Man, rights and reason

[Darth Wong]

Mike referenced STAR TREK!!!!!!!!!!

HELL HAS FROZEN OVER!!!

I referenced QUALITY Star Trek, buddy. Not that Voyager shit.

[CaptainChewbacca]

There's only 3 or 4 eps of VOY I like. The rest are all the same.

[The Question]

In deference to Captain Chewbaca's request:


The initial post describes the foundation of the Zero Aggression Principle.

This is shortened, for brevity's sake, to "No one has the right to initiate force or fraud against another for any reason."

Obviously, these terms cover more ground than the simple-minded would like - "force" includes threat of force, and "fraud" includes all cases of theft by deception or stealth.

Now, to dispense with additional red herrings - some legal products carry known risks in proper operation or use, and consumers are either aware of them through common knowledge or explicit disclosure by the manufacturer i.e. motorcycles, tobacco, fried foods.

In the scenario, an engineer is party to making a product that he learns has a design flaw that makes the products use/operation inherently dangerous.

He informs his bosses, who do nothing.

Consumer buys the product, under the implicit or even explicit understanding that normal use of this product carries no inherent risk.

Therefore, the consumer has been defrauded by the company.

Because the engineer is part of the company and has voluntary association with same, he bears some measure of responsibility for resulting harm to any buyers.

Hence his duty to inform the public, press or proper government agency.

All of Wong's red herrings and straw men and redefinitions won't change this.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

[CaptainChewbacca]

sounds good to me. A bit condescending, though.

[David]

<snip>It's a no-win scenario, and you have to decide what to do. <snip>

Basically the same as saying your family will starve if you don't steal to get them food. You could let them starve and you'd be ok as far as not violating another person's rights, but then, most people are not going to watch their family starve to death.

[The Question]

^^

Need is not a just claim on the property of others, nor is it justification.

You may steal the bread, but no amount of rationalizing makes it moral.

You weren't saying otherwise, I just thought that was an important distinction to make.

[The Question]

sounds good to me. A bit condescending, though.

Sorry - I've exhausted my patience with Wong's strawmen and his eternal attempts to redefine terms to support his irrational positions.

I love my wookie too much to be condescending.

[Darth Wong]

This is shortened, for brevity's sake, to "No one has the right to initiate force or fraud against another for any reason."

That is but ONE tenet of a system of ethics. There are others.

Obviously, these terms cover more ground than the simple-minded would like - "force" includes threat of force, and "fraud" includes all cases of theft by deception or stealth.

Now, to dispense with additional red herrings - some legal products carry known risks in proper operation or use, and consumers are either aware of them through common knowledge or explicit disclosure by the manufacturer i.e. motorcycles, tobacco, fried foods.

In the scenario, an engineer is party to making a product that he learns has a design flaw that makes the products use/operation inherently dangerous.

In his judgement. His superiors disagree.

He informs his bosses, who do nothing.

Consumer buys the product, under the implicit or even explicit understanding that normal use of this product carries no inherent risk.

Therefore, the consumer has been defrauded by the company.

Wrong, dumb-ass. You have made two assumptions:

1) You assume that someone has already been harmed by this as-yet-unreleased product, thus neatly sidestepping my rebuttal that you cannot identify an individual victim at the present time. In the scenario, this has not yet occurred, and nothing is guaranteed. Most product safety defect cases are such that under NORMAL use, no one will get hurt. But that does not preclude someone getting hurt anyway.

2) You assume that his superiors agreed that it was an unacceptable safety risk, yet went ahead and sold the product anyway, presumably with implicit or explicit assurances that no such safety defect existed. However, nothing in the scenario requires this assumption. His superiors disagreed that the safety issue was severe enough to warrant an expensive remedy. They may be found incompetent, or negligent, but unless they positively state a falsehood, they are NOT committing fraud.

