Moral Responsibility Questions

[Klatoo]

Saul is wealthy and lives a life of plenty and ease. Lazarus is poor and in a wretched and painful state. Saul is aware of Lazarus and his condition. Saul does not help Lazarus.

Has Saul done wrong?



Bob has two healthy kidneys. Bob knows that someone, somewhere needs a kidney and it's highly probable that his would be compatible with at least one person. Bob does not donate a kidney.

Has Bob done wrong?



John is standing by the side of a highway with a sign that states "Going to <insert nearby city>". Mark drives past and is headed to <nearby city>. Mark does not stop to give John a ride.

Has Mark done wrong?

[Faqa]

Saul is wealthy and lives a life of plenty and ease. Lazarus is poor and in a wretched and painful state. Saul is aware of Lazarus and his condition. Saul does not help Lazarus.

Has Saul done wrong?

Depends on a lot of factors. If Lazarus is starving or somesuch, yeah. But while it would be KIND of Saul to try and help out Lazarus, I don't think it's immoral not to. Lazarus's life is his responsibility to fix.

Bob has two healthy kidneys. Bob knows that someone, somewhere needs a kidney and it's highly probable that his would be compatible with at least one person. Bob does not donate a kidney.

Has Bob done wrong?

For someone not in front of him? No. Everybody's in Bob's position. Why should we all sacrifice a not-inconsiderable quality of life to help a faceless cause? Try to fix all the suffering in this world, and you'll end up suffering yourself while not having much of an impact.

John is standing by the side of a highway with a sign that states "Going to <insert nearby city>". Mark drives past and is headed to <nearby city>. Mark does not stop to give John a ride.

Has Mark done wrong?

IRL, no, since taking on hitchikers is a death wish. It's slightly not nice on the moral level, but John is not obligated to help Mark, I'd say, overall.

You seem to be mixing up kindness with moral obligation. These are all extras. You're a better person for doing them, but not a worse person for not.

[Vehrec]

It is true that none of these men have done wrong. But there is a world of differenace between not doing wrong and doing right. And out of all of them, I find not picking up the hitchhiker to be oddly least defensible. Picking up a hitchhiker is NOT a death wish, despite what urban legend says. 95% of people are nice enough if ytou give them a chance. I would put it as being the same kind of a gamble as walking the streets of a major city.

[Darth Wong]

Saul is wealthy and lives a life of plenty and ease. Lazarus is poor and in a wretched and painful state. Saul is aware of Lazarus and his condition. Saul does not help Lazarus.

Has Saul done wrong?

That depends on the severity of Lazarus' state and the difficulty of Saul helping him. If Lazarus is literally dying on the side of the street and Saul can't even bother to call an ambulance for him, he's morally negligent. If, on the other hand, Lazarus' "wretched and painful state" means that he's unhealthy because he's morbidly obese, there's really nothing that Saul can do for him in any practical sense. The concept of "duty of care" in negligence applies in ethics also; there is a certain standard we expect people to meet. It is not an all or nothing proposition. You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

Bob has two healthy kidneys. Bob knows that someone, somewhere needs a kidney and it's highly probable that his would be compatible with at least one person. Bob does not donate a kidney.

Has Bob done wrong?

This goes back to the standard of care, and it's too much to ask. Despite what you may have heard, donating a kidney is a non-trivial risk to your own health. No one should ever feel obligated to do so.

John is standing by the side of a highway with a sign that states "Going to <insert nearby city>". Mark drives past and is headed to <nearby city>. Mark does not stop to give John a ride.

Has Mark done wrong?

Once again, standard of care. No one should be expected to risk himself to lend charity to another person, and letting a stranger into your car is a huge risk. Besides, "wanting to go to another city for free" is hardly a huge problem that requires other people to step in on your behalf.

[Darth Wong]

It is true that none of these men have done wrong. But there is a world of differenace between not doing wrong and doing right. And out of all of them, I find not picking up the hitchhiker to be oddly least defensible. Picking up a hitchhiker is NOT a death wish, despite what urban legend says. 95% of people are nice enough if ytou give them a chance. I would put it as being the same kind of a gamble as walking the streets of a major city.

