Human Rights

[Wolf-M]

The only legitimate kind of reasoning - reason.

Human rights exist as a product of reason, and they dictate that no majority can ever nullify them.



They are guilty of murder. They sacrificed 1 to save 5 (the trolley examples). The 1 has rights that compel the 5 not to act. The 5 do not have rights to kill the 1. (see my post just prior to yours)

Allow me to give you a new hypothetical.

There are two people in the world who have never interacted. One of them discovers the other one, sets a trap, captures him, shackles him, and forces him to do his will, as his slave, from then on.

In this scenario, one person's will is being subjugated to another's. Can this action be justified objectively? Is there an objective reason why one person should be allowed to subjugate another who has done him no harm?

Reason. Hmm...may I ask where your "reasoning" is apart from bare assertion that the survivors had no right to kill the one being eaten?

Again, I respectfully invite you to read the full judgment in the Speluncean Explorers' Case.

As to your hypothetical, I think Dotini has done a great job in coming up with a justification. I would add the following:-

Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2001] Fam 147

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re_A_%2..._Separation)

This case is one of medical separation of twins thereby killing one of them. Court expressly stated that a defence of necessity existed at common law. Three necessary requirements were identified:-

1) the act was needed to avoid inevitable and irreparable evil;
2) no more was done than was reasonably necessary for the purpose to be achieved; and
3) the evil inflicted was not disproportionate to the evil avoided


It is after all a test of proportionality.

It is a matter of balancing the evils. If you enslave another without good justification (eg out of mischief), then it's immoral. But if there is good justification for you to do so, then you weigh the two evils and see whether your infringement of the victim's right is proportionate or disproportionate to the other evil avoided. This is a fine line, I admit, and that's why I hesitate to put forward a positive proposition in respect of the trolley example. But again, I stress that I am only pointing out that there are different thoughts out there, all of which are legitimate. My point is simple - one cannot conclude that he/she has solved a problem within 5 lines of words which, as Lon Fuller - a Harvard philosopher - has stated, been troubling mankind since "the days of Plato and Aristotle"


As a person who has gone through these arguments again and again in law school and occasionally within my very limited work experience, the most valuable idea that I've picked up is that no human rights in this world is absolute. They are all subject to derogation if sufficient strong justification for such arises.


Just a few examples

Defamation. You protect one's reputation, but you're infringing upon another's right to speech/expression.

Same with privacy. Think of Tiger Woods. The courts in the UK granted him an injunction against media disclosure of his story. You protect his privacy as guaranteed by the Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights, but at the same time you deprive the media of their right to free expression.

Not even the right to life is absolute! Consider the death penalty and times of war when the killing of another human being is justified on the basis of national security/public interest etc.


Basically, whenever being encountered with such a scenario, the courts will ask the following questions (the UK and European Union position as evidenced by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights)

1) Is the infringement rationally connected to a legitimate purpose?
2) Is the infringement no more than reasonably necessary to achieve the legitimate purpose?

See McCann and others v United Kingdom - on whether an infringement of the UK gov on certain terrorists suspects' right to life was proportionate to the legitimate purpose aimed - ie to protect the lives of many other civilians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCann_v._United_Kingdom

By looking just at the wiki extract,

The Breach of Article 2 was found in the planning by the Authorities in that it was not 'strictly proportionate' to the objectives to be achieved; saving lives. Firstly, the court found a breach in the failure to arrest the suspects at the border so as to regard the life of both citizens and the suspects. Secondly, the court found that the Authorities did not consider the correctness of the intelligence (which turned out to be wrong) and, thirdly, the use of SAS soldiers - combat teams trained to shoot to kill - also amounted to a procedural failure in planning the mission which breached article 2.

It can be easily seen that if the stipulated procedures were complied with, even the infringement of the right to life may possibly be justified.

Will this have answered your question?

 

[BrutherSuperior]

Where does the "right to life" come from?

[rhetorical]

 

[Danoff]

Reason. Hmm...may I ask where your "reasoning" is apart from bare assertion that the survivors had no right to kill the one being eaten?

Here vv

What we've determined is that "might does not make right". The ability to produce force does not objectively confer the right to produce it. Furthermore, there is no objective justification for the use of force against an innocent person. This is the basis of human rights, and it is the reason that you are not justified in pushing the fat man onto the trolley track (in the 2nd trolley example). The only action that requires no justification is the lack of force. If you had to justify the lack of force, you're back into the first scenario, justifying the use of force to compel the use of force.

As to your hypothetical, I think Dotini has done a great job in coming up with a justification. I would add the following:-

Well, I thought Duke answered it well. But I'll further respond to Dotini by saying that it is not an objective desire that a species which is subjugating members of it should survive. I'd need a proof from Dotini, which I will go ahead and claim no one (including Dotini) can provide.

