|
| Thread: Morals; Ethics; Philosophy; Religion, Science, Law, Organisms, and Rights |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted May 21, 2013 07:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I wouldn't say that type of file sharing is theft.
The law says the opposite and there will be consequences at long term. In general people are surprised that an insignificant action could be reprehensible but then ask yourself: what would happen if everyone did it?
You know how back when they first build the ships big and strong enough to sail through oceans and until technology got more advanced and got under control it was like open season in the Atlantic and Pacific for all kinds of pirates, explorers, head hunters etc etc.. Sometimes, I think we are in the 17th century of the internet. Our grandchildren will look at our digital adventures like some kind of Jack Sparrow movie.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 01:37 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:39, 22 May 2013.
|
Quote:
There cannot be "absolute universal" rights - how is that supposed to work?
Consider the actual situation worldwide now: about 900 million people are undernourisjhed, and each year millions die from the consequences of undernourishment, be it directly (starving) oder through illnesses developed from that.
On the other hand - worldwide - there would be enough food to feed the current 7 billions, but lots of people are too poor or live in countries with not enough agricultural areas to feed all their people.
Inherent human rights have to do with the way people deserve to be treated by other individuals and society at large. It has nothing to do with natural disasters.
Most starvation actually occurs as a result of the violation of innate human rights. Africa is pretty much run by two-bit dictators who oppress their people. The dictators control the resources as a means of power over the people. The dictators don't believe in human rights and so carry their beliefs to their rational conclusion and oppress the people for personal gain.
Until the tyrants in Africa are replaced there will always be starvation in Africa no matter how much the rainfall. Aid groups constantly have the aid they are bringing into Africa seized and controlled by the tyrants.
Denial that innate human rights exist is the root of tyranny. The power of tyrannical governments to oppress comes not only from brute force but from indoctrination of the people into the believe that the government is the ultimate authority and the rights do not exist apart from it. Without the victims of oppression thinking the oppression is legitimate the oppressed will rise up in a revolution. When the government indoctrinates the citizenry into belief that "legal" is synonymous to "legitimate/moral/ethical" the government firmly entrenches itself as the source of all power. The State-god.
Quote:
“Free society's organize around the "invisible hand" while Force society's organize around the State's "visible fist.”
-- Orrin Woodward
Quote:
“We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices.... Government has to make those choices for people.”
-- Hilary Rodham Clinton
____________
Revelation
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 01:57 AM |
|
|
Elodin:
Quote:
But I do not concur that man made rules about morality establish objective morality if that is what you are saying. Let's say Cuba writes, "The Havana Declaration of Human Rights" and define everyone under the age of 40 as non-persons and proclaims they have no rights under the law.
If a Cuban said that all humans worldwide below the age of 40 are non-persons and have no rights he would be correct according to the "Havana Declaration of Human Rights" but that does mean he is objectively correct. He is only correct according to the Havana Declaration of Human Rights.
To summarize my view - it is more accurate to say that morality is something humans could establish rather than something that they have established. Any form of morality can only be established by beings capable of moral reasoning - it is nonsense to ask if rocks or tornadoes are acting morally or immorally. However, there are many moral codes that could be established, as we see today. In some countries, honor killings are accepted, in others they're seen as abhorrent. In some countries, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease", in others, "the nail that sticks out gets hammered". Looking at this, the moral relativist says "Well, there are many different moral systems, and they're all correct in their respective cultures."
But if people or groups disagree, it does not follow that each is correct and each person has their own truth. If Herman Huntergatherer says "The Sun revolves around the Earth" and Alfred Astronomer says "The Earth revolves around the sun", Alfred Astronomer is right and Herman Huntergatherer is wrong (assuming they use the terms "Earth", "Sun", and "revolves around" normally). This is because a comparison can be made to something beyond their statements - that is, reality. Reality is not imagined by humans, though through action they can change it (for example, building a bridge, making friends, etc). Now consider chess, something created by humans. Someone who says "Knights move the same as rooks" is objectively incorrect, because they can be referred to an objective standard of what chess is. However, neither of these is a perfect analogy for morality - physics is not established by humans, and "chess" is any game that humans have collectively decided to be called "chess". Morality is something between the two.
Morality is most like medicine. From the beginning of humanity to today, what is medically good for humans has changed little. (It varies some from person to person, depending on an individual's biochemistry, but there are far more similarities than differences.) What has changed is human understanding of how best to medically treat people. In the past, they sometimes knocked people unconscious so they wouldn't fight during surgery. Now doctors use general anesthesia. Yet human biochemistry has not changed to make general anesthesia good now and bad in the past - it's human knowledge that's changed. If you could travel back in time and administer anesthesia, that would be better medical treatment.