You've got odds to show that walking in a major city is just as risky as picking up a hitchhiker? More to the point, why the fuck should anyone risk anything at all on behalf of someone who is not actually at imminent risk of harm, and who only wants a free ride?

[Qwerty 42]

It is true that none of these men have done wrong. But there is a world of differenace between not doing wrong and doing right. And out of all of them, I find not picking up the hitchhiker to be oddly least defensible. Picking up a hitchhiker is NOT a death wish, despite what urban legend says. 95% of people are nice enough if ytou give them a chance. I would put it as being the same kind of a gamble as walking the streets of a major city.

You've got odds to show that walking in a major city is just as risky as picking up a hitchhiker? More to the point, why the fuck should anyone risk anything at all on behalf of someone who is not actually at imminent risk of harm, and who only wants a free ride?

Indeed, and although the scenario does not specify whether there are other people in the car or not, that would hold even additional sway over the decision. If you're willing to chance it by yourself, then that's your perogative. If you have someone else in the car, then you're being morally irresponsible by picking up the hitchhiker. Regardless of whether or not he actually winds up being one of the infamous psychopaths, they seem to occur with enough frequency to not warrant putting your friends or family at risk. After all, as Lincoln said, "It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him."

[Klatoo]

I'll try to clairify the first question a little:

Lazarus is just above starving to death. He will not die from hunger without intercession, but he is persistantly not far from that point.

Saul regularly throws out full meals.



And the third question:

John is 30 miles from the nearest town (which also happens to be his destination).

Mark is alone in his car.



And add to the second question:

Would a post mortum donation change the morallity of the situation?




I don't view any of the three as having done wrong. My view of the matter can be summed up with a rough graph. Label the x-axis 'Effort/Risk' and label the y-axis 'Jackassitude'. Draw an exponential curve descending along the y-axis and ending below the x-axis. This can be verbally described as: As effort/risk approaches zero jackassitude increases exponentially towards infinity. Draw a line above and paralell to the x-axis. This line is "Tolerance" and represents how much asshattery a given person or society will tolerate. Beyond this line lies negligence and/or justified disdain.




Saul is definitely positive on the jackassitude scale, but I don't think he crosses the negligence line.

Bob falls below the x-axis and may redeem his negative jackassitude for rude comments and incredulity at the idea. Not agreeing to a post mortum donation would put him on the x-axis.

Mark is below the negligence line but I am undecided as to whether he falls above or below the x-axis. I'll say he falls almost exactly on the x.

[Molyneux]

As for post-mortem donations, I'm of the opinion that they should be either obligatory or opt-out.

[Darth Wong]

I'll try to clairify the first question a little:

Lazarus is just above starving to death. He will not die from hunger without intercession, but he is persistantly not far from that point.

Saul regularly throws out full meals.

Even if you disregard Lazarus completely, Saul is being wasteful for throwing out full meals on a regular basis; it obviously means he's buying and/or preparing too much food and failing to adjust to compensate for the imbalance. That is unethical from a utilitarian standpoint because it wastes potentially useful food.

As for Lazarus, the ethics of the situation depend on whether there is a functioning and sufficiently generous welfare system in this area of the world. If there is, then Lazarus must be avoiding it for some reason, but by supporting this system, Saul has basically done his duty. He has made resources available to people like Lazarus. If Lazarus refuses to take advantage of those resources for whatever reason (criminal record, mental problems), there's not much Saul can realistically do to help him.

And the third question:

John is 30 miles from the nearest town (which also happens to be his destination).

Mark is alone in his car.

Doesn't change the fact that no one is entitled to a free ride, and John is not harmed by Mark's refusal to give him one. "Not getting what you want and don't deserve" is not harm in and of itself. You have to show that there would be harm. Failing that, you should show that there is some great social benefit of people giving free rides to hitchhikers, and I can't think of any. Ever heard of this thing called a "bus"?

And add to the second question:

Would a post mortum donation change the morallity of the situation?

