|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted February 03, 2010 09:35 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 21:36, 03 Feb 2010.
|
Quote:
Everybody should try to be a good citizen and contribute to the society and in turn, the society should help them with healtcare and education et cetera.
Define being a good citizen. Doing what is expecting from you and not making waves?
Isn't is what is expected from people in dictatorships? Being "good citizen" ?
Quote:
People are not the Dalai Lama; they can't afford to meditate the whole day, centre on calmness and try and find universal truth and wisdom.
Yeah, they are too busy trying to contribute to an illusion of happiness. I mean, people think so much is needed to be truly happy, but how do you explain some of the poorest countries in the world are also among the happiest?
of course, they can. not all day long of course (even the dalai lama has natural needs) but a few hours, or at least a few minutes per day is possible.
Quote:
-100 happiness points for the dead person.
0 actually, because dead people don't care anymore.
but it could be -100 to his family
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2010 10:05 PM |
|
|
JJ:
I know you don't read Death's posts, but that's pretty much what I think, except it's somewhat of a simplification because utility isn't really quantifiable.
Fauch:
Quote:
0 actually, because dead people don't care anymore.
No. One's own life has value, and its loss is a tremendous loss in utility.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 03, 2010 10:12 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 22:41, 03 Feb 2010.
|
Quote:
Individual freedom, it has to be said, is something of an illusion, because it's possible only in company. Think about it: if you are ALONE, it's true that no ONE can tell you whaat to do or inhibit you in anything; however, circumstances do.
Nonsense. You are actually saying it is not possible for a hermit to live in freedom?
Quote:
You COULD do what you want - if you had time, opportunity, and ability, but CIRCUMSTANCES will force your hand: you have to eat and drink, you need shelter, clothes, tools, you need to be on guard all the time to protect yourself... freedom looks different.
Oh please. The fact that as a human being you need to eat and be aware of predators does not make you "unfree."
In fact, you are contradicting yourself. A hermit does not have to worry about protecting himself, at least from human predators. And few animals pose a threat, especially if you have a gun. Most animals will avoid human contact. You are far more likely to suffer violence around other people.
Quote:
Sharing of work in a community is, what makes freedom possible in practice - however, the freedom that was made possible through community is also limited by it. It's clear, that if a community shares work, enabling freedom by saving time, that freedom has to be shared as well. The question is how.
What!?!?!?!?! Nah, I am free whether or not I chose to be a part of a community. "The collective" does not make freedom possible. I have freedom apart from the collective. Again, explain why a hermit is not free.
In practical terms, communism does not work. Never has, never will. Communist societies are always the LEAST free and least productive societies. There are a lot of free loaders and people with no drive because ambition is squashed by the State and people are not allowed to achieve more that their "comrade."
Government is formed to PROTECT rights, not to grant them. The two greatest threats to human freedom are:
1) the government; and
2) human predators.
Governments ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, have a tendency to gather power to themselves and oppress the people. The people have to be vigilant and carefully watch the government that they formed to protect their rights to keep it from violating the rights it was formed to protect. Government is not a father, not a brother, not a good friend. Government is a necessary evil.
Quote:
Moral has been (still) something of an UNWRITTEN Code of Laws which circles around the question: drawing the line between individual freedom (to do what you like as an individual) and its LIMITATION with the aim of keeping the community intact.
Nah, morals were not formed by society; to keep the community intact.
It is not wrong to rape someone because society says so. It is wrong to rape someone BECAUSE IT IS WRONG. Human beings have innate dignity and inmate rights.
A society could be based around hating and killing Jews. That society would be unified in their hatred. But does that mean that hating and killing Jews is then moral?!?!?!?!?!
Quote:
Without a written law the common denominator of any society gets smaller and ever smaller, until only the individual remains.
That makes no sense. Have you never heard of oral law? In fact, written law can have great drawbacks. Lawyers can add in so many clauses that the law can be made to mean anything and have innumerable loopholes.
Are you really claiming that without a written code of law people have nothing in common? I'm quite sure you do some research and find that communities existed before any written code.
Quote:
To give an example: What makes it a Right (and RIGHT) to live for a human, but WRONG to murder? There are those who say: God, but that closes the discussion and there are those who think that god doesn't exist, so that answer isn't satisfactory.
So: what legitimation is there for Rights/Wrongs?