It is a matter of balancing the evils. If you enslave another without good justification (eg out of mischief), then it's immoral. But if there is good justification for you to do so, then you weigh the two evils and see whether your infringement of the victim's right is proportionate or disproportionate to the other evil avoided.

Where do you get this concept of good and evil and please provide an objective basis for it? Who defies what evil is, and whether one evil is greater than another? I'm looking for objective reasoning only, so please be thorough when explaining. Thanks.

My point is simple - one cannot conclude that he/she has solved a problem within 5 lines of words which, as Lon Fuller - a Harvard philosopher - has stated, been troubling mankind since "the days of Plato and Aristotle"

Appeal to authority.

It's not a difficult concept. Evolution is also not a difficult concept that has been troubling mankind since its existence.

As a person who has gone through these arguments again and again in law school and occasionally within my very limited work experience, the most valuable idea that I've picked up is that no human rights in this world is absolute. They are all subject to derogation if sufficient strong justification for such arises.

This is not correct. The existence of disagreement or immoral behavior does not prove that morality does not exist.

Defamation. You protect one's reputation, but you're infringing upon another's right to speech/expression.

Where does the right to use force to protect your reputation come from? I see exactly where the right to speak without being forcibly silenced comes from.

Same with privacy. Think of Tiger Woods. The courts in the UK granted him an injunction against media disclosure of his story. You protect his privacy as guaranteed by the Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights, but at the same time you deprive the media of their right to free expression.

Where does the right to privacy come from? I see exactly where the right to speak without being forcibly silenced comes from.

Not even the right to life is absolute! Consider the death penalty and times of war when the killing of another human being is justified on the basis of national security/public interest etc.

Human rights are based on the notion that you have not attempted to use force against someone else. If you do, you can no longer apply the reasoning that force cannot be justified against you. Suddenly, the use of force is objectively justifiable. So in death penalty or war examples, human rights can remain intact.

Basically, whenever being encountered with such a scenario, the courts will ask the following questions (the UK and European Union position as evidenced by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights)

1) Is the infringement rationally connected to a legitimate purpose?
2) Is the infringement no more than reasonably necessary to achieve the legitimate purpose?

Where do you get this concept of "legitimate purpose" and please provide an objective basis for it? Who defies what is legitimate, and whether action is "reasonably necessary" to achieve it? I'm looking for objective reasoning only, so please be thorough when explaining. Thanks.

 

[FoolKiller]

As a person who has gone through these arguments again and again in law school and occasionally within my very limited work experience, the most valuable idea that I've picked up is that no human rights in this world is absolute. They are all subject to derogation if sufficient strong justification for such arises.

You do recognize that there is a difference between legal and moral?


Just because the law deems something legal it does not make it moral or right, see The US Patriot Act.

 

[Wolf-M]

Here vv





Well, I thought Duke answered it well. But I'll further respond to Dotini by saying that it is not an objective desire that a species which is subjugating members of it should survive. I'd need a proof from Dotini, which I will go ahead and claim no one (including Dotini) can provide.




Where do you get this concept of good and evil and please provide an objective basis for it? Who defies what evil is, and whether one evil is greater than another? I'm looking for objective reasoning only, so please be thorough when explaining. Thanks.



Appeal to authority.

It's not a difficult concept. Evolution is also not a difficult concept that has been troubling mankind since its existence.




This is not correct. The existence of disagreement or immoral behavior does not prove that morality does not exist.




Where does the right to use force to protect your reputation come from? I see exactly where the right to speak without being forcibly silenced comes from.



Where does the right to privacy come from? I see exactly where the right to speak without being forcibly silenced comes from.



Human rights are based on the notion that you have not attempted to use force against someone else. If you do, you can no longer apply the reasoning that force cannot be justified against you. Suddenly, the use of force is objectively justifiable. So in death penalty or war examples, human rights can remain intact.



Where do you get this concept of "legitimate purpose" and please provide an objective basis for it? Who defies what is legitimate, and whether action is "reasonably necessary" to achieve it? I'm looking for objective reasoning only, so please be thorough when explaining. Thanks.

I am really puzzled. I have stated repeatedly that I am not putting forward any proposition, only pointing out that your conclusion is hasty and without basis. That's all. In any event, haven't I emphasised on the word "utilitarianism" time and again?

Is that not a moral theory? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism


---

Secondly, re Foolkiller,

I thought this thread is titled "human rights". Either you're talking about natural rights or legal rights. For the former it is wholly irrational, you do know it's based on self-evidence right? You say it's self-evident that no man can kill another to save many others; I say it's self-evident that when many more people's lives are at stake, it is justifiable to sacrifice the life of one to save the life of many others.

