Natural Rights

[GePap]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Gepap vs loin
Ok is this still about the thing that if you don't have laws you can't say what's wrong or right? Or better yet, what the hell is this about?

I made the arguement that you can not define murder outside of the concept of law, meaning that when Berz keeps saying that people have a universal desire not to be murdered, that is incorrect, since murder is defines by law, so how could it be a universal desire, if laws are not universal. Loin then took it upon himself to define murder in a way to make it separate from the concept of law (or the such, like morality, justice, so forth).

It deteriorated from there.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Imran
No, but morals need laws to actually mean anything substantial.

What exactly is substantial meaning?

Originally posted by GePap
I would say that I do not think morality as a concept can exist utterly seperate from one of rules (and eventualy laws). What is the point of saying :"that is wrong" and "that is right" if there is no consequence to the difference? I mean, how long after you think "right, wrong" does it take to think "one should not do wrong"? now you have a rule, "don;t do wrong". How long from there until you think : "hmm, how do we stop wrong doing?" And from there consequences to the wrong act? Now, you can always say the consequence is supernatural, and that the rules are supernatural (I mean, realy what gives an individual the legitimacy and authority to declare anything wrong, or immoral? And what gives such power to a group?)

For rules - depends how you understand them, but lots of moral standards exist without laws, because (a vast majority of) people consider certain things morally right, even when not defined per law.

For example it is considered morally right to help others, but no law exists about that. However, if I´m in the bus, and an old woman comes in, people stand up (if there´s no free place) and give the old woman the chance to sit down instead. You can say it is a social rule or a code of behaviour, but it is no law. Still it is so widely shared that people act in such ways. Of course not always, but without been seen morally right, nobody would stand up.

Too banally for you? Ok, let´s go into political affairs, similar things happen there. For example, why do we (US/Euros) send peacekeepers eg. into the Congo or Liberia? Ok, you can take the realist approach saying it is good for US/European image, stability there etc.

However, why should we be interested in stability in Africa? We could also try to ignore those conflicts, close our borders for refugees, and then let them kill eachother, I doubt it would be technically more difficult then having lots of peacekeepers there. No authority could easily force states like the US, Britain, France or Germany to send soldiers abroad, no law exists that says we should intervene there and there, however peacekeepers are sent. You can argue that they aren´t send into every conflict (eg. Rwanda was ignored), but that doesn´t explain why they send them into other conflicts when there is really nothing to gain except problems and costs (like Congo).

Even more interesting: why should we care about starving people in Africa? There´s no law that says we should send food aid over there in a hunger crisis (or money to buy food etc), yet it happens quite often, and it is of course considered morally right. Or why do foreign countries send help into a country when there was a earthquake or vulcan eruption?

I do not think this can be explained purely by interests, in all these cases you have concrete behaviour due to widely shared moral views (help the poor, help victims of desasters or genocide), which are not based on certain laws. Because if our societies hold certain moral views they must be commited to them, otherwise our own principles are not worth much (and then you cannot demand any longer that people should act according to those principles), and so they cannot easily ignore such conflicts or desasters once they reach a certain scale.

If you say these are just other forms of rules (eg. what you mean by "code of behaviour"), still there stands the logical problem how to make a rule about something without having an idea of what is moral and what not. If you do not know this, you cannot say what the rule should be. In any case these rules are not law.

And to your questions: it can be quite a long time before moral views are "translated" into law - think eg. about environmental issues. It is "wrong" to pollute the nature, not only morally, however, it needed decades in western countries before these issues even went into a wider public discussion. Yet this was not meaningless, even without a certain law these issues play a big role today (eg. in consumer decisions for or against certain products).

[Imran Siddiqui]

BeBro, if there is no law, then not following the 'moral' path of someone else won't really matter. If you don't stand up for the old lady, it doesn't matter. If the US doesn't go into Liberia, it doesn't matter (at least to the US). If someone pollutes within the law, it doesn't matter.