You cannot arbitrarily redefine any and all forms of negligence to be fraud. Poor judgement is not fraud, you idiot. And after bragging about how you know more about "corporate law" than me and then immediately pulling a 180 and screeching that I shouldn't be using the legal definitions of fraud and negligence in a moral debate (as if they differ from the English definitions), you have merely shown yet again that you have no interest in conducting an honest debate.

Because the engineer is part of the company and has voluntary association with same, he bears some measure of responsibility for resulting harm to any buyers.

And what if he isn't? According to you, he has no responsibility, yet that is a preposterous position unless you think that avoidance of harm to others is not a worthwhile attribute of an ethical system. He still bears social responsibility, and has even LESS reason not to report it.

Hence his duty to inform the public, press or proper government agency.

As I expected, you tried to rewrite the rules of the scenario in order to cram a square peg into a round hole, thus avoiding the fact that without some concept of social responsibility, any ethical system is incomplete.

All of Wong's red herrings and straw men and redefinitions won't change this.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

Speak for yourself; I gave the CLASSIC TEXTBOOK "whistle-blower" scenario and you tried to distort it into a fraud case (even going so far as to compare it to putting poison in someone's food at one point), so as to pidgeon-hole it into your limited ethical system and save your lame-assed argument. Ranting about how it was wrong of me to produce a scenario that doesn't fit neatly into your preconceptions won't help you.

Moreover, you have never even ATTEMPTED to address my point that at the time of the scenario, there is no individual victim. Only a SOCIETY whose members may face harm. But according to you, there is no such thing as societal rights; only individual rights. Would you care to ignore that point again, hoping to impress the one-man cheering section that you imported from TrekBBS because no one else is buying your bullshit?

[The Question]

In his judgement. His superiors disagree.

Clarify the scenario - is there an inherently and objectively dangerous design flaw, or is it two qualified opinions in opposition?

Wrong, dumb-ass. You have made two assumptions:

1) You assume that someone has already been harmed by this as-yet-unreleased product

Dumbass Wong. The product is an inherently dangerous one in your original scenario. You seem above to be trying to change that, but let's proceed from the original one.

I need not shoot you to violate your rights. If I put a gun in your face that is an inherent danger and a threat of force.

If I sell you a product whose normal operation is inherently dangerous not by its nature (e.g. motorcycle) but because it doesn't function properly, you bought that product under false pretenses.

2) You assume that his superiors agreed that it was an unacceptable safety risk, yet went ahead and sold the product anyway

That was your original scenario. But once again you try to shift the terms of the debate. Typical, typical Wong.

And what if he isn't? According to you, he has no responsibility, yet that is a preposterous position unless you think that avoidance of harm to others is not a worthwhile attribute of an ethical system.

I have no responsibility for the actions of others that harm others. That others harm others is not a claim on my life.

Sorry, but that's the cold, hard facts. I may choose to intervene on behalf of a third party, but I have no moral duty to under the code of ethics I described in the initial post.

As I expected, you tried to rewrite the rules of the scenario

That's a fucking joke coming from you, Mr. I Make My Stand On The Firm Ground of Quicksand.

But according to you, there is no such thing as societal rights; only individual rights.

Damn skippy, hippie.

[Andrew J.]

I have no responsibility for the actions of others that harm others. That others harm others is not a claim on my life.

Sorry, but that's the cold, hard facts. I may choose to intervene on behalf of a third party, but I have no moral duty to under the code of ethics I described in the initial post.

No offense, but that's a pretty crappy code of ethics you got there.

[Ghost Rider]

The biggest problem that Storm Rucker/Question is facing is he gives no examples of where Wong is making these wrongs...and presumes that other will immeditaely take his word for it.

Without such...I might as well exclaim that Wong is wrong in his thoughts of evolution and go la-la-la anytime he says otherwise.

Point them out directly instead of making statements as "He's making (insert logical fallacy)!!!!"

[The Question]

I have no responsibility for the actions of others that harm others. That others harm others is not a claim on my life.

Sorry, but that's the cold, hard facts. I may choose to intervene on behalf of a third party, but I have no moral duty to under the code of ethics I described in the initial post.