Your statements are illogical. It does not follow that just because someone does not believe in God that God is not the source of rights.
God is the source of human dignity/human rights. Now, you have made it clear that you believe humans have no dignity/rights apart from what the State says. I have asked you what makes the State the granter or rights since the State can't exist without individuals, but you have been unable to defend your claims.
Quote:
For the question at hand, what makes it RIGHT to live, one small addition: If something is not right that is NOT equalling wrong. For example, people have no explicit right to snow in the woods (at least I don't think so), but that doesn't make it wrong, does it?
I have the right to have sex with my wife in the woods if we are in an area on my property that is not exposed to the public. Sex is a private matter. It should be done in private rather than people having sex on every street corner, grocery store, and restaurant.
Even though it is legal for me to ignore my wedding anniversary I don't have the right to do so because it would hurt my wife.
.
Even though it is legal for me to ignore my children's birthday, I don't have the right to do so because it would hurt my children.
Even though the law does not require me to shovel the snow off my elderly neighbor's sidewalk it is right for me to do so.
Just because a government may say Jews don't have a right to live does not mean Jews don't have a right to live. Again, the State is not the source of rights.
Just because a government may say "Bow down to Caesar" does not mean it is right to bow down to Caesar.
Something being legal does not make it right or "a right." Laws can be immoral, moral, or amoral.
--------
Edit (inserted): I have really fallen in love with this phrase from the German Constitutin:
Quote:
The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.
It is oh so true. Human rights are the basis of any commuinity, of peace, and justice. The community is not the source of the rights.
----------
Quote:
Yeah, well. The added plus here is, that I find myself now often chuckling about posts instead of being annoyed. Not to mention that atmosphere has become much better in the OSM. Sure, it was pretty quiet lately, but no warnings, no deletions, that's pretty nice for a change.
Some of your posts make me laugh. But your ideas about human dignity/rights being granted by the State and not existing unless the State says so just make me sad that anyone could believe such things.
I and others have pointed out many holes in your arguments which you are not even attempting to address. I can only assume it is becasue you are unable to defend your positions rationally.
Quote:
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2010 10:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
I know you don't read Death's posts, but that's pretty much what I think, except it's somewhat of a simplification because utility isn't really quantifiable.
Fauch:
Quote:
0 actually, because dead people don't care anymore.
No. One's own life has value, and its loss is a tremendous loss in utility.
Well, what about the gain for the whole society? It doesn't need to take care anymore for this completely useless cripple - which comes as an added plus to kkilling him in the most entertaining way. The cripple will enjoy it as well, being useful for the first time in his life, and since he has no family, no one will cry for him.
So everyone gains.
Tne truth is, no it's indeed not quantifiable, but in that case it can't be used to decide - it can't make Right RIGHT because you wouldn't know, at best guess around.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2010 11:32 PM |
|
|
JJ:
The cripple loses his life. A rational individual will usually not sacrifice his own life, as it would be a severe decrease in utility. Death nearly always results in a decrease in utility, except when killing mass murderers and such.
Elodin:
Great post, although I disagree about the origin of morality. Things can't just be wrong. There must be some reason as to why they're wrong. Also, this part:Quote:
Even though it is legal for me to ignore my wedding anniversary I don't have the right to do so because it would hurt my wife.
I think there must be a distinction made here between "having the right" and "being right to do so". You certainly have the right to ignore your wife's anniversary, but it wouldn't be good of you to do so.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 04, 2010 03:10 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 03:18, 04 Feb 2010.
|
Quote:
Elodin:
Great post, although I disagree about the origin of morality. Things can't just be wrong. There must be some reason as to why they're wrong.
Thanks.
In my example I said it is wrong to rape others BECAUSE IT IS WRONG, not because the State says it is wrong.
The question comes down to "Why is is wrong to willfully and unnecessarily hurt others?" Why is is wrong to rape? Why is is wrong to murder? Why is it wrong to be mean to your wife?
The ultimate answer comes down to "because it is" but as a Christian theist I can give some reasons why it is wrong to hurt others.
1) Because God says so.
2) Because God made made man to fulfill a purpose. Hurting others is against God's purpose (ordinarily.)
3) Because God made man in his image. Man has a unique nature that "mere" animals don't have. Man has an innate dignity that should not be "besmirched."