What I am saying is that morality without law is simply someone's opinion. You are usually free to disregard it without cost to yourself (the exception being if someone's moral belief contrasts yours and he is willing to kick your ass because of it ). It's the LAW which is the important thing to focus on, because if a certain opinion isn't strong enough to be law, then it isn't strong enough to really hurt you. That's what I mean by substantial meaning.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
BeBro, if there is no law, then not following the 'moral' path of someone else won't really matter. If you don't stand up for the old lady, it doesn't matter. If the US doesn't go into Liberia, it doesn't matter (at least to the US). If someone pollutes within the law, it doesn't matter.

Well, at least in the case of the polluter it can have quite serious consequnces even without a law. Therefore the hint about consumer decisions - if a certain company gets a bad image because of polluting everything, consumers could strike back quite effectively.

I remember a case about a Shell oil platform in the North Sea, which should be simply sunk into the ocean when it was old. That was a big issue in Europe, Shell got a very bad press, was boycotted by many car drivers, and finally agreed that it would dismantle the platform in a more environment-friendly way. Real consequence without a law against sinking oil platforms.

If the US doesn´t go to Liberia, well yes, that would certainly not be the end for the US. However, if your government would constantly act against the moral views hold by most US citizens, it could of course have the real consequence that it loses the next election. Why do you think it was neccessary to make also a moral case against Iraq (evil dictator and such) before the war? Why didn´t GWB simply say, hey, Saddam has violated the cease fire rules of gulf war one? Of course the moral case was made to win public support for it. No public support - reelection in danger. That is a real consequence, even when it is only a possible consequence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, at least in the case of the polluter it can have quite serious consequnces even without a law. Therefore the hint about consumer decisions - if a certain company gets a bad image because of polluting everything, consumers could strike back quite effectively.

Is that more about morality or interests? Most people will protest because they don't want that sludge in 'our' cities. That's the main reason most regular people won't buy things from polluters.

However, if your government would constantly act against the moral views hold by most US citizens, it could of course have the real consequence that it loses the next election.

If the morality is that strong you'd see legal actions... such as a declaration by Congress, etc. In domestic situations there would be laws.

Why didn´t GWB simply say, hey, Saddam has violated the cease fire rules of gulf war one? Of course the moral case was made to win public support for it.

Because even if he did say that Saddam violated the cease fire rules, there was nothing really in it that said we had to go to war again (just 'serious consequences' IIRC). There was no law on the matter, so they could go and do what they wanted, but you need the moral stuff so they could get Congress on their side to vote it 'into law' basically (because they weren't sure how long they'd be).


BASICALLY, morality without law can be twisted and exploited to the point where might not even matter, because there is so much view on what is the 'moral' path that anyone can justify just about anything. Laws makes morality a little more concrete (at least for that day ), and thus should be the focus).

After all, in the end law is simply legislated morality (so morality isn't totally useless). This IS significant though, because enough people came together and said that we believe in this morality so strongly and completely that we want to put it in writing so everyone has to follow it. Morality that doesn't reach that level has problems in that a majority may not agree with it, and others may wish to twist it until it is undistinguishable.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Is that more about morality or interests? Most people will protest because they don't want that sludge in 'our' cities. That's the main reason most regular people won't buy things from polluters.

Both morality and interests. If only interest would matter, then why should people care about a Shell platform several hundred miles away? Maybe those living on the coast would care, but the rest not really. If you say "hey those evil oil companies, making a lot of money, but do not spend enough for environmental protection, we´ll teach them" it is a moral judgement. And such views fueled the front against Shell in said case.

BASICALLY, morality without law can be twisted and exploited to the point where might not even matter, because there is so much view on what is the 'moral' path that anyone can justify just about anything. Laws makes morality a little more concrete (at least for that day ), and thus should be the focus).

and

After all, in the end law is simply legislated morality. This IS significant though, because enough people came together and said that we believe in this morality so strongly and completely that we want to put it in writing so everyone has to follow it. Morality that doesn't reach that level has problems in that a majority may not agree with it, and others may wish to twist it until it is undistinguishable.