No offense, but that's a pretty crappy code of ethics you got there.

None taken. A moral code is simply a means to achieve and keep one's values.

Your mays differ dependent on your values.

[AdmiralKanos]

In his judgement. His superiors disagree.

Clarify the scenario - is there an inherently and objectively dangerous design flaw, or is it two qualified opinions in opposition?

Are you really so ignorant that you think it inconceivable that an engineer might think his manager is a dumb-ass?

Dumbass Wong. The product is an inherently dangerous one in your original scenario. You seem above to be trying to change that, but let's proceed from the original one.

No, the product has some kind of flaw which presents a public safety hazard. Learn to read, moron.

I need not shoot you to violate your rights. If I put a gun in your face that is an inherent danger and a threat of force.

Oh, so now selling anything less than an absolutely idiotproof, perfect product is akin to putting a gun in someone's face? You're pathetic.

If I sell you a product whose normal operation is inherently dangerous not by its nature (e.g. motorcycle) but because it doesn't function properly, you bought that product under false pretenses.

Yet again, you labour under your ignorant misconception that a product design flaw must interfere with normal operation in order to be considered a safety hazard. Take, for example, a car which has a marked tendency to flip over when driven a certain way which happens to be highly illegal. The manufacturer is not obligated to warn the consumer that unsafe use of the product may result in harm. Yet if an engineer knows that the car COULD be made much safer even in the event of said misuse with a few design changes, he may be obligated to seek external remedy if the manufacturer refuses to make those changes.

But of course, that would be a realistic application, and I see that you prefer oversimplified scenarios, in order to neatly fit them into your correspondingly simplistic thinking.

2) You assume that his superiors agreed that it was an unacceptable safety risk, yet went ahead and sold the product anyway

That was your original scenario. But once again you try to shift the terms of the debate. Typical, typical Wong.

Is that the best you can do? Even though everyone can look back and see that nowhere in the original scenario did the manager agree that it was a serious safety hazard? Perhaps you just hope no one will check up on your bullshit, eh?

I have no responsibility for the actions of others that harm others. That others harm others is not a claim on my life.

That is precisely what is wrong with your ethical system. You do not recognize any form of social responsibility, yet when faced with a scenario in which your ethical system produces obviously reprehensible results, you try to distort and alter that scenario until it no longer embarasses you.

Sorry, but that's the cold, hard facts. I may choose to intervene on behalf of a third party, but I have no moral duty to under the code of ethics I described in the initial post.

In other words, you think that "good Samaritan" laws are wrong. That is why your code of ethics is a bad one.

That's a fucking joke coming from you, Mr. I Make My Stand On The Firm Ground of Quicksand.

Awwww, you're getting all petulant now. I can almost see you stamping your feet in anger. How cute!

Damn skippy, hippie.

Just what is it that you do for a living? I would hate to think you're in a profession where your complete, avowed lack of social ethics might actually harm someone.

PS. I notice you ignored the point about how no individual victim exists yet again. The only victim is a SOCIETY of individuals, yet you deny the concept of societal responsibility.

[The Question]

Point them out directly...

Do you need someone to wipe yer butt for you as well?

[Ghost Rider]

Point them out directly...

Do you need someone to wipe yer butt for you as well?

I see...retorts but no bite.

So you admit you can't?

[The Question]

Are you really so ignorant that you think it inconceivable that an engineer might think his manager is a dumb-ass?

Red herring. Answer the question. You like leaving things open ended so you have wiggle room.

No, the product has some kind of flaw which presents a public safety hazard. Learn to read, moron.

When talking with you, one seeks concrete clarification, if only to have something to hold on to until the next post when you shift definitions and change the scenario to suit your argument.

Oh, so now selling anything less than an absolutely idiotproof, perfect product is akin to putting a gun in someone's face?

Ignoratio elenchi. You stated that the product had an inherent design flaw which, through normal use of the product, would result in injury to the user.

