Man, rights and reason

[The Question]

The victim of the cannibalism might arguably be an altruist (albeit probably an unwilling one), but the cannibals are most certainly not.

Sure they are - they're just "inconveniencing" the minority for the "greater good" donchaknow.

[The Question]

Now that's Spock talking.

The needs of the few can be sacrificed for the many, but not without the consent of those few.

Bingo!

[Darth Wong]

Who argued all for what you're arguing for, he just didn't try to hide it by paying lip service to individual rights, as you do.

How is it "lip service" to say that the rights of the individual must be balanced against the good of society, ie- a much larger number of individuals? Are you arguing that in supporting such a balance, I actually disregard individual rights entirely, hence your "lip service" statement?

PS. Philosophical movements are not the same as word definitions. You cannot define objectivity by looking at objectivism, for example. And your issues with Kant have nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of altruism itself, which is simply the act of helping others. Nice red herring, though.

[Darth Wong]

Now that's Spock talking.

The needs of the few can be sacrificed for the many, but not without the consent of those few.

Bingo!

Now you just have to explain why you think that altruism somehow violates that.

[The Question]

PS. Philosophical movements are not the same as word definitions. You cannot define objectivity by looking at objectivism, for example. And your issues with Kant have nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of altruism itself, which is simply the act of helping others. Nice red herring, though.

You make the common error of equating altruism with charity and goodwill.

It's a common one.

[The Question]

Now that's Spock talking.

The needs of the few can be sacrificed for the many, but not without the consent of those few.

Bingo!

Now you just have to explain why you think that altruism somehow violates that.

Altruism says need is a just claim on my rights, and thus my consent is not really necessary.

It's the difference between someone who joins the service and a draftee.

[Darth Wong]

Altruism says need is a just claim on my rights, and thus my consent is not really necessary.

It's the difference between someone who joins the service and a draftee.

Please start supporting your claims. Altruism is an English word which is simply defined as the act of helping others. Cannibals do not help others. Altruists do not demand anything of others over their protests.

You are taking a concept ("help others") and arguing that it is not voluntary, based solely on the fact that you say so.

PS. Kantian ethics are called "duty ethics", and cannot be used as an impromptu definition of altruism. Nor are they as extreme as you say; ethical systems tell you what is the good course of action in any situation; they should not be exaggerated to pretend that they claim you are worthless when you are not actively pursuing their tenets.

[Patrick Degan]

Observing this spectacle, it seems to me that all Mr. Question has to offer is his own regurgitation of the Gospel According to Ayn Rand.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I think we need to look beyond what a dictionary says to get at what altruism actually means.

[Darth Wong]

I think we need to look beyond what a dictionary says to get at what altruism actually means.

To what? Storm Rucker's personal definition, based on Ayn Rand's hatred for societal values? The word altruism is commonly used, and simply means "helping others". Words are defined by their use; there is no such thing as a proper definition of a word which nobody uses. And when people use the word "altruism", "helping others" is what they mean.

I defy you to go to any reasonably sized group of people, ask them if "altruism" means "destroying the rights of the individual and allowing society to consume him for its own ends", and have them say yes.

PS. By way of clarification, dying for your country in battle is altruistic because YOU are helping OTHERS. Forcing someone else to do the same is not altruistic, because YOU are not helping anyone; you are FORCING someone else to do it for you.

[Kuroneko]

Charity is giving because you want to - altruism is giving because that's the only way you can be good and that's the purpose of your existence; giving to others at the expense of self.

And where did you get this definition from?

The great father of modern philosophical altruism - Immanuel Kant.

Kant holding altruism as the purpose of existance? For Kant, self-sacrificial actions are in no way guaranteed to be moral. Quite the contrary, the definition of altruism you gave quite plainly contradicts Kant's own Categorical Imperative.

[The Question]

To what? Storm Rucker's personal definition, based on Ayn Rand's hatred for societal values?

Society doesn't have "values," Wong.

Value presupposes the question "of value to whom."

If you refer to the majority's values, just say so.