Well yes, it´s not that I´m saying law is not important, of course it is. I´m just here to annoy you and GePap , because I think still that moral outside law does matter, if concrete behaviour follows from it. Because this behaviour has always consequences. Think about Ghandi - there was certainly no law that made him acting against the British. And while he of course had his interests, his concrete behaviour is only thinkable when related to his moral views. If Ghandi was a Mao-like guy, his moral views would have probably lead to active military resistance (like Mao did in China), not to peaceful resistance. Here you have two complete different behaviours rooted in different moral views - and both had enourmous consequences.

But ok, it is weekend now

[Imran Siddiqui]

The thing with Ghandi AND Mao is they wanted to change the law! That was their aim in the end, was it not? They used morality to raise the troops, but for the reason of changing law (which is the same as changing the rulers).

I'm saying morals are great and all and can do good things (depending on your side), but in the end the law is a much more important vehicle and it is, in the end, what everyone is after.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The thing with Ghandi AND Mao is they wanted to change the law! That was their aim in the end, was it not? They used morality to raise the troops, but for the reason of changing law (which is the same as changing the rulers).

But this is not relevant for their actions before they were in the position to change any real law. It is relevant after they seized power, not before, during their actions against Japanese or British. Even if their goal was to change a law, their actions were rooted in self interest and moral views. Self interest=freedom from opression, independence etc, moral view=peaceful or military resistance. Even freedom and independance can be linked to moral views how the world should look like.

And since those actions laid the basis for any development, even a takeover of power or changing laws later, they absolutely did matter.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But this is not relevant for their actions before they were in the position to change any real law.

Of course it is. That's their reason for the actions. Every revolution on Earth is the change the law. The law is central. The only way to make your morals powerful is to change the law.

And they were in the position to change the law because they eventually did. If the law changed because of them, it is only reasonable to assume they were in a position to change the law.

Your argument is like saying that petitioning for a law or a repeal of law means that the law isn't relavent to their actions.

Even if their goal was to change a law, their actions were rooted in self interest and moral views.

You do realize that law itself is rooted in self-interest and moral views, right?

[GePap]

Even if Loin never returns to this thread(I can't say i would mind), I will answer the notion that one can define murder simply on the issue of reciprocity, without there also being societally constructed values.

Lets build two scenerios:
Scen. A:
X groups and Y group are at war. And X soldier hides in ambush, and can not be seen. He waits armed with a projectile weapon. Two Y uniformed Y soldiers come by, unarmed. X soldier kills both.

Scen B:
A man is outside in front of his home, with a gun. His neighbor comes out also armed. They see each other, note each other is armed. One of them turns around to get his lawnmower. The other man shoots and kills his neighbor dead.

NOw, we will make the assumption that Loin made, that both men has a moral system based on reciprocity: neither wants to be killed, believes the same of the other man, and thus will act with reciprocity, that is, will take no action to kill the other. The only exception to this rule is if one feels that thier life is in danger form the other: since the other person has ignored my whishes to live, I will ignore his. Reciprocity is maintained. (as it where, the Golden Rule)

Under this simple definition, both scenerios are acts of murder.

But I think it is clear that Scen. A would never have been, and certainly is not today, considered an act of murder, while Scen B. is considered an act of murder. What is the difference?

Before we get there, I have a simple problem with the notion of reciprocity: Is reciprocity to be expected of UNEQUALS? Does the superior expect to be treated the same as the inferior, and vice versa? NO, they do not: if recirocity was called for, what benefit would the distinction have? Reciprocity is not expected, nor can it be expected, of unequals.

So lets examine Scen B., which I said would always be murder. NOw, yet another definion Loin pushed was malicious and premeditated. I will not argue malicious, but what about premeditated? Was the killing planned? Lets say it is, after all, some time passed between the moment each saw the other armed, and one fired. NOw, could the killer claim self-defense? After all, the other individual, his neighbor, was armed, aware he was armed, and in plainsight. How could the shooter be clear that the other person would not kill him, that the next act, after he turned towards the lawmower, was not to turn around and shoot? At this point one could claim that, given the concept of reciprocity, the shoter should have known that the other person would accept that neither wants to be killed, and thus act accordingly. BUt as I said, one can NOT expect reciprocity from unequals. What if, then, the neighbor believed himself to be different, unequal from me, and hence, not bound to act with reciprocity? I have no reasonable way of knowing that the neighbor considers me someone worthy of reciprocity and will act thus: is it then unreasonable to remove a potential threat to my life, becuase if the neighbor does not believe I am worthy of reciprocity, I can not reasonably expect it.