Yet again, you labour under your ignorant misconception that a product design flaw must interfere with normal operation in order to be considered a safety hazard.

Quit shifting definitions, Wong. You love to leave things open ended. Wiggle, wiggle, squirm, squirm. See above.

Is that the best you can do? Even though everyone can look back and see that nowhere in the original scenario did the manager agree that it was a serious safety hazard? Perhaps you just hope no one will check up on your bullshit, eh?

You certainly implied it and this is the first time you've tried to correct any misunderstanding on my part. I understand. You need that wiggle room.

That is precisely what is wrong with your ethical system. You do not recognize any form of social responsibility

Your definition of social responsibility, you mean. Sorry, I don't subscribe to your subjectively chosen values.

Tough cookies.

In other words, you think that "good Samaritan" laws are wrong.

Goddamn right I do.

That is why your code of ethics is a bad one.

That's your opinion. Nothing more.

Just what is it that you do for a living?

I manufacture and distribute crystal meth.

If your engineering skills are as poor as your reasoning, I understand why you would need to be versed on inherent design flaws.

[The Question]

Point them out directly...

Do you need someone to wipe yer butt for you as well?

I see...retorts but no bite.

So you admit you can't?

No, I'm telling you I won't do your work for you.

[Ghost Rider]

And still doesn't answer where Wong made these huge gaping holes...thus literally saying to the audience

"I know he's making an error, but it's not my place to show one why because that would shatter his position, but instead I'll just scream because it's easier."

So where are these gaping holes in his logic?

[AdmiralKanos]

Are you really so ignorant that you think it inconceivable that an engineer might think his manager is a dumb-ass?

Red herring. Answer the question. You like leaving things open ended so you have wiggle room.

This coming from the person whose original post had to be repeatedly "clarified" before it would even come close to addressing the point?

The point is simply to concoct a scenario where you bear no DIRECT responsibility for the flaw but you have an opportunity to report it. That is the essence of the whistle-blower no-win scenario, and you are simply trying to distort it until you can find some way to win.

Sorry, but that's not how it works. If you want me to arbitrarily make it very specific to a given scenario, then fine: your manager is a QUALIFIED dumb-ass, but a dumb-ass nonetheless. He got his degree 30 years ago from a bad school, but he has an MBA, which is why he's telling you what to do.

By the way, I gave a VERY SPECIFIC example of the sort of design flaw that would fit the scenario in my last post. As usual, you conspicuously ignored it, along with the other point I tried to remind you of (about society being the only identifiable victim at the time of the scenario).

When talking with you, one seeks concrete clarification, if only to have something to hold on to until the next post when you shift definitions and change the scenario to suit your argument.

This might mean something if you could actually produce an example of where I've changed the scenario, especially if it came from someone whose own argument wasn't based on multiple "clarifications" of his own position.

Oh, so now selling anything less than an absolutely idiotproof, perfect product is akin to putting a gun in someone's face?

Ignoratio elenchi. You stated that the product had an inherent design flaw which, through normal use of the product, would result in injury to the user.

Wrong. Quote the original scenario.

Quit shifting definitions, Wong. You love to leave things open ended. Wiggle, wiggle, squirm, squirm. See above.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

You certainly implied it and this is the first time you've tried to correct any misunderstanding on my part. I understand. You need that wiggle room.

You're pathetic; this is an EXTREMELY COMMON scenario, and in fact, Patrick Degan gave an example of it occurring in real life. Now you're just trying to focus on your opponent in order to distract from the point.

Your definition of social responsibility, you mean. Sorry, I don't subscribe to your subjectively chosen values.

Of course, since the notion that a system of ethics should benefit people instead of simply protecting your own self-interest is alien to you

If your engineering skills are as poor as your reasoning, I understand why you would need to be versed on inherent design flaws.

Too bad you can't provide any examples of said poor reasoning, and must instead rely on lies and rhetoric.

