. There is no obligation on the behalf of the motorist since they didnt say yes. However, there is the chance that said motorist may find an ethical imperative to pay the mechanic after the fact.

That ethical imperative is your instinctual or emotional brain telling you that reciprocity is important for survival. It comes from natural selection (as I referenced above).

 

[PocketZeven]

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, not obliged. The difference is that you didnt ask or were in need for his service and he didnt state his fee upfront. However if your windshield was dirty, you may pay him a small fee as a thank you of your own choice. Which is the way it works in the countries I have experienced it.

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?

I did distinguish between these. In my world the world is not black and white. People often react and act out of emotion and with little or no logic. Of the 4 mentioned in your example the intent of the 4 are vastly different.

 

[Johnnypenso]

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?

My dad inadvertantly taught me a lesson along these lines when I was a kid. Gas was cheap in the 70's and we pulled up to an Esso station and my Dad said, "I'll take 5 dollars of regular". The gas jockey had a couple of cars to handle and must have forgotten about us and we ended up getting a full tank which was $6 and change. When he asked my Dad for the money he said, "I didn't ask for a fill, I only asked for $5 so here's my $5". They went back and forth for a while and my Dad just kept repeating that he only asked for $5. The guy was obviously miffed but we only paid $5 and left. So I asked my Dad on the way home why he did that, if he didn't have the money etc. I never forgot his response. He said, "He might have been trying to rip me off and I can't stand for that. On the other hand, it might also be an honest mistake, but, if I pay him for that honest mistake then he's not going to learn anything and might just go on making the same mistake. I did something similar when I worked in heating and cooling and I never made that mistake again because it came out of my pay. Take your lumps and learn your lesson". Probably more than any man I've ever known, my Dad was a man of his word but did not suffer fools gladly.

 

[Danoff]

My dad inadvertantly taught me a lesson along these lines when I was a kid. Gas was cheap in the 70's and we pulled up to an Esso station and my Dad said, "I'll take 5 dollars of regular". The gas jockey had a couple of cars to handle and must have forgotten about us and we ended up getting a full tank which was $6 and change. When he asked my Dad for the money he said, "I didn't ask for a fill, I only asked for $5 so here's my $5". They went back and forth for a while and my Dad just kept repeating that he only asked for $5. The guy was obviously miffed but we only paid $5 and left. So I asked my Dad on the way home why he did that, if he didn't have the money etc. I never forgot his response. He said, "He might have been trying to rip me off and I can't stand for that. On the other hand, it might also be an honest mistake, but, if I pay him for that honest mistake then he's not going to learn anything and might just go on making the same mistake. I did something similar when I worked in heating and cooling and I never made that mistake again because it came out of my pay. Take your lumps and learn your lesson". Probably more than any man I've ever known, my Dad was a man of his word but did not suffer fools gladly.

Sounds a lot like my dad. That's not me.

I'd see that scenario two ways. 1) The guy was trying to sell me more than I needed.... which, is fine, because I'm gonna use that gas. So I'll pay for it because it's going to get used. 2) That was an honest mistake and he won't learn if I don't make him pay for it... which is fine, it's not a lesson he needs to learn from me. If he keeps making the mistake, some other customer who is a crotchety curmudgeon who feels that he needs to go out of his way to teach everyone a lesson at every pass, can teach him that lesson.

The only way I stand on principle and refuse to pay the overage is if I don't have the money, or I really didn't want the gas. Otherwise I'm living and letting live, not out of obligation, but because that's how I'd rather be.

 

[HenrySwanson]

So a recent discussion on another forum had me thinking:

Do illegal immigrants have more rights than the average citizen?
Do all prisoners have more rights than the average citizen?

We don't really baulk at the idea that illegal immigrants and prisoners should have a legal minimum of care but it got me thinking that we (as in the West generally) don't really believe everyone should have those same "rights". As a population would we say that the state owes it to the homeless to give them shelter, food and facilities for their personal hygiene?

* Apologies if this was asked before

 

[PocketZeven]

So a recent discussion on another forum had me thinking:

Do illegal immigrants have more rights than the average citizen?
Do all prisoners have more rights than the average citizen?