4) People are precious to God. In Christ God lived a human life. God became a man and died for us. What is precious to God is certainly worthy of my esteem.
5) God made man with a conscious. Hurting others goes against my conscious.
Now, from an purely naturalistic world view I have no idea what your foundation of morality would be. How is a man who commits a home invasion, killing the family present there, and stealing their possessions any different from a lion chasing down an antelope and "feeding" on it? As far as I can see, without God objective morality cannot exist. The home invader then has as much "right" to kill and steal as the the residents have to live. Might makes right.
If morals are only what this or that culture has adopted over time then rape cannot be considered wrong. A rapist then is only being "uncultured."
Now, I'll repeat what I've said before. Atheists can be very moral people. What I claim is that basis of morality/rights is supernatural and that there can be no purely naturalistic basis of innate human rights.
The denial that all people are equal and have inherent rights is the basis of racism, sexism, and Nazism.
Quote:
Also, this part:
Quote:
Even though it is legal for me to ignore my wedding anniversary I don't have the right to do so because it would hurt my wife.
I think there must be a distinction made here between "having the right" and "being right to do so". You certainly have the right to ignore your wife's anniversary, but it wouldn't be good of you to do so.
Well, you obviously have the legal right to cuss out your wife or ignore your wedding anniversery. In that instance I said I don't have the right to cuss out my wife, ignore the wedding anniversery, or such, meaning it is immoral to treat her with such disrespect.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2010 03:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
How is a man who commits a home invasion, killing the family present there, and stealing their possessions and different from a lion chasing down an antelope and "feeding" on it?
Because man does not live in a state of nature. People find it advantageous that others are not permitted to steal their stuff, kill them, rape babies, etc.
And part of it is genetic and not limited to humans - you may see lions eating antelopes, but you won't often see lions eating other lions at whim. (That's not to say they don't eat the young sometimes - just that they don't do it on a whim.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2010 07:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
The cripple loses his life. A rational individual...
We are not talking about rational individuals, we talk about humans, and since humans are INDIVIDUALS indeed, it's difficult to generalize which is what utilitarianism does. Clearly, with utilitarianism life as such has no intrinsic value, at most potential value.
Name ONE reason, strictly utilitarian, NOT to eat human meat (I mean, today you wouldn't even know).
The Chinese employ rather strict methods to keep overpopulation at bay - from a utilitarian pov they are doing the right thing, don't they?
From a utilitarian point of view, clearly it must be right to guard against potential terrorist attacks, once a certain chance is for them. Obviously, counter measures, security and such leads to unpleasantnesses for the general population:
How would a utilitarian weigh the potential terror risk (with a cost of a potential number of lifes) against the real harrassment of people that comes with it up to errors, leading to detention of innocents and so on?#
Isn't all that rather relative?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2010 07:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Name ONE reason, strictly utilitarian, NOT to eat human meat
There isn't one. There's a reason not to kill people, but there's no reason not to eat the ones already dead - other than personal tastes, of course.
Quote:
The Chinese employ rather strict methods to keep overpopulation at bay - from a utilitarian pov they are doing the right thing, don't they?
Except they'll run into demographic problems later on, so it may not be good from a utilitarian standpoint anyway.
Quote:
How would a utilitarian weigh the potential terror risk (with a cost of a potential number of lifes) against the real harrassment of people that comes with it up to errors, leading to detention of innocents and so on?
That's where markets can help. Suppose we would have two systems - one with more security and one with less. If people choose the one with less inconvenience and less security, then that's that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2010 08:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
There's a reason not to kill people.
That's what I don't see. If someone dies SURPRISINGLY (which means, death is immediate and abrupt), a life was terminated and that's it. The dead person loses nothing except life, but utilitarianism isn't about life but about utility so life has only a value if it is utilized, not as such.
With utilitarianism I'm not even sure whether things are "counted" individually or socially or both but one of these (or both) have to be right:
a) A person feeling more pain than pleasure, more unhappiness than happiness and/or
b) a person that would make others feel more pain than pleasure, more unhappiness then happiness
would have no right to live, then, utilitarianistically spoken, because right would be to terminate that life since EVERYONE, including the dead person would be better off that way.
Quote:
Quote:
How would a utilitarian weigh the potential terror risk (with a cost of a potential number of lifes) against the real harrassment of people that comes with it up to errors, leading to detention of innocents and so on?