Conclusion? There is no conclusion. You can only have a meaningful debate if you're talking about legal rights.

---


And finally, why has no one read the case of Re A?

Please would you tell me whether you think the doctors are performing an immoral act (as opposed to illegal/legal) in taking away the life of a conjoined twin to save the other?


----

For everyone's benefit and as clarification - on the point of utilitariansim and human rights, see following extract from wiki

Human rights

Utilitarians argue that justification of slavery, torture or mass murder would require unrealistically large benefits to outweigh the direct and extreme suffering to victims. Utilitarianism would also require the indirect impact of social acceptance of inhumane policies to be taken into consideration, and general anxiety and fear could increase for all if human rights are commonly ignored.

Act and rule utilitarians differ in how they treat human rights themselves. Under rule utilitarianism, a human right can easily be considered a moral rule. Act utilitarians, on the other hand, do not accept human rights as moral principles in and of themselves, but that does not mean that they reject them altogether: first, most act utilitarians, as explained above, would agree that acts such as enslavement and genocide always cause great unhappiness and very little happiness; second, human rights could be considered rules of thumb so that, although torture might be acceptable under some circumstances, as a rule it is immoral; and, finally, act utilitarians often support human rights in a legal sense because utilitarians support laws that cause more good than harm.

 

[Danoff]

I am really puzzled. I have stated repeatedly that I am not putting forward any proposition, only pointing out that your conclusion is hasty and without basis. That's all.

You're trying to do that with concepts that you can't establish. So you're not succeeding at pointing anything out to me.

In any event, haven't I emphasised on the word "utilitarianism" time and again?

Is that not a moral theory? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

It suffers from the "ends justify the means" fallacy. It is actually in direct opposition to what I've been saying (see my previous post). It attempts to use a non-objective calculation of concepts that cannot be established or defined to justify the use of force against innocent people.

You say it's self-evident that no man can kill another to save many others; I say it's self-evident that when many more people's lives are at stake, it is justifiable to sacrifice the life of one to save the life of many others.

Neither is self-evident.

Please would you tell me whether you think the doctors are performing an immoral act (as opposed to illegal/legal) in taking away the life of a conjoined twin to save the other?

The link is dead - and the details are very important in this case.

 

[FoolKiller]

Secondly, re Foolkiller,

I thought this thread is titled "human rights". Either you're talking about natural rights or legal rights.

Have you read the first page of the thread?

For the former it is wholly irrational, you do know it's based on self-evidence right? You say it's self-evident that no man can kill another to save many others; I say it's self-evident that when many more people's lives are at stake, it is justifiable to sacrifice the life of one to save the life of many others.

And if you are willing to accept that the needs of a majority outweighs the needs of a minority what prevents injustices from being voted in as legal? If you can ignore the rights of the individual then no one has claim to those rights. If the only way to maintain your rights is to be a part of a larger group then all individualism is gone and we are working on a purely hive mentality.

And as a side note: I will never accept "for the greater good" or "the benefit of society" as an excuse to do anything that violates an individual's rights.

You speak of it being self-evident. Do remember that claiming self-evident rights is how the country I live in was born. It was the original basis for the law.

You can only have a meaningful debate if you're talking about legal rights.

But I will debate against any legal right that violates natural rights.

And finally, why has no one read the case of Re A?

Bad Request

Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.


Let's make this easy. Was it a choice made by the twins or their guardians? Would they both die otherwise?

 

[Wolf-M]

I apologise for the dead link - for some reason it works for me.

Here're the facts:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,997967,00.html


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/920487.stm

I think the first link describes facts as they are before the judgment though....



----

I need to sleep now, the full judgment for your reference

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/marku...ml&query="conjoined+and+twins"&method=boolean


---

Just one last note

It suffers from the "ends justify the means" fallacy. It is actually in direct opposition to what I've been saying (see my previous post). It attempts to use a non-objective calculation of concepts that cannot be established or defined to justify the use of force against innocent people.

Why is "the ends justify the means" approach a fallacy? Since it's directly opposite to your proposition, so do you mean anything that goes against what you've said is a fallacy?

 

[Danoff]

Why is "the ends justify the means" approach a fallacy? Since it's directly opposite to your proposition, so do you mean anything that goes against what you've said is a fallacy?

Nope, it's not a fallacy because it goes against what I've said, it's a fallacy because the ends do not justify the means. To claim that the ends justify the means, is to claim that the ends are objectively more valuable than the objective cost of the means. Neither valuation can be performed by any objective method I know of.

The corrected version of "the ends justify the means" is "the beginnings justify the means".