Just as medicine is what is good for human health, morality is what is good for human happiness, and specifically your happiness. What is good for human happiness is a complicated topic, but to a large extent it is something common to humans because of human nature, and not just arbitrary whims and preferences. For example, someone who thinks murder will make them happy is either wrong or a psychopath (in which case he is literally sick and should receive treatment [if possible], the same as any other sick person, so he can live a better life, a life that is more proper for a human to live). Of course, different humans have different arbitrary preferences - for example, ice cream flavors - and it is impossible to say that one flavor is objectively better for human happiness than another, in which case people should just have whatever flavor they want. Based on this, moral rules can be established (by humans), and legal rules (laws) can be established based on them. How good these rules are can be determined on their effect on human happiness. Governments can decide what the law is, but not what it should be, as that is determined by reference to human nature, which is not something determined by governments.
Morality is not external, as is claimed both by some religious people ("God created morality, and it is right regardless of what humans want") and some secular people (utilitarianism and Kantianism). Morality is not arbitrary, as is claimed by moral relativists ("It's right in culture X and wrong in culture Y") and democratic fundamentalists ("The people voted on it, and that's what's right"). Morality is internal - it is something that is good for people in general and for you in specific.
(Note 1: I was specifically talking about humans in this post, but the same could be said for any group capable of moral reasoning - just replace "humans" with whatever the group is called.)
(Note 2: I didn't even get into the role Hobbesian contractarianism plays in all of this, but it will probably be necessary to talk about in a later post.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 08:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Inherent human rights have to do with the way people deserve to be treated by other individuals and society at large. It has nothing to do with natural disasters.
Most starvation actually occurs as a result of the violation of innate human rights. Africa is pretty much run by two-bit dictators who oppress their people. The dictators control the resources as a means of power over the people. The dictators don't believe in human rights and so carry their beliefs to their rational conclusion and oppress the people for personal gain.
Until the tyrants in Africa are replaced there will always be starvation in Africa no matter how much the rainfall. Aid groups constantly have the aid they are bringing into Africa seized and controlled by the tyrants.
Denial that innate human rights exist is the root of tyranny. The power of tyrannical governments to oppress comes not only from brute force but from indoctrination of the people into the believe that the government is the ultimate authority and the rights do not exist apart from it. Without the victims of oppression thinking the oppression is legitimate the oppressed will rise up in a revolution. When the government indoctrinates the citizenry into belief that "legal" is synonymous to "legitimate/moral/ethical" the government firmly entrenches itself as the source of all power. The State-god.
Rambling again, are we?
Most starvation occurs in ASIA, by the way. Over 500 million people.
And it's completely irrelevant, whether human rights are innate or not, they just have to be agreed upon and accepted, innate or not. Do you really think, wrongs and abuse of power just vanishes into thin air, just because governments suddenly bladder something about innate human rights?
There is no innate right, because a "right" is something made up by humans. In earlier times they have invented the "innate rights that come with noble birth" - blue blood and all that crap. Still didn't kept them from fighting amongst each other, those bluebloods.
Rights are MADE UP. The most basic thing a sentient being does, is trying to survive, even in the face of adverse events or opposition. It doesn't need a "right" for that - it just does it, because it's the foundation for everything the being may concede or accept or whatever. Rationalizing this, humans define this as a basic or innate right, the right to live, but no one needs such a justification, because if anyone denies me to survive, he is my enemy and I have to fight him, right or not. It doesn't matter, whether the denial comes from my neighbor, my government or a foreign government: as soon as I am denied my life I fight.
Now, you will doubtlessly have noticed, that while this would seem to be the starting point for everything - and the most innate right, if there were any -, people are STILL killed all the time; and not only by accidents, no. Wars, death penalties, starvation, murder, you name it, so it doesn't seem to be all that easy with the "innate rights", and in fact it isn't.
Because all these made-up things are interesting only because we are social beings - neither loners (like some predators), or pack animals (with alpha leaders) nor hive beings -, and we have a self-consciousness. Which means, we have to somehow regulate the needs and desires of the individual with the needs and necessities of the whole body of society.