Now someone may claim: but all human beings are equal, so reciprocity should be a given to all human beings! But is that true, are all humans equal? Do all people look alike? Do they think alike? Do they have access to the same resources? Are they al equally successful at breeding? Are they all as fast, all as smart, all as strong? No, they are not. Is it impossible for any individual to build a set of beliefs in which any of these given difference would constitute some sort of moral difference? It is very possible for an individual to do so. So, if an individual has built a personal set of moral codes built upon one of these possible distinctions between men, can I reasonably expect them to believe themselves to be equal to me, and thus making me worthy of reciprocity? I can not. I can only know what they believe if they tell me, and then they could lie. Without the ability to read minds, I can only "trust" the words of others, but is it reasonable to risk my life on just the word of another? (assuming I can understand their language at all?)

The only way for an individual to "know" that the other person will view them as an equal (in some way) worthy of reciprocity is if I know we have shared moral codes. ith shared moral codes, reciprocity can be, to a great extent, expected. The question then becomes, how do different individuals come to share moral codes? I say that the only way to do so is to belong to the same social unit. At the smallest core, a single blood family with shared codes. And then building up from there to even greater societal groups, all with shared moral codes.

If Scen B. then is aways viewed as murder, it is becuase it would be assumed that neighbors are part of one social group sharing social codes, and thus able to act with reciprocity towards the other. The one that broke reciprocity being the party that did wrong.

Now, what about Scen A. There was no reciprocity whatsoever in that act: one party was hidden and armed, the other party was not a threat in any way, so even if the x soldier believed the others may not view him as equal, at this point, thye could not do anything about that. They were not a threat at all. So why is this not murder? After all, being of two different states does not even preclude them from sharing moral codes; they very well could have shared moral codes, and thus this act is an even greater affrontery to reciprocity! Yet, in a way, recprocity is at work, but only if one moves away form the level of one man and moves into a greater societal level. All parties are soldiers. The function of a soldier in war is to portect the group form its enemies, and anyone who happens to be an enemy soldier is an enemy of the group unless they have fallen under your direct control. This remains true even if they are unarmed, for at any moment they could be armed and come after the group. Soldiers from both sides recognize this, and thus they do expect a certain type of reciprocity of action: if you can ill me, and I have not surrendered, then you have the right to kill me, and I have the same right towards you.

So it might be possible to build a def. of murder on reciprocity, but only a reciprocity based on rules and codes of morality that are shared by social groups. Outside of these socially constructed worlds, for reasons I have stated above, I do not believe that it would be possible to have a morality based on reciprocity between utterly independent human beings.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Gepap
Even if Loin never returns to this thread(I can't say i would mind), I will answer the notion that one can define murder simply on the issue of reciprocity

That's cute. "Now that I've been so condescending and obtuse that my opponent has (hopefully) left the thread in disgust, I'm finally prepared to address his point." Alas, you should've waited until the thread had sunk to page 3 or 4 -- I'd've been back in seclusion, and you could've safely posted any sort of drivel that you wanted.

Anyway, on to your post.

Scenario A is flawed -- you've introduced a social dilemma (a war between rival groups) in a hypothetical environment in which there is no society. I pointed out this flaw before, but, to nobody's surprise, you've apparently ignored my post.

I've already said that it is possible to justify why a particular individual ought not to be fully reciprocated with (e.g., in scenario B, if the victim of the homicide was himself a murderer, then the killer could justifiably argue that he was not bound by reciprocity). This should address the bulk of your argument WRT scenario B.