That's where markets can help. Suppose we would have two systems - one with more security and one with less. If people choose the one with less inconvenience and less security, then that's that.
That has a lot of practical and theoretical problems - besides, people who were never a terror victim would always complain about harrassment, while after a terror attack everyone would complain about security being to lax. In that case, wouldn't it be rather relative waht was right and what was wrong?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2010 05:03 PM |
|
|
Life is the greatest source of utility there is, though.
Quote:
a) A person feeling more pain than pleasure, more unhappiness than happiness
Doesn't matter. As long as they're alive and have a chance to feel happy, loss of life would be a loss of utility.
Quote:
b) a person that would make others feel more pain than pleasure, more unhappiness then happiness
This is the case only with mass murderers.
Quote:
That has a lot of practical and theoretical problems - besides, people who were never a terror victim would always complain about harrassment, while after a terror attack everyone would complain about security being to lax.
No, because the people on the lax security flights would know that they're taking a risk, and so would have no right to complain about it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2010 05:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Life is the greatest source of utility there is, though.
Quote:
a) A person feeling more pain than pleasure, more unhappiness than happiness
Doesn't matter. As long as they're alive and have a chance to feel happy, loss of life would be a loss of utility.
Isn't that a contradiction? Life must be a slave of utility as well. Think overpopulation. If you were right, then it would simply be, the more life the better. However, there is something like a too much, and if there is too much life then everyone suffers, food becomes scarce and so on, crime rates are raising with desperation and so on, so obviously - utilitarianically spoken - overpopulation is reducing general utility. In that situation clearly life loses charme, especially new life, BUT, the examples in Asia show that ration alone doesn't solve problems. People multiplying all the time (the act increasing happiness and therefore utility), but the result DEcreases utility. So?
Quote:
Quote:
b) a person that would make others feel more pain than pleasure, more unhappiness then happiness
This is the case only with mass murderers.
What about sadists?
Quote:
Quote:
That has a lot of practical and theoretical problems - besides, people who were never a terror victim would always complain about harrassment, while after a terror attack everyone would complain about security being to lax.
No, because the people on the lax security flights would know that they're taking a risk, and so would have no right to complain about it.
What I mean is, that it IS that way. People generally want what they miss, and opinions change depending on personal experiences.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2010 05:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
a) A person feeling more pain than pleasure, more unhappiness than happiness
I don't really see how it causes bad to you, so you have no rights to decide whether he should live or no.
That being said, that person should make the choice between getting better or ending his life. But it seems a lots of people don't make that choice and just try to bear their "miserable" life. Of course, they have the right to...
Quote:
b) a person that would make others feel more pain than pleasure, more unhappiness then happiness
that is discussable. You said "more pain than pleasure", not "only pain and no pleasure" so if you kill that person, it will probably hurt some other people. probably even people like hitler have friends. the best solution would be to help them become better, but it's sure than some cases are pretty extreme.
Quote:
People generally want what they miss, and opinions change depending on personal experiences.
yeah, but a lot of people don't need what they miss.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2010 09:47 PM |
|
|
JJ:
You're confusing total utility and average utility. People who haven't been born can't have utility, but it decreases utility to kill someone. That's why preventing life doesn't decrease utility, while killing the already living does.
Quote:
What about sadists?
No, it's not true for them. Killing them is still a greater loss in utility than the gain would be. The only justification for killing is to prevent greater death.
Quote:
People generally want what they miss
If they miss it, it's their own fault.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2010 10:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
You're confusing total utility and average utility. People who haven't been born can't have utility, but it decreases utility to kill someone. That's why preventing life doesn't decrease utility, while killing the already living does.
In that case it would be much better when 20 billion people lived starving in shoe boxes and poverty than 7 halfway fed, which seems strange.
I thought, life as such was only important in terms of utility - I mean, life as such has no utility whatsoever, right? Life is only a prerequisite for utility, but not utility as such.
Why decreases killing someone utility? Life is, after all just potential utility - the future is POTENTIAL, and when you kill someone it's POTENTIAL you kill.
I mean, humans DIE (naturally), for one thing.
For another, let's assume someone had killed Hitler in 1935. No second WW. Hitler buried, politicians from all over the world there, a great man. Big loss of utility, right?