An example to demonstrate that the concept is flexible. There is this beauty called "martial law". Ideally (although in reality it can be abused) martial law is applied in an emergency situation, when a society is attacked by another. In this situation, society switches gear to a more hive-like structure: individual rights are cancelled or restricted, and if push comes to shove the best-suited individual are picked and forced to fight for the survival of the whole (because survival chances are better than with everyone fighting for themselves). It may so happen, that people are court-martialed and executed under martial law, because they may have a problem adapting, for want of "discipline". "Innate human rights"? Not under martial law, bro!
So, obviously, if you concede "innate human rights", you automatically seem to concede the right of society/government to cancel or restrict them, generally in certain situations, or individually (as a punishment).
As I said: human rights are comparable with axioms in mathematics. There is nothing that is innate - we just start at a point that seems to make sense and go on from there, since we need regulations when we want to reap the advantages of living in a community instead of living - and fighting for survival - on our own.
For that, we do not need "innate rights" and a god granting them to us. We just need to accept what we are, and that we are all SIMILAR in certain regards.
Obviously, though: if a sizable percentage of the world population has a problem to actually exist and survive AT ALL, we cannot expect them to peacefully accept that and to lie down and die. It doesn't actually matter whether people starve because of inner-country corruption or because the rich countries destroy their surplus food rather than sharing it with the starving nations, BOTH is clearly not in the spirit of peaceful co-existence (we shouldn't deal with corrupt dictators and isolate them, and we should make an effort to give them food instead of weapons, for example: why are we selling WEAPONS to starving countries, for heaven's sake?).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 09:38 AM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
So, obviously, if you concede "innate human rights", you automatically seem to concede the right of society/government to cancel or restrict them, generally in certain situations, or individually (as a punishment).
That's like saying "if you concede that medicine isn't something innate, you automatically seem to concede that society can decide what medicine is". Which obviously isn't true - biomedical research certainly isn't innate, but whether its results are good or bad is determined by referring to an objective standard of human health. To a certain extent you're right - morality is based on axiom(s). But are all axioms equally good? For example, if people decided to maximize the number of paperclips in the universe, and took that as their axiom, would it be as good of a world as ours is? So morality must refer to what is good for humans. Because, as you said, humans are similar and want to live in a peaceful society (rather than a state of war of all against all), there is a standard by which moral principles can be judged. And so rights aren't "whatever society decided", but "the best that society could decide".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 09:55 AM |
|
|
The file sharing problem reminds me of an old film where a guy asked for a soda and he didn't pay and then he got into all sort of trouble starting from there. Then the store owner would tell everyone that in life if you want to have a soda you've got to pay the check.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 10:01 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 10:10, 22 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Morality is internal - it is something that is good for people in general and for you in specific.
That is actually saying nothing and creating a tautology by saying "what's good is what's good for you." The stance of moral relativists is based on the point that the decision on what's good for you changes from culture to culture. I'd say it is not as relative as they exaggerate, like taste in art or something, nor it as unconditional as the intuitionists claim, they claim just like you did, that you'll find it by looking into yourself (your heart if you will). I won't repeat the historical examples I gave, what's monstrous for one generation is what's good for the other, claiming there is a timeless, universal notion of good and bad inside you is isolating human intellect from the society, the historical conditions and the indoctrinations he has been subject to. Also, since there is no scientific measurement of happiness, saying "rights aren't "whatever society decided", but "the best that society could decide" is quite a vague statement too, best according to who and under which conditions?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 10:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That is actually saying nothing and creating a tautology by saying "what's good is what's good for you."
It's not a tautology because there are two different meanings of "good" being used there. A more accurate statement is "the correct moral system is the one that is good for you if you properly understand your self-interest". There is good_1 (good for your well-being) and good_2 (good according to a moral framework). What I am saying is that the correct moral system is the one in which good_2 and good_1 are the same. Because good_1 is not determined by a moral framework, it's not a tautology.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 10:12 AM |
|
|
|
No, it's a tautology because moral relativists don't tell you that what is bad can be good too, they tell you there is no consensus on the "correct good."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 10:17 AM |
|
|
But from that it follows that something that is bad in one culture can be good in another. A moral relativist could easily say, "In Western culture, honor killings are bad, but in traditional Muslim culture, they're good" - so they are saying "What is bad can be good too". But it's also true that they will also say that there is no consensus on what is good.
(Your post still doesn't explain why what I said is a tautology).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 10:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Quote:
So, obviously, if you concede "innate human rights", you automatically seem to concede the right of society/government to cancel or restrict them, generally in certain situations, or individually (as a punishment).