Everyone should be willing to give up their organs post-mortem. They certainly don't need them in that case, but the idea that you have absolutely no use for your second kidney while you're still alive is bullshit. Refusal to give up your organs after death destroys the potential utility of those organs for no benefit.

I don't view any of the three as having done wrong. My view of the matter can be summed up with a rough graph. Label the x-axis 'Effort/Risk' and label the y-axis 'Jackassitude'. Draw an exponential curve descending along the y-axis and ending below the x-axis. This can be verbally described as: As effort/risk approaches zero jackassitude increases exponentially towards infinity. Draw a line above and paralell to the x-axis. This line is "Tolerance" and represents how much asshattery a given person or society will tolerate. Beyond this line lies negligence and/or justified disdain.

You have presented no real ethical reasoning whatsoever except your personal opinion, nor have you indicated that you subscribe to any particular ethical philosophy. Drawing lines between various extremes of your personal opinion is not an ethical philosophy.

[mr friendly guy]

Saul is wealthy and lives a life of plenty and ease. Lazarus is poor and in a wretched and painful state. Saul is aware of Lazarus and his condition. Saul does not help Lazarus.

Has Saul done wrong?

Despite your addenum, I still think this is insufficient information. We need to know why Lazarus is in the state he is. Is it because he spends all money on alcohol or illicit substances? Even if you subscribe that the harm from illicit substances are minimal, you would still be forced to consider them a luxury, while food a necessity.

Assuming they don't have a personal history prior, then it boils down to what responsibility Lazarus bears for his condition. If he will continually waste money on things other than necessities, then I see Saul doing nothing wrong for two reasons.

1) Waste of resources to give it to someone who will take no responsibility. If we give food to someone who is willing to, they may become a productive member of society.

2) Responsibility / duty of care- Saul is not responsible for Lazarus's condition. Saul's duty of care does not extend to doing things for lazarus when Lazarus is capable of but chooses not to.

Like I said, I would want to know what part Lazarus played in reaching his current condition.

Bob has two healthy kidneys. Bob knows that someone, somewhere needs a kidney and it's highly probable that his would be compatible with at least one person. Bob does not donate a kidney.

Has Bob done wrong?

No. Going by "property rights" if Bob was to "donate" he should be compensated for it if he wants to donate a kidney. Note property is a function of being alive, so once Bob dies there should be no ethical grounds for the kidney being used for someone who needs it.

John is standing by the side of a highway with a sign that states "Going to <insert nearby city>". Mark drives past and is headed to <nearby city>. Mark does not stop to give John a ride.

Has Mark done wrong?

No. Having a free ride is not a human right. Duty of care as the driver extends to the passengers in your vehicle and pedestrians, not to random people on the side of the road (except so far as to make sure you don't run them over).

[Ariphaos]

Saul is wealthy and lives a life of plenty and ease. Lazarus is poor and in a wretched and painful state. Saul is aware of Lazarus and his condition. Saul does not help Lazarus.

Has Saul done wrong?

If all Saul can do is give money (let's say), he runs the risk of making Lazarus dependant, and preventing him from aiding someone more worthy in the future, which could also be a wrong.

Bob has two healthy kidneys. Bob knows that someone, somewhere needs a kidney and it's highly probable that his would be compatible with at least one person. Bob does not donate a kidney.

Has Bob done wrong?

If everyone donated a healthy kidney, we'd have problems. There's got to be some sort of fallacy for the kind of logic that would make this form of inaction 'immoral'.

John is standing by the side of a highway with a sign that states "Going to <insert nearby city>". Mark drives past and is headed to <nearby city>. Mark does not stop to give John a ride.

Has Mark done wrong?

There is no outward inherant need as in the above examples, so I'm saying no.

[LongVin]

Saul is wealthy and lives a life of plenty and ease. Lazarus is poor and in a wretched and painful state. Saul is aware of Lazarus and his condition. Saul does not help Lazarus.

Has Saul done wrong?/

I would say not. Saul is not responsible for Lazarus state of affairs and is not obligated to do anything about it. Would be nice if he but he doesn't have to.

Bob has two healthy kidneys. Bob knows that someone, somewhere needs a kidney and it's highly probable that his would be compatible with at least one person. Bob does not donate a kidney.