The remainder of your argument basically amounts to a claim that people can use any bizarre self-serving justification that they want in order to get out of moral reciprocation ("I am smarter than Joe Blow, which somehow makes me morally superior to Joe Blow"), which is just plain silly -- reciprocation is hardly an all-or-nothing affair, so, e.g., the fact that Al is smarter than Joe could very well serve as a justification for why Al should get the job instead of Joe, but hardly qualifies as a justification as to why Al is morally justified in killing Joe (unless Al is somehow able to justify that "moral worth" is equivalent to "intelligence" or whatever have you).

[GePap]

You dragged the arguement beyond where it should have ended when you decided to ignore the post in which I made clear what my arguement was: instead fo realizing then that the arguements were not on the same wavelength, yuo attempted to keep with yours.

As for your statements:

I've already said that it is possible to justify why a particular individual ought not to be fully reciprocated with (e.g., in scenario B, if the victim of the homicide was himself a murderer, then the killer could justifiably argue that he was not bound by reciprocity). This should address the bulk of your argument WRT scenario B.

The remainder of your argument basically amounts to a claim that people can use any bizarre self-serving justification that they want in order to get out of moral reciprocation ("I am smarter than Joe Blow, which somehow makes me morally superior to Joe Blow"), which is just plain silly -- reciprocation is hardly an all-or-nothing affair, so, e.g., the fact that Al is smarter than Joe could very well serve as a justification for why Al should get the job instead of Joe, but hardly qualifies as a justification as to why Al is morally justified in killing Joe (unless Al is somehow able to justify that "moral worth" is equivalent to "intelligence" or whatever have you).

If it is possible for any individual to avoid reciprocity, then how can you possibly justify a moral system based on it? And sorry, it does not answer any of arguement B: Since nowere in the example is it mentioned that either had done anything else, and since it is not valid to try to infer into the example things that you simply could not given the information given., this does not answer it. To answer it would be for you to either post arguements about why you think reciprocity among unequals is valid, or why it is not unreasonable for individuals to question whether other will act with reciprocity towards you, and whether you should risk your life for such a belief.

As for you calling this silly: silly to you? That it is silly to you means nothing, the question is, whether it is theoretically possible? For millenia, simply having a different skin color meant you were free to be chattel, and yet you have the gall to say that it is "silly" to think that a difference could be used to justify moral inequality? News flash: your opinions are not arguements! Calling this "bizzare, silly" does not amount to a refutation of it, specialy when we have ample historical evidence to show it is rather easy,, perhaps common, to attempt to use minor differences to base entire different moral values for different people.

As for reciprocity being an all or nothing affair: you complain about my example A existing in a world with society: Hello, can you really paint me a world without ANY society when anyone is going to be getting "a job"? A "job" were? certainly not a company or corporation, nor any business, sicne all of those would call for some sort of society, would they not? If you are going to ignore things becuase they introduce social elements, then hello, don't introduce any yourself!

And even if reciprocity is not an all or nothing case, you really have no arguement against the issue here that was presented. We are talking here about a situation in which two individuals have the capacity to terminate each others lives. Whether it is an all or nothign things is somewhat irrelevant, unless you can possit some arguement here why the two neighbors should expect reciprocity as far as not killing each other given what they KNOW, and what they have the ability to infer, or guess, given their condition (one in which we are assuming NO Society, and thus no guarantee of shared values).

If this is the sort of answer I am going to get from you in this threadm then by all means don't answer.

[TCO]

Berzie, you know you really are a self-caricature. Now run and complain to Ming. You little crybaby.

[GePap]

Before anythign goes further, I will say loinburger that while I have found this particular arguement with you most annoying and frustrating, this emnity is only in this very thread and not anywhere else.

And no more crap answers!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Gepap
You dragged the arguement beyond where it should have ended when you decided to ignore the post in which I made clear what my arguement was: instead fo realizing then that the arguements were not on the same wavelength, yuo attempted to keep with yours.

That's hypocritical, seeing as how you've also ignored the post in which I made clear what my argument was, and seeing as how you're the one who decided to respond to my post a page late. I was content to go back into seclusion once the thread had sunk, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to respond when you address one of my posts...