That's like saying "if you concede that medicine isn't something innate, you automatically seem to concede that society can decide what medicine is." Which obviously isn't true - biomedical research certainly isn't innate, but whether its results are good or bad is determined by referring to an objective standard of human health. To a certain extent you're right - morality is based on axiom(s). But are all axioms equally good? For example, if people decided to maximize the number of paperclips in the universe, and took that as their axiom, would it be as good of a world as ours is? So morality must refer to what is good for humans. Because, as you said, humans are similar and want to live in a peaceful society (rather than a state of war of all against all), there is a standard by which moral principles can be judged. And so rights aren't "whatever society decided", but "the best that society could decide".
I think you didn't quite understand what I meant here. Human rights, innate or not, are not an individual issue, but only a societal issue, since an individual human not being part of any society has no obligations to justify anything. Only as part of society, individual and "societal" rights take on a meaning, and as society is conceding individual rights, it is also society that can and does restrict them. The yardstick here isn't "the individual human right" (innate or not), but the clash of individual and societal interest.
That is also especially true for morality: what is good for the whole body of society may be bad for single individuals - and vice versa. And it's not necessarily true that all humans want to live in a peaceful society - nor is a complete paradise necessarily good for the individual or the society, since a society without any threat may just slacken and degenerate.
That'y why there is no "best". We can turn a couple of screws, so-to-speak, and that will result in more or less individual rights and less or more individual obligations - but who knows what is "best"? Depends on what you actually want and expect from the society you live in, right?
EDIT: Quote:
But from that it follows that something that is bad in one culture can be good in another.
Yes.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 10:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But from that it follows that something that is bad in one culture can be good in another. A moral relativist could easily say, "In Western culture, honor killings are bad, but in traditional Muslim culture, they're good" - so they are saying "What is bad can be good too". But it's also true that they will also say that there is no consensus on what is good.
(Your post still doesn't explain why what I said is a tautology).
I did explain it, just chew on it a little.
Honor killings are not specific to Islamic culture, they are feudal times' way of making sure girls don't come home with fatherless children, I guess in a world of no women rights, birth control or DNA test, that's what people came up with. Since some Islamic countries are in a way, still living in pre-industrial times, those type of killings are still there, mostly in rural areas, not in upper-class city inhabitants accordingly.
I already told you that moral relativists sometimes exaggerate (maybe to get through a point). That does not make them plain wrong.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 10:57 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 11:03, 22 May 2013.
|
You can deny there being innate human rights and still have the position that some human rights are essential to pursue a certain value (morale) or principle. Such a value should be as objective as possible in the sense that it should appeal to most people, no matter culture, religion, socio economical status. Ideally, that would outcompete cultural values that are not compatible with these rights.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 11:04 AM |
|
|
|
I agree, just because they are not innate does not mean they are worthless or we should not pursue them. They'll never be 100 percent functional though, especially in times of war, crisis, disaster etc etc... Ironically, those are the times we need them most.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 11:55 AM |
|
|
I think, that it's completely situational.
Doubtlessly, a lot of people think that procreation should not be regulated, since it would seem to be a necessary and natural thing for every human to do so - but:
Look to China. It would seem that they do not allow people to multiply no matter what - and it would seem to make sense.
Now think ahead: it won't take that much time when we will be able to tell people, who want to have children, whether their children will have certain genetical defects and illnesses - would it be wrong to categorically prohibit two people to have children with each other, when a certain probability for disastrous genetical defects would be a given?
Think one step further: If it could be proven without a doubt, that serial killers had an unreparable genetic defect that would make them the way they are - would it be wrong to order mandatory tests at a certain age and "put children to sleep" with such a defect?
All hypothetical and no need to answer, but it would seem, that the individual has unlimited rights - called actually freedom to do what an individual wants -, because there is no one who can infringe or restrict them, except another individual, but there is no innate regulation that forbids a violent confrontation between two individuals.
It's just because it's generally beneficial for more people to band and work together, there are communities or "societies" and those necessarily have to limit the individual freedom and make rules. A right is something that is granted an individual as a member of said society, not as an individual, because no one is forced to live within a society (although there is less and less "society-free" space): an individual can always drop completely out of it.
I want you to think about something else as well. Since piracy was an issue - think about the oceans as a lawless area. Now, no one is forced to cross the ocean - people do that for commerce: to florish. Evolutionary spoken, where there is flourishing life, predators will appear, in this case pirats. Now, let's say the pirats don't actually stop ships, plunder them and kill everyone - let's say the pirats simply demand a tribute for safe journey and their efforts to keep the waters safe. Extortion, you might say. But in fact, if the pirates keep to the deal, eliminate the competition and cash in only the agreed upon money, it's suddenly a protection business.