Has Bob done wrong?

Nope. The rule above applies somewhat but it has more to do it is seriously not in Bob's best interest to give that kidney away he may be making his life worse for himself if his only remaining kidney should fail. Its in his interest of self preservation to keep both kidneys

John is standing by the side of a highway with a sign that states "Going to <insert nearby city>". Mark drives past and is headed to <nearby city>. Mark does not stop to give John a ride.

Has Mark done wrong?

Hell no. What he did is called not getting stabbed and killed by a transient.

[Klatoo]

Saul is callous, but not wrong:

Given an economic climate typical of those found in the western world, the scale of Saul's wastefulness is not a significant detriment to society. Saul's property rights outweight his wastefulness in this instance and Saul is mearly foolish. In a much less generous economy he would be negligent, due to the widespread harm to society his wasted resources could have prevented.

Given an environment without strong social services:
The amount of effort or detriment Saul would have to suffer to benefit Lazarus immensely is trivial. The ratio of benefit to detriment is very high, but Lazarus is not going to die, there is no immediacy of dire need. Saul is callous and possibly foolish for not taking this opportunity but he is not at fault. A lowering or changing of opinion of Saul on the part of the observer might be appropriate based on Saul's demonstration of his disregard for the suffering of others (which is adversarial towards a well functioning society and an indicator of a general disregard for the observer's well being), but Saul is still within his property rights.

Given an environment with strong social services:
Saul is paying for a service that is chronically failing in at least one instance and should question it the same as chronic interruptions to his electricity or water. Saul has made a genuine effort to ease Lazarus' suffering and is not liable for the failure of his effort (he has given the responsibility for his efforts to another, namely the local governance). Saul has not done wrong and, furthermore, has tried to do right. Failed efforts do count for something but the reality is that Lazarus has somehow fallen through the cracks. Saul still has the oportunity for a high benefit low detriment transaction and has passed on it. A lowering or changing of one's opinion of Saul may still be appropriate if he does not personally intervene, question how Lazarus got there, or question the quality of the social services at a cursory level or greater.




Bob is in no way unethical and should be offended by the suggestion:

The detriment to Bob is high and could realistically include death. The benefit to whomever recieves the organ is also high and may stave off death. The benefit-detriment ratio is near 1, there is no net benefit to be gained just a shuffling around of benefit and detriment. Also, Bob is being asked to risk losing his life and incur a permanent detriment to the quality of his life. Bob's right to life supercedes the benefit to others due to the severity and permanency of the consequences he faces.

To suggest that Bob should feel obligated to donate his kidney is to suggest that it is worth possibly losing Bob in order to possibly save someone else. This implies that the other person is worth more than Bob without stating why this would be true. Asserting that Bob is worth less than an unspecified other person is unsubstantiated and slanderous, Bob has good reason to be offended.

In the case of a post mortum donation I can offer no rational explaination for my assessment at this time and must concede the point indefinitely.



Mark is not unethical but is possibly callous:

John's situation is hardly dire enough to supercede Marks's right to property. John is in no immediate danger, his situation is temporary, and John holds the means to remedy his situation for himself (ie: he could walk). Dangerous weather would effect this assessment due to immediacy of harm.

Although John's situation is not dire, providing a ride would be a trivial effort for Mark and a great benefit to John. The benefit-effort ratio is high but the benefit-risk ratio is unknown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchhiker

The safety of hitchhiking varies from country to country. In the United States, where hitchhiking had been a fairly common means to travel from one location to another well into the 1970s, particularly among the young, the practice has greatly declined in the past several decades and is extremely rare today. This may be because of the supposition that it is unsafe. It can also be noted that because the US has become generally more prosperous since the mid-1980s, more people can afford to own cars and many rural areas now have extensive local bus systems.

There have been very few efforts to objectively study the safety of hitchhiking. Two notable efforts include:

California Crimes and Accidents Associated with Hitchhiking, Operational Analysis Section, California Highway Patrol (CHP), 1974 Conclusion: the results of this study do not show that hitchhikers are over-represented in crimes or accidents beyond their numbers. When considering statistics for all crimes and accidents in California, it appears that hitchhikers make a minor contribution.