If it is possible for any individual to avoid reciprocity, then how can you possibly justify a moral system based on it? And sorry, it does not answer any of arguement B: Since nowere in the example is it mentioned that either had done anything else, and since it is not valid to try to infer into the example things that you simply could not given the information given., this does not answer it.

It's not an arbitrary matter of saying "I don't feel like reciprocating today." It's possible for any individual to avoid reciprocity if said individual can justify said avoidance.

I was not inferring that anybody was a murderer -- I was careful to use the "if" modifier. If the person who was killed was a murderer, then the person committing the homicide may have been justified in doing so. Note that this modifier is "if," not "if and only if" (iff) -- there may be other valid justifications for one neighbor killing the other (assuming the presence of information that you have not given).

To answer it would be for you to either post arguements about why you think reciprocity among unequals is valid

I've addressed this -- reciprocity is not an all-or-nothing affair, so in order to justify that somebody needn't be treated with moral reciprocation one must first justify that said person is morally inferior (e.g. that they're a murderer or whatever). Simply stating an inequality is insufficient -- causality must also be established between the inequality and morality (e.g. "I am a faster runner" does not automatically equate to "I am morally superior," particularly since an equally valid case could also be made as to why "I am a faster runner" automatically equates to "I am morally inferior"...).

For millenia, simply having a different skin color meant you were free to be chattel, and yet you have the gall to say that it is "silly" to think that a difference could be used to justify moral inequality?

I wouldn't consider "his skin color is different from mine, therefore he is morally inferior" to be a particularly valid argument, so I'll ask you to justify said line of logic before dismissing my calling it "silly." I see no reason not to throw such a justification out on its ass, since I see no causal relation between "skin color" and "moral worth."

Hello, can you really paint me a world without ANY society when anyone is going to be getting "a job"?

I was actually considering that to be a freebie from me to you, since you hadn't provided any societally-independent example in which the inequality of one person being more intelligent than another would come into play (this being one of the inequalities that you'd mentioned). I just took it as a fair assumption that such an inequality could play a part in a state of nature, and didn't see much point in pressing you to provide a specific example. If you want, then I can retract the freebie and insist that you provide an example in which an inequality of intelligence would play a role in a state of nature -- then, simply insert this example in place of my "getting a job" example. Or, we can just take it as read that such an example probably does exist, but that there's not much point in hashing it out, and then, for the sake of simplicity, we can stick to examples (with respect to inequality of intelligence) that needn't necessarily be societally independent.

Whether it is an all or nothign things is somewhat irrelevant, unless you can possit some arguement here why the two neighbors should expect reciprocity as far as not killing each other given what they KNOW, and what they have the ability to infer, or guess, given their condition (one in which we are assuming NO Society, and thus no guarantee of shared values).

Given what they know in the hypothetical, they can infer nothing more than that the neighbor has the same desires as they do (I'm assuming there that they know that their neighbor is a human). There's certainly no guarantee that this is the case -- hence the reason why people will tend to form societies (in an attempt to better guarantee that everybody shares the same desires). But given the incomplete knowledge held by both parties, there is no reason for either to infer that the other party has different knowledge/beliefs/desires, hence they would naturally expect reciprocity.

I will say loinburger that while I have found this particular arguement with you most annoying and frustrating, this emnity is only in this very thread and not anywhere else

I agree completely. As far as I'm concerned, it's not possible to draw "real" blood (or develop a "real" enmity) in a debate -- the worst that you can do is to say that you don't like the other guy's position or that the other guy's position is stupid or whatever, but all things considered, BFD. So we didn't arrive at the ultimate truth behind Life, The Universe, And Everything in this particular debate -- such is life. (It's worth noting that all of my good friends and I have bloodied our noses in one or more debates at some time or another, though often we're all drunk at the time. There's just something about alcohol that brings out the piss and vinegar in me.)

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

That's hypocritical, seeing as how you've also ignored the post in which I made clear what my argument was, and seeing as how you're the one who decided to respond to my post a page late. I was content to go back into seclusion once the thread had sunk, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to respond when you address one of my posts...