The alternative is, that the society you live in demands TAX (not tribute) in order to come up with a protection navy, and if that proves insufficient, you may hire private escort vessels for your protection.
However, with all three you are basically forced to TRUST them to keep to the deal. The pirates can simply demand more each year. The "government navy" may explain to you that they need a little extra to keep an eye on your ships, since they are so thinly stretched, or may even work hand in hand with the pirates. Your private escorts may simply kill you when no one is there to watch, sell you to the pirates, leave cowardly or demand more money.
But for the peaceful trader, the bottom line is the same: he has to pay a percentage, no matter what, while for those living off of the percentage the important thing is, not to kill the cow that they are milking and to keep it alive.
Now, where are the morals and the morality, and where are the innate human rights?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 12:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I want you to think about something else as well. Since piracy was an issue - think about the oceans as a lawless area. Now, no one is forced to cross the ocean - people do that for commerce: to florish. Evolutionary spoken, where there is flourishing life, predators will appear, in this case pirats. Now, let's say the pirats don't actually stop ships, plunder them and kill everyone - let's say the pirats simply demand a tribute for safe journey and their efforts to keep the waters safe. Extortion, you might say. But in fact, if the pirates keep to the deal, eliminate the competition and cash in only the agreed upon money, it's suddenly a protection business.
The alternative is, that the society you live in demands TAX (not tribute) in order to come up with a protection navy, and if that proves insufficient, you may hire private escort vessels for your protection.
Well, that's kind of the history of Mafia anyway. "Protecting" Sicilian villages against thugs and stuff.. That's why they are called Dons. Of course one would argue which one is more likely to corrupt, official police force or mafia? In democracies, the state is much more transparent and under constant surveillance, at least in theory. Except for matters of national security, but then we have the question of who the hell knows or decides what falls under the category of national security? It's rarely black and white.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 02:21 PM |
|
|
|
Right. It's basically "societies within societies", and the bigger a society is, the more likely smaller societies within those will arise. A Gang is also a small society within a bigger society, and it's obviously a natural process that if a big enough number of people doesn't feel itself being adequately treated, they will found their own societies with their own rules, with frictions with the bigger society being a matter of course, because otherwise their wouldn't be any need for a smaller society within the bigger one in the first place.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 07:05 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals. Therefore, human rights are a question of how individuals should restrict themselves when dealing with others. So if humans are recognizing rights, it only means that they agree that some authority can bring them to justice if they violate those rights.
Quote:
nor is a complete paradise necessarily good for the individual or the society, since a society without any threat may just slacken and degenerate
This sounds a lot like a coping mechanism. As someone else once aptly put it, "If people got hit on the head by a baseball bat every week, pretty soon they would invent reasons why getting hit on the head with a baseball bat was a good thing. But if you took someone who wasn't being hit on the head with a baseball bat, and you asked them if they wanted it, they would say no." If people are happy, there is no problem.
Quote:
who knows what is "best"? Depends on what you actually want and expect from the society you live in, right?
You yourself said that rights exist to prevent conflict, so if someone wants something that would increase conflict in the course of its enforcement, then that's bad. For example, if people establish a government to prevent each other from aggressing against each other, then that reduces conflict - it's in everybody's self-interest to agree to this. But if someone goes beyond conflict prevention, they risk creating a rule that would undermine conflict prevention.
I think part of the problem is that you define freedom as "being able to do whatever you want", and I'm using it as "being able to do whatever you want as long as you don't harm others".
artu:
There's still no explanation.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 07:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals.
So according to your logic,every group of people is a society?Even a group of two persons?
Quote:
So if humans are recognizing rights, it only means that they agree that some authority can bring them to justice if they violate those rights.
I don't see any criminal that agrees to be put in prison for breaking rights.(and the criminals are of high numbers)
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 07:33 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:34, 22 May 2013.
|
@mvass
Well, there actually is. But if it doesn't get through you let me be clearer:
Moral relativists don't say there is no absolute norm because it is completely arbitrary (as you believe they do). They say a) it is conditional due to cultural and environmental differences b) since we can not test whose morals are better scientifically, we should be tolerant of other people's values (not so far away from your stance if you really think). However, when you suggest that they are wrong because morality is internal, you are saying nothing new. Because their whole point of view is based on the perspective that what's internal is subjective, hence can't be used to create objective norms. You suggesting what's internal is good for you, when you strip it,only comes down again to "what's good is good for you." It clarifies nothing.
|
| |
|
|