Anhalterwesen und Anhaltergefahren, BKA-Forschungsreihe, Sonderband, Wiesbaden, 1989 Conclusion: The current study has demonstrated, that the potential danger while hitchhiking is significantly lower than it is estimated to be and therefore the sharing of rides by and with strangers can very well be included in transport planning.

Neither work was highly publicized. The authors of the German study, easily the most recent and comprehensive study suggest very real efforts to suppress and discredit their results. Such is the apparent strength of the conviction that hitchhiking must be unsafe, that objective evidence is anything but popularized and lauded.

In summary: there is a dominant belief that hitchhiking is dangerous, but every effort to find actual evidence of this danger objectively has been unable to do so.

An accurate risk assessment is crucial in determining whether or not Mark is callous. Since that information is either not available or in dispute, Mark recieves the default neutrality until better information becomes available. In defense of the dangerousness of picking up or being a hitchhiker, it does seem to put one at a tactical disadvantage. It's more akin to walking down a dark alley than walking down any random street, the opportunity for mischief is increased.

[Darth Wong]

Exactly how do you evaluate whether a situation is "dire enough to supersede property rights" as you put it? It seems like a totally arbitrary judgment call on your part, since you do not describe any particular system for making this judgment.

[K. A. Pital]

Saul is not responsible for Lazarus state of affairs and is not obligated to do anything about it.

Actually, it depends. Given the often-arbitrary distribution of wealth, Saul may not be responsible legally, but morally he would be.

Worse yet for Saul, in a closed system of 2 agents and a limited resource, where Saul has taken all resource for himself and sees how Lazarus is struggling, Saul would be at fault. If you have 2 persons in a system with 10 buns of bread, the person who took all 10 buns and left the other one to starve is guilty of criminal neglience leading to murder. Which is a prosecution article, at least in sane countries.

[Klatoo]

This is how I evaluate dire need

The burden of proof lies with whomever is claiming dire need. The proof must show a credible threat to their civil rights. It must show that the harm to the owner is not severe and persistant. It must show that the harm of the violation they were attempting to prevent was greater than the harm done to the owner. It must show that the use of the property could have credibly prevented the violation of their civil rights. It must show a lack of credible alternatives.


The owner of the property, by acknowledging their own civil rights, has entered into an agreement with society to protect the civil rights of others. The user of that property must show that the owner would have been negligent of this duty by refusal to provide it's use.

[Knife]

This is how I evaluate dire need

The burden of proof lies with whomever is claiming dire need. The proof must show a credible threat to their civil rights. It must show that the harm to the owner is not severe and persistant. It must show that the harm of the violation they were attempting to prevent was greater than the harm done to the owner. It must show that the use of the property could have credibly prevented the violation of their civil rights. It must show a lack of credible alternatives.


The owner of the property, by acknowledging their own civil rights, has entered into an agreement with society to protect the civil rights of others. The user of that property must show that the owner would have been negligent of this duty by refusal to provide it's use.

Wha? If I've read that right, you've opened up the door for all petty crooks to provide justifications for their small crimes, but crimes all the same, by providing the 'victim' or 'disadvantaged' the moral highground against a neutral thrid party.

[Darth Wong]

This is how I evaluate dire need

The burden of proof lies with whomever is claiming dire need. The proof must show a credible threat to their civil rights. It must show that the harm to the owner is not severe and persistant. It must show that the harm of the violation they were attempting to prevent was greater than the harm done to the owner. It must show that the use of the property could have credibly prevented the violation of their civil rights. It must show a lack of credible alternatives.

The owner of the property, by acknowledging their own civil rights, has entered into an agreement with society to protect the civil rights of others. The user of that property must show that the owner would have been negligent of this duty by refusal to provide it's use.

Totally meaningless tripe. How do you decide what is and isn't a valid "civil right" in this case?

PS. I have to say that one of the biggest problems with American ethical thinking and its Constitutional roots is its single-minded obsession with individual rights. Most teenagers in America seem incapable of recognizing any other source of ethical values except the Bible.