Majoritarianism, of course, being as immoral as anything else you've advocated.

[Darth Wong]

Society doesn't have "values," Wong.

Any given society has values. In many cases, they are even formally codified.

Value presupposes the question "of value to whom."

Obviously, to the people who make up that society.

If you refer to the majority's values, just say so.

I refer to the values which are basically universal, ie- virtually all people can agree on them, such as "it's bad to cause suffering and death". If a significant proportion of the population disagrees about some value, it is obviously not universal.

Majoritarianism, of course, being as immoral as anything else you've advocated.

I see that the distinction between universal or near-universal values and mere "majority rules" values is yet another item that has escaped your attention. And I will take the moral opinion of someone who wouldn't lift a finger to help someone unless he's personally at fault with a rather large mountain of salt, thanks.

[The Question]

And I will take the moral opinion of someone who wouldn't lift a finger to help someone unless he's personally at fault with a rather large mountain of salt, thanks.

Interesting that your moral outlook is based on the concept of seeing others being helpless victims in need of your help. Mine's based on men as individual, autonomous beings who should make their way of their own accord.

And I never said I wouldn't lift a finger to help, Wong - I said I have no moral obligation to.

But if you're so adamant that lifting a finger is the measure of one's ethics....




There ya go, sport.

[Keevan_Colton]

TQ, you're an egotistical selfish little shit with the moral fibre of a piece of horse manure.
Yet again you seem to think moral's should simply be used, not promote good even when it all other things are equal. Your wonderful, eveeryone should just look out for themselves and damn the rest of the world....that's such wonderful bullshit....
"Dont hurt anyone...but feel free to sit by and laugh your ass off if they are...."
Or am I paraphrasing your dumb ass position wrongly?
Take for example, a child....lets make a typical silly moral dilema situation here....

You are left in a room with a child that is starving, there is a nasty large man guarding the only food in the room....you can easily take foo and the man will allow it....but the child cannot....the child can only get food if you will procure it for him.....according to your morals, its seems its fine to sit by and watch the child starve....after all you seem to be a believer in the school of "its not my problem".

[The Question]

^^^


You actually base your moral code on such ridiculous hypothetical scenarios?

(BTW - the child's imprisonment and my own would be a violation of our rights, anyway, so I'd kill the bastard just out of spite.)


Dumbass.

[Slartibartfast]

^^^


You actually base your moral code on such ridiculous hypothetical scenarios?

(BTW - the child's imprisonment and my own would be a violation of our rights, anyway, so I'd kill the bastard just out of spite.)


Dumbass.

^^^
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

>>>> :roll::roll::roll::roll:

vvvv

[Darth Wong]

After watching SR's behaviour in this thread, I can say that I've never seen someone concede a point in more spectacular fashion. He posted an ethical worldview, to which I responded that it is obviously incomplete because it has no room for social responsibility, hence it leads to callous disregard for the welfare of others.

His response, of course, was to nitpick the "whistle blower" scenario I used to illustrate the point, in an attempt to claim that it was actually a fraud situation (obviously, he has no knowledge of how typical negligence occurs; he seems to think it's a bunch of cackling executives in a darkened room plotting to defraud and kill people, rather than simple carelessness and stupidity).

But the funny thing is that as the thread wore on, he made it increasingly clear that the original point was completely correct: his ethical worldview does NOT ask anyone to give a shit about the welfare of his fellow man, as exemplified by his proud declaration that he feels no moral obligation to lift a finger to help someone in need. So why fight the original point?

[Kuroneko]

You actually base your moral code on such ridiculous hypothetical scenarios? :roll:

The actual likelyhood of such a scenario is irrelevant. The purpose is to present a moral dillema and force a choice. Why do you run from such questions?

[The Question]

After watching SR's behaviour in this thread, I can say that I've never seen someone concede a point in more spectacular fashion. He posted an ethical worldview, to which I responded that it is obviously incomplete because it has no room for social responsibility, hence it leads to callous disregard for the welfare of others.