I don't see ANY loss of utility, but only a POTENTIAL loss (and, as this case shows, a potential gain as well). And who knows, even for the individual - Hitler - it might have been better to die in 35, utility-wise.
So, you have to explain WHY the death of a life is a utility loss - I don't see that. Death is, after all, something natural.
Add to that, that every BIRTH will be a utility gain then, so you'd have to make sure that as many children would be born as possible - explain that as well.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2010 01:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
In that case it would be much better when 20 billion people lived starving in shoe boxes and poverty than 7 halfway fed, which seems strange.
It depends on the situation. If we were to kill half of the starving people and give their food to the other half, it would be a decrease in utility. However, if we were to prevent those starving people from coming into existence, it would not.
Life itself has value - in fact, it's the ultimate value because it allows enjoyment of all other values.
Quote:
Add to that, that every BIRTH will be a utility gain then, so you'd have to make sure that as many children would be born as possible
The goal is to increase every individual's utility - if the individual doesn't exist, then their utility can't increase, can it?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 05, 2010 02:17 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 02:19, 05 Feb 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
How is a man who commits a home invasion, killing the family present there, and stealing their possessions and different from a lion chasing down an antelope and "feeding" on it?
Because man does not live in a state of nature. People find it advantageous that others are not permitted to steal their stuff, kill them, rape babies, etc.
And part of it is genetic and not limited to humans - you may see lions eating antelopes, but you won't often see lions eating other lions at whim. (That's not to say they don't eat the young sometimes - just that they don't do it on a whim.)
1) Can you show me the DNA strand that encodes morality?
2) Assuming you can produce such a DNA strand, what is the standard by which you would recognize if what is encoded is right or wrong?
3) If Mao Tse-Tsung’s DNA strand says murdering millions of Chinese people is morally permissible for him then is what he did wrong or right?
4) If genes determine morality why was slavery considered moral 200 years ago but then suddenly it began to be considered immoral, at least in the West. Did man have an evolutionary leap where the genes of even living persons suddenly changed? Are the people in societies that still have slavery less evolved than people in the parts of the world that don't apporve of slavery?
5) If genes determine moralality are people who disagree with society about what is moral genetically defective or more evolved, and on what standard will you make that judgement?
Quote:
Life itself has value - in fact, it's the ultimate value because it allows enjoyment of all other values.
At least we share this value in common. Although I am not sure how from a naturalistic viewpoint you reach that conclusion. And you have pointed out perfectly why the right to life is the most basic of all rights.
On what basis do you place the value of a human life above the value of a cat for example? Or above the value of a large vein of uranium or a thousand acre wheat field?
Quote:
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust…. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist…I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense.
--CS Lewis
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2010 03:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
For another, let's assume someone had killed Hitler in 1935. No second WW. Hitler buried, politicians from all over the world there, a great man. Big loss of utility, right?
I don't see ANY loss of utility, but only a POTENTIAL loss (and, as this case shows, a potential gain as well). And who knows, even for the individual - Hitler - it might have been better to die in 35, utility-wise.
It could have been worse without hitler. for example, after the WWII, measures have been taken to prevent such conflicts.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2010 03:36 AM |
|
|
Elodin:
Quote:
1) Can you show me the DNA strand that encodes morality?
You seized on one minor and relatively unimportant statement... We do get some morality from genes. Just look at wolves, for example. You wouldn't claim that wolves believe in God, or that they have reasoning faculties equal to ours. And yet they don't kill each other indiscriminately, because this kind of "morality" is encoded in their genes. It's around in a similar manner in humans, although of course it can't be depended on entirely - it's both too vague and too limited to one's immediate group. Morality is a social construct, but it has a (limited) genetic basis.
Quote:
On what basis do you place the value of a human life above the value of a cat for example?
My reasoning goes something like this:
1. I enjoy being alive - I value my own life.
2. I am human.
3. Other humans can threaten my life.
4. I do not want humans to kill me. (1+3)
5. Generally, other humans do not want to die either.
6. Humans are generally capable of reason.
7. I can agree not to kill others in return for them not killing me. (2+4+5+6).
-but, because I cannot make such arrangements with other animals, their life does not have this kind of value.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2010 03:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
7. I can agree not to kill others in return for them not killing me. (2+4+5+6).
you can kill them, so they lose the ability to kill you.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