Edit:

On the conjoined twins issue:
- One twin was using the other's vital organs for survival, relegating her to her own vital organs is not murder, it's preventing murder.
- That same twin had questionable mental capacity, a trait necessary to satisfy the conditions required to have rights.
- Infants are extended a set of rights out of mere convenience anyway, much like the convenience of drawing a line at 16 years old for driving, 18 years old for voting, or 21 years old for drinking (in the US anyway). Until the child becomes self-aware and demonstrates higher order brain functions, it's a moot point.

 

[Keef]

As a person who has gone through these arguments again and again in law school and occasionally within my very limited work experience, the most valuable idea that I've picked up is that no human rights in this world is absolute. They are all subject to derogation if sufficient strong justification for such arises.

Human rights are natural, not legislated, and are universal. That's why our founding fathers decided to "hold them to be self-evident".

No offense to your area of study, but over the last few years I've gained an interest in issues of law and rights and whatnot, and it was on my list of things to consider returning to school for. I ended up deciding that modern law practices in this country make a mockery of morality and natural rights, and therefore dismissed it as an option. Similar to how I would avoid a Political Science or Economics degree like the plague.

Thankfully I only have to take this one law class for an aviation degree. Learning about all this administrative law - unchecked, unbalanced, without oversight, independent and often contradictory to common or constitutional law, and occasionally immoral - is disgusting to me. And to think, in the aviation field you have to uphold such a cooperative demeanor that you can't even voice your opinion to official without getting seriously reprimanded by their catch-all excuses.

EDIT:

But I thought that I was standing next to the directional switch? In the exercise I am controlling the direction of the trolley/train whatever. You are changing the facts of the scenario. If I were standing with the fat man then my life is in danger as well.

No, I'm not changing the facts. There are two different versions of the problem presented - one, where you are standing next to a switch and the decision is to not use it, killing 5, or to use it, diverting the train and killing one; two, where you are standing on a bridge with a fat man and can either do nothing, killing 5, or toss fatty off the bridge, killing one. I was just using the bridge scenario because the idea that a fatty could stop a train intrigues me.

EDIT 2:

In re-reading the article I originally cited, I found the author's conclusion of libertarian morality to be quite that attention getter:

"I find Haidt's account of the birth of libertarian morality fairly convincing. But as a social psychologist, Haidt fails to discuss what is probably the most important and intriguing fact about libertarian morality: It changed history by enabling at least a portion of humanity to escape our natural state of abject poverty. Libertarian morality, by rising above and rejecting primitive moralities embodied in the universalist collectivism of left-liberals and the tribalist collectivism of conservatives, made the rule of law, freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and modern prosperity possible. Liberals and conservatives may love people more than do libertarians, but love of liberty is what leads to true moral and economic progress."

Make of that what you will.

 

[FoolKiller]

No, I'm not changing the facts. There are two different versions of the problem presented - one, where you are standing next to a switch and the decision is to not use it, killing 5, or to use it, diverting the train and killing one; two, where you are standing on a bridge with a fat man and can either do nothing, killing 5, or toss fatty off the bridge, killing one. I was just using the bridge scenario because the idea that a fatty could stop a train intrigues me.

OK, that still doesn't change the fact that I don't understand why asking if I have any other options to stop the train is unreasonable.

 

[Keef]

I shouldn't have said unreasonable. In the context of the question alone it is irrelevant, not unreasonable. Poor choice of words.

 

[Wolf-M]

Human rights are natural, not legislated, and are universal. That's why our founding fathers decided to "hold them to be self-evident".

I think this would be a good starting point to explain what I was saying earlier. Yes human rights are natural and self-evident, and that the right to life is unquestionably one of those rights. The issue that we're encountering here is whether it is self evident that this right is totally absolute and thus not even subject to the slightest derogation.

What I have attempted to show that no, no rights in this world are absolute, the European Court of Human Rights (which is the highest supranational court in the whole of Europe) have at least in McCann and others v United Kingdom hinted that the right of life (in that case of terrorist suspects) can be subjected to other greater interests (in that case lives of nearby civilians) if that infringement was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

If we think deeper, this analysis that no rights are absolute must be correct.

The conjoined twins case is one example. Doctor kills one baby to save the other. This is not a case of abortion where some argue that life commences after the X week upon conception. They are both clearly human beings with distinct lives. Parents state their position that being Catholics, they hope to leave it in God's hands. Doctors submit to court that they just can't leave two twins in their current condition as it is certain that eventually both will die. So what would you do in this scenario? WHat is the moral choice here? Do you think the court's reasoning convincing that they're not valuing one life over another? Do you not think that in effect, the judges are adopting an utilitarian approach - better leave one alive than both dead?