[Klatoo]

Wha? If I've read that right, you've opened up the door for all petty crooks to provide justifications for their small crimes, but crimes all the same, by providing the 'victim' or 'disadvantaged' the moral highground against a neutral thrid party.

Please provide an example. I am unclear on what you are driving at.

How do you decide what is and isn't a valid "civil right" in this case?

I believe I have used the phrase "civil right" in error and should have said basic human rights. I will defer to the judgement of the U.N. on what is and is not a basic human right. http://www.hrweb.org/legal/udhr.html

The philosophical underpinnings of what is and is not a basic human right is a book unto itself. I am not qualified to discuss those underpinnings at length with a satisfactory degree of competance, I'll give it my best shot though if you desire. I would need some time to brush up on the subject and collect my thoughts.

I have to say that one of the biggest problems with American ethical thinking and its Constitutional roots is its single-minded obsession with individual rights.

I can't deny the heavy influence of the Constitution and individual rights on my judgement. What are Americans failing to see because of their heavy focus on individual rights?

[Darth Wong]

I believe I have used the phrase "civil right" in error and should have said basic human rights. I will defer to the judgement of the U.N. on what is and is not a basic human right. http://www.hrweb.org/legal/udhr.html

The philosophical underpinnings of what is and is not a basic human right is a book unto itself. I am not qualified to discuss those underpinnings at length with a satisfactory degree of competance, I'll give it my best shot though if you desire. I would need some time to brush up on the subject and collect my thoughts.

Please do so.

I have to say that one of the biggest problems with American ethical thinking and its Constitutional roots is its single-minded obsession with individual rights.

I can't deny the heavy influence of the Constitution and individual rights on my judgement. What are Americans failing to see because of their heavy focus on individual rights?

Individual responsibility to others. As far as most Americans are concerned, there is no such thing. It's all about rights. And yet, a society cannot function without this concept, which is why people who believe in the sole supremacy of human rights as the basis of all ethics must clumsily find a way to express the concept in terms of other peoples' rights, without ever acknowledging the concept of social responsibility directly. Classic case of trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.

[Surlethe]

The Constitution was created in order to define the US government; as a byproduct, the Bill of Rights was created to define individual rights so the government doesn't trod all over them: the framers didn't trust the government to stay within the powers outlined in the Constitution proper, and so created limits on those powers. The Bill of Rights was never intended to be any sort of ethical guideline, and is not very well suited for that purpose; its only application is in determining what the government can and cannot do, and is so utterly useless in any sort of interpersonal interaction or moral problem outside of that of government influence.

We Americans tend to put the cart before the horse ethically: the Bill of Rights (or, generally, the existence of individual rights with respect to the government) follows from moral codes (e.g., utilitarianism), but you can't derive a good moral philosophy from the Bill of Rights because, quite frankly, it's not suited for it. Morality covers a whole lot more than government-citizen interactions, and since that type of interaction doesn't cover all possible behaviors, there will certainly be situations where applying a philosophy patterned from the Bill of Rights is inappropriate and counterproductive.

[Darth Raptor]

As for post-mortem donations, I'm of the opinion that they should be either obligatory or opt-out.

Opt nothing. Once one ceases to exist, all rights and privilages vis a vis their remains are null and void. Unless you think accomodating the superstitious hatfuckery of the family is sufficient reason, post-mortem organ donation should be absolutely mandatory.

[Klatoo]

Rights stem from the condition of being conscious or aware. Noone, to my knowledge, can objectively state what consciousness is or where it originates but it can be confirmed to exist through observation. If you have the ability to observe, then you have observed consciousness.

This consciousness posesses irrational wants. Noone, to my knowledge, can objectively state what irrational wants are or from where they originate but they can be confirmed to exist through observation. This can be confirmed through experiencing an irrational want. If you are reading this, you have experienced an irrational want, there is no rational reason to have any preferences or to perform any actions.

This consciousness posesses rational thought. This can be confirmed by experiencing rational thought. By reading this text you have experienced rational thought, patterns cannot be recognized without rational thought.