We don't really baulk at the idea that illegal immigrants and prisoners should have a legal minimum of care but it got me thinking that we (as in the West generally) don't really believe everyone should have those same "rights". As a population would we say that the state owes it to the homeless to give them shelter, food and facilities for their personal hygiene?

* Apologies if this was asked before

No and No

I think you should differentiate between legal rights and human rights.

 

[Danoff]

Do illegal immigrants have more rights than the average citizen?

Human rights do not change based on citizenship, they're possessed or not possessed because of behavior.

Do all prisoners have more rights than the average citizen?

All prisoners have less rights than innocent people, because they have been convicted (in a just society anyway) of infringing the rights of others.

If you're saying that they have more rights because they're getting free stuff, that's not a right.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Human rights do not change based on citizenship, they're possessed or not possessed because of behavior...

...If you're saying that they have more rights because they're getting free stuff, that's not a right.

What is it then?

I'm aware I'm being reductive but why does the prisoner have a roof over their head, food every day and toiletries when a homeless citizen doesn't have the same things guaranteed if it isn't a right?

I guess what I want to know is, on what basis are these things given.

 

[PocketZeven]

What is it then?

I'm aware I'm being reductive but why does the prisoner have a roof over their head, food every day and toiletries when a homeless citizen doesn't have access to those if it isn't a right?

A homeless person is free to go and do where and what he wants.
The prisoner has no choice.

Thats a significant difference in rights. The absence of choice.

 

[HenrySwanson]

A homeless person is free to go and do where and what he wants.
The prisoner has no choice.

Thats a significant difference in rights. The absence of choice.

But a homeless person won't be guaranteed a free bed, food and shower whereas the prisoner will be.

 

[Danoff]

But a homeless person won't be guaranteed a free bed, food and shower whereas the prisoner will be.

In most cases it's a violation of rights, specifically of the people who are footing the bill for incarceration. But since it doesn't have to be in all cases, I'd say that at its most fundamental what it is is a choice. A choice that the government makes to spend money on one group and not on another.

I donate to an orphanage in china each year. Is it their right to receive that donation? Why is it their right to receive a donation from me and not the right of some other orphanage? Do they not have more rights than the other orphanage that doesn't get a donation?

No, it's not their right, it's a choice. Mine. I choose to spend money on one and not the other. It's not even, because I chose for it not to be.

Edit:

I guess one of the big misunderstandings that is revealed here is that government behavior doesn't create rights and it isn't necessarily aligned with rights. When the US government didn't recognize black people as humans with rights, that didn't eliminate their rights, it violated them. What the government does or doesn't do often has less to do with human rights than we would all like.

 

[Exorcet]

But a homeless person won't be guaranteed a free bed, food and shower whereas the prisoner will be.

Prison isn't necessarily free:

https://money.cnn.com/2015/09/18/news/economy/prison-fees-inmates-debt/index.html

Also in an ideal system, I'd say taxes take care of it. People would be paying the government to handle security, part of which would be holding prisoners away from society when that is desirable. The equivalent for the poor would be charity in form of money and or housing. In the ideal system, both payments would be made on a voluntary basis.

 

[Danoff]

Prison isn't necessarily free:

https://money.cnn.com/2015/09/18/news/economy/prison-fees-inmates-debt/index.html

Also in an ideal system, I'd say taxes take care of it. People would be paying the government to handle security, part of which would be holding prisoners away from society when that is desirable. The equivalent for the poor would be charity in form of money and or housing. In the ideal system, both payments would be made on a voluntary basis.

Also it's worth pointing out here that we over-use incarceration and are moving (super slowly) away from that in terms of criminal justice. We're not necessarily going back to chopping off hands, but community service, counseling, house arrest, ankle bracelets, breath detectors, internet restrictions, revoked licenses, fines are other ways to punish that are less likely to set up further crimes and less likely to destroy productivity and create a cycle of poverty.

One the thing I learned about when I looked this up is something called "work release" where prisoners are allowed to go to work during the day and return to prison at night.

 

[ryzno]

Prison isn't necessarily free:

That's for sure, if we didn't work except on our days off, we got sack lunches all day instead of hot meals. We made a whopping $7.25 a week. I cut grass at the county airport for 8 months, I'm sure I saved them a lot in tax money to maintain the airport grounds. We had to deal with trees that would fall, we were even clearing out an area where they planned on expanding.