His response, of course, was to nitpick the "whistle blower" scenario I used to illustrate the point, in an attempt to claim that it was actually a fraud situation (obviously, he has no knowledge of how typical negligence occurs; he seems to think it's a bunch of cackling executives in a darkened room plotting to defraud and kill people, rather than simple carelessness and stupidity).

But the funny thing is that as the thread wore on, he made it increasingly clear that the original point was completely correct: his ethical worldview does NOT ask anyone to give a shit about the welfare of his fellow man, as exemplified by his proud declaration that he feels no moral obligation to lift a finger to help someone in need. So why fight the original point?

Wrong, Wong.

1) The point of the whistleblower scenario was that the engineer had responsibility to blow the whistle because he is an employee of the company, and thus in part responsible for what the company produces.

2) I stated and state again that a person has no moral obligation to help others if he has not or is not party to the violation -- or in the case of the engineer, the imminent violation -- of another's person's rights.

3) Having no moral obligation to ameliorate the condition of another's suffering doesn't preclude the option one has to choose to help others - it simply recognizes that he is helping from charity, not moral obligation.

Need is never, ever a just claim on the rights of others.

4) The boy in the room scenario is flawed -

A) it is his parent or guardians responsibility to see to the boy's welfare, as they are steward's of his rights.

B) the presumption the kid could not eat unless the guard is dealt with inherently presupposes the kid is imprisoned, thus I am, too. As such, both our rights are violated, and I would act in defense of my rights from the obligation I have to defend my own rights.

C) I would choose to help the boy, because it comports with my self-chosen values, not because I am obligated, as such.

D) These kinds of scenarios tell a great deal about people's view of man - they see him in his natural state as a being without exercisable volition, trapped by circumstances beyond his control, helpless. Sorry, I don't see man in that light. Emergency and lifeboat ethics have their place in discussion, but the moral man recognizes such are the rare and extreme conditions, not the normal state of man.

[Slartibartfast]

Wrong, Wong.

^^^

[Kuroneko]

Need is never, ever a just claim on the rights of others.

4) The boy in the room scenario is flawed -

A) it is his parent or guardians responsibility to see to the boy's welfare, as they are steward's of his rights.

A child is the responsibility of his parents, because (a) they brought him into existence, and (b) a child, by nature, cannot survive independently. (The fact that the parents might not have desired the child, in a given case, is irrelevant in this context; he is nevertheless the consequence of their chosen actions-a consequence that, as a possibility, was foreseeable.)

In this scenario, the child cannot survive independently, and the child's existence is solely dependent on you. It makes no difference who brought the child into existence initially--suppose the child is the product of a rape (not an uncommon occurence), and the father is imprisoned or otherwise unavailable. The mother is still the parent of the child, and still has parental obligations. Surely she nor the child chose for this to happen, but found herself in that situation anyway, with a child depending on her for survival.

Likewise, here neither the child nor yourself chose to be there. Nevertheless, the child depends on you for his continued existence.

B) the presumption the kid could not eat unless the guard is dealt with inherently presupposes the kid is imprisoned, thus I am, too. As such, both our rights are violated, and I would act in defense of my rights from the obligation I have to defend my own rights.

Certainly so, but also irrelevant.

C) I would choose to help the boy, because it comports with my self-chosen values, not because I am obligated, as such.

I'm glad you would, even if I disagree with your reasons.

D) These kinds of scenarios tell a great deal about people's view of man - they see him in his natural state as a being without exercisable volition, trapped by circumstances beyond his control, helpless. Sorry, I don't see man in that light. Emergency and lifeboat ethics have their place in discussion, but the moral man recognizes such are the rare and extreme conditions, not the normal state of man.

I do not claim that it is the usual state of mankind, only that it does happen, and more often than I would like it to.

[Darth Wong]

Wrong, Wong.

Wow, did you think that up all by yourself?

1) The point of the whistleblower scenario was that the engineer had responsibility to blow the whistle because he is an employee of the company, and thus in part responsible for what the company produces.