If one maintains that it is unethical for a man to divert the train in the trolley example under all circumstances, one should also logical be against the idea of sacrificing baby A to save baby B! That cannot be right (other than those with religious objections!)

 

[Danoff]

What I have attempted to show that no, no rights in this world are absolute,

The initiation of force against an innocent person is unquestionably unjustifiable in all circumstances. You think that there is some sort of utilitarian calculation that can justify the use of force, but you put no objective evaluation of that justification forward. I submit that there is no objective justification of the initiation of force against a conscious being. To be proven wrong, I need you to provide me with that justification.

The conjoined twins case is one example. Doctor kills one baby to save the other.

Incorrect. The doctor prevented one baby from using the internal organs of the other. One infant's internal organs had failed and she was relying on someone else's internal organs for survival. The doctor prevented this transgression.

I don't pretend that this is the most complex situation that might exist, but in this case, I think your characterization is incorrect.

If one maintains that it is unethical for a man to divert the train in the trolley example under all circumstances, one should also logical be against the idea of sacrificing baby A to save baby B! That cannot be right (other than those with religious objections!)

I would be against sacrificing baby A to save baby B if that were what happened in the story you linked.

Edit:

Also, let's suppose that you did actually come up with the scenario you're looking for - where it is impossible to save one person's life without killing the other, and doing nothing results in both dieing. Perhaps this would be the cannibal example after all. You have two people who know help will come in 50 days. There is no food, and they know there is no hope of survival until help comes without eating. To save one person's life, the other must die - but neither man is willing to sacrifice himself. Can we say one is justified in killing the other? No, we cannot. There is no objective justification that suggests that one man surviving by eating the other is necessarily the best outcome. Yes, it maximizes the number of people that live, but that is not the only possible (subjective) value metric that could be applied to the situation. Furthermore, even if it were objectively better that one man live than that both die - you'd be even more hard pressed to come up with an objective judgement about which one should live. Is it the healthiest? Is it the strongest? Is it the most intelligent? The most artistic? The one with the family? The one with the money? Should they have an even chance and base it on a coin flip? Good luck with that.

The initiation of force against a conscious being is not objectively justifiable.

 

[Wolf-M]

The initiation of force against an innocent person is unquestionably unjustifiable in all circumstances. You think that there is some sort of utilitarian calculation that can justify the use of force, but you put no objective evaluation of that justification forward. I submit that there is no objective justification of the initiation of force against a conscious being. To be proven wrong, I need you to provide me with that justification.

I finally see where you're coming from - "I need to prove you wrong".

But why do I have to prove you wrong? You made a bare assertion that cannot be objectively established in the first place, you made a value judgment which is based entirely on your views of world morals in the first place, why do I need to prove you wrong? You are well entitled to hold your view, but it's your view and not an objective answer to the overall question.

Just as I say utilitarianism could be the guiding principle. In essence it is a value judgment. Can you prove that this moral principle is wrong in nature? You cannot!

Then may I ask you, what is the objective justification for saying the upholding of individual rights must be more significant that the collective interests of the society?

The US constitution? I'm afraid it doesn't say so. Looking at objectively discernible facts, what about the European Court of Human Rights and its decision in the case I've cited (which hints that the right to life may be compromised)? The court is composed of the best human rights experts across the whole of Europe and closely follows recommendations made by the International Law Commission, the most elite group of scholars on what human rights mean.

Incorrect. The doctor prevented one baby from using the internal organs of the other. One infant's internal organs had failed and she was relying on someone else's internal organs for survival. The doctor prevented this transgression.

I don't pretend that this is the most complex situation that might exist, but in this case, I think your characterization is incorrect.

DO you really believe in this fiction? The court was saying that in order to shield itself from criticism, but isn't what I said the reality?

I would be against sacrificing baby A to save baby B if that were what happened in the story you linked.

You do know that is your personal opinion right? At least the court thought otherwise in that case.

Edit:

Also, let's suppose that you did actually come up with the scenario you're looking for - where it is impossible to save one person's life without killing the other, and doing nothing results in both dieing. Perhaps this would be the cannibal example after all. You have two people who know help will come in 50 days. There is no food, and they know there is no hope of survival until help comes without eating. To save one person's life, the other must die - but neither man is willing to sacrifice himself. Can we say one is justified in killing the other? No, we cannot. There is no objective justification that suggests that one man surviving by eating the other is necessarily the best outcome. Yes, it maximizes the number of people that live, but that is not the only possible (subjective) value metric that could be applied to the situation. Furthermore, even if it were objectively better that one man live than that both die - you'd be even more hard pressed to come up with an objective judgement about which one should live. Is it the healthiest? Is it the strongest? Is it the most intelligent? The most artistic? The one with the family? The one with the money? Good luck with that.