Other people exist. A preponderance of evidence suggest this is true.

Other people have consciousness with irrational wants and rational thought. A preponderance of evidence suggests this is true.




Rights represent an attempt, through the use of rational thought, to reconcile our irrational wants with the irrational wants of other people.

Rights seek to maximize the fufillment of irrational wants while minimizing the thwarting of irrational wants. Rights seek also to provide an upper limit for the number and quantity of irrational want that any individual can demand be granted or be denied. Rights seek to include all who are willing to cooperate and entice the unwilling to cooperate.

Rights seek to maximize the fufillment of individual wants because the purpose of cooperation is to get what one wants more effectively.

Rights seek to minimize the thwarting of wants to provide for the widest array of wants to be fufilled.

Rights seek to set upper limits on what may be demanded and what may be denied for individuals in order to minimize disincentives to cooperate.

Rights seek to include all who are willing and entice the unwilling to willingness. Through cooperation, might is gained. The more who cooperate the greater the potential might. Through might, reality is modified more efficiently and to greater extent. Through forced cooperation, efficiency and resources are lost.




I will go through the the list and attempt to justify each of the assertions of the U.N. in their declaration based on this definition of rights. I will need more time please. If I cannot justify a Right I will concede it.





It always seemed to me that individual responsibility to others went hand in hand with rights, that they were flip sides of the same coin. No matter which side you prefer to look at first they are part of same object, they imply and describe one another. Am I incorrect in this conclusion?

[Darth Wong]

Rights stem from the condition of being conscious or aware.

Non sequitur. How does the state of consciousness lead logically to any particular human right?

Noone, to my knowledge, can objectively state what consciousness is or where it originates but it can be confirmed to exist through observation. If you have the ability to observe, then you have observed consciousness.

This consciousness posesses irrational wants. Noone, to my knowledge, can objectively state what irrational wants are or from where they originate but they can be confirmed to exist through observation. This can be confirmed through experiencing an irrational want. If you are reading this, you have experienced an irrational want, there is no rational reason to have any preferences or to perform any actions.

This consciousness posesses rational thought. This can be confirmed by experiencing rational thought. By reading this text you have experienced rational thought, patterns cannot be recognized without rational thought.

Other people exist. A preponderance of evidence suggest this is true.

Other people have consciousness with irrational wants and rational thought. A preponderance of evidence suggests this is true.

How is any of this supposed to lead to the deduction of any particular human right? And how does it justify an ethics system based exclusively upon such rights?

Rights represent an attempt, through the use of rational thought, to reconcile our irrational wants with the irrational wants of other people.

What does "reconcile" mean in this case, and why should it be the basis of an ethics system?

Rights seek to maximize the fufillment of irrational wants while minimizing the thwarting of irrational wants. Rights seek also to provide an upper limit for the number and quantity of irrational want that any individual can demand be granted or be denied. Rights seek to include all who are willing to cooperate and entice the unwilling to cooperate.

So you feel that an ethics system should be based upon maximizing the fulfillment of peoples' desires, regardless of what they may be?

Rights seek to maximize the fufillment of individual wants because the purpose of cooperation is to get what one wants more effectively.

No, the purpose of cooperation is to ensure that the collective is more successful in its endeavours. An individual may often achieve more of what he wants by stabbing others in the back.

Rights seek to minimize the thwarting of wants to provide for the widest array of wants to be fufilled.

Rights seek to set upper limits on what may be demanded and what may be denied for individuals in order to minimize disincentives to cooperate.

So why do you conclude that the rich man should not lift a finger to help the poor starving man? Clearly, the starving man is suffering from some rather severe unfulfilled wants, and the rich man's ability to fulfill his desires will not be severely impacted by giving the poor man some food.

Rights seek to include all who are willing and entice the unwilling to willingness. Through cooperation, might is gained. The more who cooperate the greater the potential might. Through might, reality is modified more efficiently and to greater extent. Through forced cooperation, efficiency and resources are lost.

You will no doubt provide evidence to support your assertion that the loss of enthusiasm associated with coerced co-operation outweighs the loss of participation associated with the total absence of coercion? Let's take the example of welfare supported by coerced tax payments.