[The Question]

The point is simply to concoct a scenario where you bear no DIRECT responsibility for the flaw but you have an opportunity to report it.

One doesn't have to have direct responsibility - indirect is enough. And as an employee, especially if he is a designer on the product, he bears indirect and possibly direct responsibility.

Oh, so now selling anything less than an absolutely idiotproof, perfect product is akin to putting a gun in someone's face?

Since I never said that, this would be a strawman.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Pleased ta meet ya.

You're pathetic; this is an EXTREMELY COMMON scenario, and in fact, Patrick Degan gave an example of it occurring in real life. Now you're just trying to focus on your opponent in order to distract from the point.

Saying it don't make it so, and it don't shore up your argument.

Of course, since the notion that a system of ethics should benefit people instead of simply protecting your own self-interest is alien to you

If it is at the cost of individual rights, then yes, it is alien to me.

Your collectivist ethics make man a sacrificial animal for the good of the whole.

I ain't buying into the immorality of altruism and cannibalism.

Too bad you can't provide any examples of said poor reasoning, and must instead rely on lies and rhetoric.

No need for introduction, you've already met the kettle and pot, which are both African American.

[Andrew J.]

None taken. A moral code is simply a means to achieve and keep one's values.

Your mays differ dependent on your values.

According to my values, you're a scumbag that the world would be better off without.

[The Question]

None taken. A moral code is simply a means to achieve and keep one's values.

Your mays differ dependent on your values.

According to my values, you're a scumbag that the world would be better off without.

You forgot the "no offense" part.

And according to mine, you're a moral cannibal.

[AdmiralKanos]

One doesn't have to have direct responsibility - indirect is enough. And as an employee, especially if he is a designer on the product, he bears indirect and possibly direct responsibility.

Yet nowhere was it stated that he was a designer on the product. Your stubborn insistence on trying to modify the situation from "opportunity to report a problem" to "responsible for the problem" is simply tacit admission that you refuse to deal with the scenario as written, hence you admit that you can't deal with it. Concession accepted.

Your collectivist ethics make man a sacrificial animal for the good of the whole.

Nonsense; they balance the needs of the many against the rights of the few. The problem with Randroid ethics is that they are completely imbalanced; they try to paint anyone who perceives social responsibility as a communist.

I ain't buying into the immorality of altruism and cannibalism.

As I said, typical Randroid. It becomes "immoral" in your worldview to help people.

No need for introduction, you've already met the kettle and pot, which are both African American.

You seem to be one of those people who thinks that if you evade points in a really cleverly worded way, nobody will notice.

[The Question]

One doesn't have to have direct responsibility - indirect is enough. And as an employee, especially if he is a designer on the product, he bears indirect and possibly direct responsibility.

Yet nowhere was it stated that he was a designer on the product.

What part of the word "if" is giving you a problem?

Your stubborn insistence on trying to modify the situation from "opportunity to report a problem" to "responsible for the problem" is simply tacit admission that you refuse to deal with the scenario as written, hence you admit that you can't deal with it. Concession accepted.

Another victory claim from the master of shifting the debate.

Nonsense; they balance the needs of the many against the rights of the few.

Need is not a just claim on the rights of others.

The problem with Randroid ethics is that they are completely imbalanced; they try to paint anyone who perceives social responsibility as a communist.

I already described the limit of social responsibility. You want to recruit others against their will to accomplish your ends.

That is collectivist ethics. Using the power of the state to force people to become means to your personal ends.

As I said, typical Randroid. It becomes "immoral" in your worldview to help people.

Strawman and ad hominem.

No, it becomes immoral in my worldview to be compelled against my will to "help people," under threat of the law.

You seem to be one of those people who thinks that if you evade points in a really cleverly worded way, nobody will notice.

You seem to be one of those people incapable of being clever.

[Andrew J.]

[
And according to mine, you're a moral cannibal.

Well, you're half right there...

By the way, do you drink a lot? It's just that I don't like the taste of alcohol, you see.