The initiation of force against a conscious being is not objectively justifiable.

Why can't we say it's justified? Again may I link you to the Speluncean Explorers' Case? How do you deal with the judgments that say that the defendants are not guilty? You do know that this is one of the most famous hypothetical legal case used for the study of jurisprudence (philosophy of law) right? (as you can see in the intro in wikipedia)

If it is as clear cut as you have mentioend, why all this fuss by the most trenchant minds in both the discpline of law and philosophy for all these years?

 

[FoolKiller]

Why can't we say it's justified? Again may I link you to the Speluncean Explorers' Case? How do you deal with the judgments that say that the defendants are not guilty? You do know that this is one of the most famous hypothetical legal case used for the study of jurisprudence (philosophy of law) right? (as you can see in the intro in wikipedia)

If it is as clear cut as you have mentioend, why all this fuss by the most trenchant minds in both the discpline of law and philosophy for all these years?

Just because it is legal does not make it moral.

 

[Wolf-M]

Just because it is legal does not make it moral.

Why do you keep coming back to this point? This hypothetical case was written as jurisprudence scholarship, it is a case that probes into what the law should be to reflect the morality of mankind.

 

[Famine]

Why do you keep coming back to this point?

Because you keep citing law as a reason why you're right.

 

[FoolKiller]

Why do you keep coming back to this point? This hypothetical case was written as jurisprudence scholarship, it is a case that probes into what the law should be to reflect the morality of mankind.

Jurisprudence use to say that black people were sub-human so slavery was OK too.

Legal does not equal moral.

In this example people killed an innocent in order to survive. Can you come up with a legal justification given the circumstances? Sure. Doesn't change the fact that they committed murder.

 

[Wolf-M]

Because you keep citing law as a reason why you're right.

I think one must distinguish between statutory law (eg XYZ Act) and case law of the courts, especially in cases of judicial review.

I don't know what the image of the courts is in the eyes of the American people, but at least in where I was raised (which was a British colony) the judiciary is the most trusted branch of the government and is seen as a significant counter-majoritarian force in the protection of fundamental rights.

It is this reason that the "law" as created by judges were cited throughout in my posts as representing what justice and fairness would dictate.


---

Jurisprudence use to say that black people were sub-human so slavery was OK too.

Legal does not equal moral.

In this example people killed an innocent in order to survive. Can you come up with a legal justification given the circumstances? Sure. Doesn't change the fact that they committed murder.

My point is that certain moral theories also justify the acts of the group of defendants, most notably the utilitarian principle.

You are of course well entitled to hold your views, that I never disputed and argued against, what I'm saying from beginning to end is that there are different views in this world as to what morality means which are equally convincing and which you cannot dismiss outright.

 

[Famine]

I think one must distinguish between statutory law (eg XYZ Act) and case law of the courts, especially in cases of judicial review.

Law is irrelevant to what is right. Assuming your location to be accurate and up-to-date, your current government has a track record of enacting laws which are not only not right, they actually deny and ignore fundamental, inalienable rights.

Continually using "law" as a crutch to support your point of view, in that climate, is unwise at best. Particularly when that point of view is that killing an innocent person can sometimes be just fine.


I wouldn't kill you, as an innocent, to save one man, ten men, a hundred men, a million men or the universe. Can you say the same of any of us?

Jurisprudence use to say that black people were sub-human so slavery was OK too.

Legal does not equal moral.

In this example people killed an innocent in order to survive. Can you come up with a legal justification given the circumstances? Sure. Doesn't change the fact that they committed murder.

This. So many times this.

 

[Wolf-M]

Law is irrelevant to what is right. Assuming your location to be accurate and up-to-date, your current government has a track record of enacting laws which are not only not right, they actually deny and ignore fundamental, inalienable rights.

I should update you with international politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems

Continually using "law" as a crutch to support your point of view, in that climate, is unwise at best. Particularly when that point of view is that killing an innocent person can sometimes be just fine.


I wouldn't kill you, as an innocent, to save one man, ten men, a hundred men, a million men or the universe. Can you say the same of any of us?

This. So many times this.

So in the conjoined twins case what would you have done?


Again, as I have said repeatedly, I am not arguing for or against either principle, I'm only showing in this world there are diverse views as to what morality embraces. I am only showing that even the most respected and influential human rights institution, namely the European Court of Human Rights, have opined that in certain scenarios the compromise of one human life to save many others may well be justified.

And utilitarianism could be regarded as the foundation of such thought.

 

[Danoff]

I finally see where you're coming from - "I need to prove you wrong".

But why do I have to prove you wrong? You made a bare assertion that cannot be objectively established in the first place, you made a value judgment which is based entirely on your views of world morals in the first place, why do I need to prove you wrong?