I will go through the the list and attempt to justify each of the assertions of the U.N. in their declaration based on this definition of rights. I will need more time please. If I cannot justify a Right I will concede it.

It always seemed to me that individual responsibility to others went hand in hand with rights, that they were flip sides of the same coin. No matter which side you prefer to look at first they are part of same object, they imply and describe one another. Am I incorrect in this conclusion?

Not really; the concept of rights limits what other people can do to you. It does not in any way obligate you to act as an individual on behalf of other peoples' rights.

[Klatoo]

Non sequitur. How does the state of consciousness lead logically to any particular human right?

How is any of this supposed to lead to the deduction of any particular human right? And how does it justify an ethics system based exclusively upon such rights?

This is the groundwork to prove that both rational and irrational thought exist. If I could not prove they exist then I could not even begin to claim they had any bearing on a system of ethics.

What does "reconcile" mean in this case, and why should it be the basis of an ethics system?

To settle (a quarrel, etc.)
Excessive conflict is counter productive to obtaining anything of value. Some form of controlled means to settle disputes (reconciliation) is necessary for a sustained and large cooperative system.

So you feel that an ethics system should be based upon maximizing the fulfillment of peoples' desires, regardless of what they may be?

No. I think an ethics system should limit people's desires as little as is practically possible. The ethics set the upper limit on what may be obtained and that limit should be as high as we can make it. The ethics set the lower limit on what may be obtained and it should also be as high as we can make it.

No, the purpose of cooperation is to ensure that the collective is more successful in its endeavours. An individual may often achieve more of what he wants by stabbing others in the back.

What is the purpose of the collective? Towards what end does it endevour?

An individual also has the chance of getting caught and losing a lot of what he wants. It is also to his benefit to cooporate, even if he doesn't see that it is. Failure to see one's own benefit does not make that action non beneficial. Everytime he backstabs someone he errodes the member's confidence in the promises of the collective. Each weakening of confidence may lead to loss of membership, increased expenditures for enforcement (resources which could have been used to fufill his wants), decreased willingness to cooperate from members (due to fear). He has weakened the collective if only just a little and the collective will be just that less able to fufill his wants.

Perhaps he calculates that the benefit he can gain from back stabbing outweights the detriment to the collective and the risk of getting caught. Back stabbing implies that he was in their midst and looked upon as a friend before turning on them. He used cooperation in order to get into a position to back stab and thereby fufill his want more effectively than front stabbing them.

So why do you conclude that the rich man should not lift a finger to help the poor starving man? Clearly, the starving man is suffering from some rather severe unfulfilled wants, and the rich man's ability to fulfill his desires will not be severely impacted by giving the poor man some food.

Because the poor man has not passed the designated lower limit of what he may obtain. I designate him as callous because, by allowing someone to exist so close to the lower limit when it would be trivial to help he demonstrates that he will only do the barest minimum to retain his membership in the collective. If you had a coworker who did the barest minimum to get by while having ample resources available, what would you think of them?

You will no doubt provide evidence to support your assertion that the loss of enthusiasm associated with coerced co-operation outweighs the loss of participation associated with the total absence of coercion? Let's take the example of welfare supported by coerced tax payments.

Rights seek to entice rather than coerce, but coercion is sometimes necessary. Seeking is not the same as obtaining. Some coercion is necessary but it should always seek first to entice and reserve coercion for necessity.

Not really; the concept of rights limits what other people can do to you. It does not in any way obligate you to act as an individual on behalf of other peoples' rights.

It does obligate you. If you proclaim that I have a right to live you have proclaimed that you have an obligation not to kill me at the least. A right is a reasoned, collective want. You have proclaimed that you want me to live, it would be counter-productive to that want if you killed me. You not killing me is one less person in the world trying to kill me which works to enforce my right to life. You have been enticed by the offer of membership in the collective to enforce my right to life against at least one person. We then set a lower limit that expands this obligation to include a duty to care.



Should I begin working on the U.N. analysis or is this groundwork still unacceptable? I will wait for an indication that I should continue.