It isn;t hypocritical. I made the mistake of trying to "amswer" your debate even after I made mine clear and I could see they were not the same.

It's not an arbitrary matter of saying "I don't feel like reciprocating today." It's possible for any individual to avoid reciprocity if said individual can justify said avoidance.

Yes, but justification is dirt cheap to come by, speically when you might have reason to believe your lfie may be at risk.

I was not inferring that anybody was a murderer -- I was careful to use the "if" modifier. If the person who was killed was a murderer, then the person committing the homicide may have been justified in doing so. Note that this modifier is "if," not "if and only if" (iff) -- there may be other valid justifications for one neighbor killing the other (assuming the presence of information that you have not given).

But that is the thing: my point is not basedf on any information to be had other than what is on the plate. The question is a theoretical one: if you have no assurance of shared moral values, and hence that the other person will act with reciprocity towards you, then is it reasonable not to act to eliminate a possible threat?

I've addressed this -- reciprocity is not an all-or-nothing affair, so in order to justify that somebody needn't be treated with moral reciprocation one must first justify that said person is morally inferior (e.g. that they're a murderer or whatever). Simply stating an inequality is insufficient -- causality must also be established between the inequality and morality (e.g. "I am a faster runner" does not automatically equate to "I am morally superior," particularly since an equally valid case could also be made as to why "I am a faster runner" automatically equates to "I am morally inferior"...).

BUt you seem to act as if it is a given that both persons will share moral codes, beyond a belief in reciprocity, and that is my point: even if both individuals share a basic moral code which calls for reciprocity of action, that does not mean they share the belief that the other individual actually deserves such reciprocity. The step from "I am fast" to "I am moraly superior for being faster" does not need to be made: all that needs to be asked is if it is possible for one actor to reasonably believe that the other could create such a system, and thus not be inclined to act with reciprocity. And the fact is that it is rather simple to make such a step: once you have given the set of characteristics different values,, you can easily then create a hierarchy of people based on which of those characteristic they possess.

I wouldn't consider "his skin color is different from mine, therefore he is morally inferior" to be a particularly valid argument, so I'll ask you to justify said line of logic before dismissing my calling it "silly." I see no reason not to throw such a justification out on its ass, since I see no causal relation between "skin color" and "moral worth."

The question is not whether you do: the question is: Is that a link that CAN be made (the logic of it is immaterial)? If it can be made, then it means the other individual besides me could have made it: as long as we share nothing but a stripped down moral code which calls for reciprocity, I have no way of knowing if he has augmentend and altered this code in ways which would make it impossible for me to expect reciprocity.

Given what they know in the hypothetical, they can infer nothing more than that the neighbor has the same desires as they do (I'm assuming there that they know that their neighbor is a human). There's certainly no guarantee that this is the case -- hence the reason why people will tend to form societies (in an attempt to better guarantee that everybody shares the same desires). But given the incomplete knowledge held by both parties, there is no reason for either to infer that the other party has different knowledge/beliefs/desires, hence they would naturally expect reciprocity.

Ah, but you see, it is what they CAN NOT KNOW that matters most. You are right, there is no reason to infer a difference,but there is no reason to infer equality either. Given the level of ignorance, the question then becomes which course of action is more "reasonable". Outside of a society (specially if these happen to be the only folks in the entire neighborhood), why take the chance that the other who happens to have the ability to kill you, might not. It is more reasonable to remove the threat, and KNOW that one is safe. Only in a social situation can the more reasonable act be to "trust", not only becuase you do have some idea that the other shares common moral codes, but becuase being in a society, there are consequences to breaking reciprocity, so either out of fear of them you don;t act, or it adds an extra level of trust that the other won;t act ebcause he is afraid of the consequences.