Thus showing that you missed the whole point of the "whistle blower" scenario, since you're trying to turn it into a "responsible for problem" scenario. Perhaps I should have anticipated your evasive nitpickery and pointed out that the engineer in question has nothing whatsoever to do with the faulty design in question. In a large company, it is quite conceivable that one does not even work for the same branch of the company which designed the part in question. If you work for a multi-national conglomerate, do you think you're responsible for everything done by every part of that conglomerate?

What if I simply change the scenario to the classic "engineer inspects a building site for its foundation and just happens to notice something wrong with the blueprints for the building's main structure" scenario, in order to close the loophole through which you are desperately trying to squeeze your ass? In that case, there is no direct connection whatsoever. You feel there is no moral obligation either, yet it is CRUCIAL for public safety that engineering professional associations demand that obligation of their members.

2) I stated and state again that a person has no moral obligation to help others if he has not or is not party to the violation -- or in the case of the engineer, the imminent violation -- of another's person's rights.

You are still assuming that someone's rights have been violated by having a less-than-ideal product. Which right is that, in particular?

3) Having no moral obligation to ameliorate the condition of another's suffering doesn't preclude the option one has to choose to help others - it simply recognizes that he is helping from charity, not moral obligation.

Need is never, ever a just claim on the rights of others.

Still beating on your strawman, eh? Moral systems tell us what is best for us to do. You are trying to say that if moral system A says you should help people, then it's really saying that you have no rights if those people want you to help them. That is a gross distortion, it has been pointed out several times, and you refuse to admit it.

Saying that you have a moral obligation to help people means that the most moral course of action is to help people. It does not mean your rights have been taken away! What part of this are you too dense to understand?

4) The boy in the room scenario is flawed -

A) it is his parent or guardians responsibility to see to the boy's welfare, as they are steward's of his rights.

B) the presumption the kid could not eat unless the guard is dealt with inherently presupposes the kid is imprisoned, thus I am, too. As such, both our rights are violated, and I would act in defense of my rights from the obligation I have to defend my own rights.

C) I would choose to help the boy, because it comports with my self-chosen values, not because I am obligated, as such.

A moral obligation is not one that carries force, you idiot. It is that which your values compel you to do.

D) These kinds of scenarios tell a great deal about people's view of man - they see him in his natural state as a being without exercisable volition, trapped by circumstances beyond his control, helpless.

Never miss an opportunity to get up on that soapbox and rant about the perceived psychological motives of your opponents, eh? Maybe the scenario is simply designed to test your ethical system.

When an engineer tests a brake system, does he subject it to normal use, or extreme use? Do you understand the concept of testing?

Sorry, I don't see man in that light. Emergency and lifeboat ethics have their place in discussion, but the moral man recognizes such are the rare and extreme conditions, not the normal state of man.

Hey, maybe you don't read the news, but suffering is much more common than comfort in this world, dumb-ass.

[The Question]

Wrong, Wong.

Wow, did you think that up all by yourself?

Got me a rhyming dictionary and everything.

You are still assuming that someone's rights have been violated by having a less-than-ideal product.

And now you transition it from "a product with an inherent, dangerous design flaw" to "a less-than-ideal product."

Nice duck and dodge.

Still beating on your strawman, eh? Moral systems tell us what is best for us to do.

No, a moral system or code is how one evaluates, achieves and keeps values.

A moral obligation is not one that carries force, you idiot. It is that which your values compel you to do.

No, I recognize no obligation to take positive action for others. However, I choose to trade the lesser value - the effort it takes to save the kid - for a greater value - the warm n fuzzy I'd get.

A moral obligation is that which, if you don't fulfill it, you are by definition acting immorally.

Choosing not to help someone who is not my responsibility has no bearing on my moral balance.

Hey, maybe you don't read the news, but suffering is much more common than comfort in this world, dumb-ass.

Yes, because of people who think they have some rightful power to violate the rights of others - often citing need as the justification.

[Prince-Admiral Krennel]

"The Question" has an uncanny ability to string togather many "one liners" and make it seem as though his posts have actually had intelligent thought applied to them.



BTW,


The Question<<<<<<<<<