Until any of us comes up with some sort of objective justification for the use of force against an innocent person, any one of us can claim that there is not one. I cannot prove a negative, furthermore, I don't have to prove a negative.

Show me an objective justification for the use of force against an innocent person and I'll recant. Until then, you can't do it - and so you should stop advocating it. The reason I don't have to provide you with proof is that I'm not advocating an unjustifiable position.

You are well entitled to hold your view, but it's your view and not an objective answer to the overall question.

What is not objective about what I just wrote? ^^

Just as I say utilitarianism could be the guiding principle. In essence it is a value judgment. Can you prove that this moral principle is wrong in nature? You cannot!

Utilitarianism is not based on anything remotely objective, so yes I can say that it is a subjective value judgement that has no place in a discussion about what is objectively a legitimate course of action. Also, nature (meaning non self-aware animals) is not capable of understanding reason or recognizing any of these concepts. As a result, nature makes no attempt at morality. Many human societies have also made no attempt at morality and have committed a wide range of unjustified actions which opens them to legitimized retribution and self-defense.

Then may I ask you, what is the objective justification for saying the upholding of individual rights must be more significant that the collective interests of the society?

First of all, there is no distinction between collective and individual interests (if you think there is one, feel free to establish it). Secondly, I am saying precisely the opposite - that individual interests cannot justifiably usurp other individual interests.

The US constitution? I'm afraid it doesn't say so. Looking at objectively discernible facts, what about the European Court of Human Rights and its decision in the case I've cited (which hints that the right to life may be compromised)? The court is composed of the best human rights experts across the whole of Europe and closely follows recommendations made by the International Law Commission, the most elite group of scholars on what human rights mean.

Don't care.

DO you really believe in this fiction? The court was saying that in order to shield itself from criticism, but isn't what I said the reality?

Nope. Medically, what I described fits the facts better.

You do know that is your personal opinion right? At least the court thought otherwise in that case.

It's not my opinion, it's fact. Nothing that I am typing here is my opinion.

Why can't we say it's justified? Again may I link you to the Speluncean Explorers' Case? How do you deal with the judgments that say that the defendants are not guilty? You do know that this is one of the most famous hypothetical legal case used for the study of jurisprudence (philosophy of law) right? (as you can see in the intro in wikipedia)

If it is as clear cut as you have mentioend, why all this fuss by the most trenchant minds in both the discpline of law and philosophy for all these years?

Proof of disagreement is not a proof of non-existence. People have been arguing about a lot of silly things for thousands of years. This does not prevent us from declaring many of them wrong when we discover what the answer is.

 

[FoolKiller]

My point is that certain moral theories also justify the acts of the group of defendants, most notably the utilitarian principle.

You are of course well entitled to hold your views, that I never disputed and argued against, what I'm saying from beginning to end is that there are different views in this world as to what morality means which are equally convincing and which you cannot dismiss outright.

Are you saying that because others may have different principles than me I should just accept their behavior up to and including murder?

 

[Famine]

I should update you with international politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems

Although the "One country, two systems" guarantees that Hong Kong's economic and political systems will not be changed for 50 years after the British handover in 1997, Mainland Affairs Council of the Republic of China has cited 169 cases in which they claim the PRC has breached the right of the people of Hong Kong to self-rule and severely intervened in the judicial system as well as freedom of speech.

Yep.

But, hey, it's legal so it's right, right?

So in the conjoined twins case what would you have done?

Let's hold on there a second.

Firstly, you keep throwing hypotheticals at us. When two of us with knowledge of the inner workings of the organ donation and transplantation system point out that one of your hypotheticals is ridiculous as it cannot occur in the real world, you decided to denigrate my intelligence as inferior to yours. That's a bit rude, don't you think?

Second, you keep throwing hypotheticals at us as answers to questions we have posed. You have yet to answer Danoff's hypothetical. You've just returned to an earlier hypothetical for which you've already been given an answer in response to a direct yes or no question I asked you. That's also a bit rude, don't you think?


Since you already have an answer to your conjoined twins hypothetical (one twin forcing another to provide them with effort from their organs being an immoral [though non-fault] situation which should be rectified), your trolley hypothetical (no action which results in the death of an innocent third party is moral; inaction which preserves the status quo is moral even if it results in the death of an innocent third party) and your doctor hypothetical (unrealistic situation - surgeon gives organ to the patient highest on the waiting list with the best match for that organ), I think it would only be polite of you to answer some questions posed to you.

I shall refresh your memory:

There are two people in the world who have never interacted. One of them discovers the other one, sets a trap, captures him, shackles him, and forces him to do his will, as his slave, from then on.

In this scenario, one person's will is being subjugated to another's. Can this action be justified objectively? Is there an objective reason why one person should be allowed to subjugate another who has done him no harm?

I wouldn't kill you, as an innocent, to save one man, ten men, a hundred men, a million men or the universe. Can you say the same of any of us?

 

[Wolf-M]

Are you saying that because others may have different principles than me I should just accept their behavior up to and including murder?

No. I have not even argued for a single theory, it does surprise me when Danoff said "stop advocating something you can't prove"

Maybe I should tell you the reason as to my initial participation in this discussion. I stumbled upon this thread by accident, and saw someone claimed that philosophers have been silly in arguing over this question for thousands of years, and that this question (the trolley example) should have been settled long ago.

What I was doing was only to point out, in a thinly disguished manner,

"Don't be silly, there are significant groups of people in this world who hold contrary views with convincing moral principles backing them up"

And as I know that the audience mostly comes from the US, I have refrained myself from citing examples from "less developed areas" in this world and have largely confined to raising prominent examples in other Western civilised nations.

You may, of course, turn a blind eye as to what's happening in the rest of the world and live within the confines of the US borders. You may neglect what the most prominent of jurists have said on this subject. You may even ignore all the academic theories that have been invoked and tested for centuries and dismiss them as "falliable". That is absolutely fine. It's your thought after all.

Probably that concludes what I have to say in this thread.

 

[Wolf-M]

Let's hold on there a second.

My above post summarises it all.

Danoff
There are two people in the world who have never interacted. One of them discovers the other one, sets a trap, captures him, shackles him, and forces him to do his will, as his slave, from then on.

In this scenario, one person's will is being subjugated to another's. Can this action be justified objectively? Is there an objective reason why one person should be allowed to subjugate another who has done him no harm?

Before Famine you even suggest someone else as being rude, I would suggest you to read and search before posting. That's what you always say as a mod don't you?

It is a matter of balancing the evils. If you enslave another without good justification (eg out of mischief), then it's immoral. But if there is good justification for you to do so, then you weigh the two evils and see whether your infringement of the victim's right is proportionate or disproportionate to the other evil avoided. This is a fine line, I admit, and that's why I hesitate to put forward a positive proposition in respect of the trolley example. But again, I stress that I am only pointing out that there are different thoughts out there, all of which are legitimate. My point is simple - one cannot conclude that he/she has solved a problem within 5 lines of words which, as Lon Fuller - a Harvard philosopher - has stated, been troubling mankind since "the days of Plato and Aristotle"

Famine
I wouldn't kill you, as an innocent, to save one man, ten men, a hundred men, a million men or the universe. Can you say the same of any of us?

Again, as a protest to being labelled as rude, I suggest you to read and discern what my stance is before making such claim.

 

[Famine]

My above post summarises it all.

Not really. It doesn't explain why you are wholly unwilling to answer any questions posed by anyone else while demanding them from others in any way.

Furthermore, I am not American and do not live in the US.

Before Famine you even suggest someone else as being rude, I would suggest you to read and search before posting. That's what you always say as a mod don't you?

You didn't answer either question Danoff posted. You provided no answer to the question of whether the act of enslaving another man has an objective justification - you just suggested there could be "good" reasons.

Again, as a protest to being labelled as rude, I suggest you to read and discern what my stance is before making such claim.

You didn't answer the question I posted. You provided no answer to the question of whether you would kill me, as an innocent, to save one, ten, a hundred, a million or an infinite number of other lives.


I'll add that I didn't label you as rude - I asked you if your not answering questions while demanding answers from others, and denigrating others' intelligence as being below yours for pointing out flaws of reality in your hypotheticals could be considered rude, by yourself. I note that you didn't answer that either...

 

[Danoff]

No. I have not even argued for a single theory, it does surprise me when Danoff said "stop advocating something you can't prove"

You have done nothing in this thread besides present a utilitarian position. I know that you claim not to have advocated it, but if all you do is give examples in support of utilitarianism and come to its defense, you are an advocate, whether you claim to be listing your personal opinions or not.

For all I know, you are staunchly opposed to utilitarianism. But all you have done in this thread is advocate for utilitarianism. I submit that you should stop advocating for utilitarianism when you cannot support it objectively.

There is no need for you to run away from this thread. Nobody is attacking you, nobody thinks any less of you for engaging in what I personally (and this is opinion) consider to be very important dialog. Feel free to participate or not as you so choose, but know that I always look forward to the opportunity to chat about this subject... perhaps especially with people that don't agree with my position. I think we're all here because we're interested in the subject.

 

[Duke]

What does "being American" have to do with this subject in any way? Besides, at least one of the major contributors to the individualist argument here is English.