Which leads me back to berz and his arguement. Man's state of neture IS SOCIAL. The idea that men as individual came to form society is silly: man evolved in a societal situation. NOw, over time, specially as economic structures changed an allowed for new forms of society, and also called for new social structures, things like the concept of murder needed to come along, BUt I still hold that outside of this social millieau the concept of "murder" looses most of its meaning and power. And no, man does not have a universla desire not to be murdered, man has a universal desire not to die, whatever the cause of that death might be.

(It's worth noting that all of my good friends and I have bloodied our noses in one or more debates at some time or another, though often we're all drunk at the time. There's just something about alcohol that brings out the piss and vinegar in me.)

Never have had a debate while drunk: my sober ones are weird enough (like the four hours, or was it five?, I spent debating (well, at some point, screaming) about the US's inability to conquer China by aphibious assualt and follow up)

[Berzerker]

Lorizael -

I dropped out becaused I realized this debate was futile. I twice pointed out a crucial flaw in Berzerker's basic premise, and he twice utterly failed to respond to that...

You twice claimed that science says the universe has always existed and I responded with a question you ignored - why do we see the universe expanding as if it began with a "big bang"?
Recognise that term? It's what many scientists believe began the universe... So "science" doesn't say the universe has always been here...

One more point for you to ignore, regardless of whether or not the universe has always been here, this planet and life on it has not always been here so someone or something did create the Earth. Are you now going to tell us the science says the Earth and life on it has always been here too?

Bebro -

For rules - depends how you understand them, but lots of moral standards exist without laws, because (a vast majority of) people consider certain things morally right, even when not defined per law.

Yes, what Gepap doesn't understand is that ideas preceded laws, not the other way around. And the act of "murder" is an act based on ideas first and actions second, so the concept of what constitutes murder existed before any law was adopted to reflect that concept.

TCO -

Berzie, you know you really are a self-caricature. Now run and complain to Ming. You little crybaby.

Is that GP? I've never complained to any moderator about you or anyone else. But I'm surprised you have room to pull that out of your a$$ with your head in the way. What's wrong? Did one of the moderators have to give you a time-out because of your obnoxious behavior? Well, if I was going to complain to anyone, it would be to your parents for not teaching their spoiled brat some manners.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course it is. That's their reason for the actions. Every revolution on Earth is the change the law. The law is central. The only way to make your morals powerful is to change the law.

And they were in the position to change the law because they eventually did. If the law changed because of them, it is only reasonable to assume they were in a position to change the law.

Your argument is like saying that petitioning for a law or a repeal of law means that the law isn't relavent to their actions.

We discuss about wether moral views "that matter" can exist without law. Of course future law-making is relevant as background of a revolution, but the point is that as long this new "revolutionary" law is not made, the moral views that inspired the revolution exist without a law that reflects those views. Probably the idea about a future law exists, but that is another point (and it would btw rather support my position - moral ideas first, law later). The law itself does not exist as law (means: it does not exist as a force to influence people´s behaviour) before the revolution has succeeded and made this damn law official

At the times when Mao or Ghandi still hadn´t seized the power, it is safe to say that their moral views were not reflected by (Japanese or British) law, otherwise Mao or Ghandi would not act against the occupying forces. At this point, they were not in the position to change a law (Japanese or British still in power). So at this point their actions are not grounded in law. They even act openly against Japanese/British law. Still they are not able to make own laws to reflect their morals views better. So in praxis no law exists which reflects their views before they seized power.

But there moral views were powerful enough to create big movements that changed China and India fundamentally. Only these movements made it even possible to come into a position to seize power, and change laws finally (I agree that was their goal).

You do realize that law itself is rooted in self-interest and moral views, right?

Absolutely.

[Az]

Berz, have you answered me? because I can't find your answer.

[BeBro]

Hey Az, one-liners aren´t allowed in this thread, only two page long articles...

[Berzerker]

What question, Azazel? Your last post was ~3 pages ago and was a statement about your philosophy of happiness, not a question to me.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
It isn;t hypocritical. I made the mistake of trying to "amswer" your debate even after I made mine clear and I could see they were not the same.

It's hypocritical that you complained when I did the same thing as you. When I stick to my guns, then I've done something wrong. When you stick to your guns, well, that's perfectly acceptable. You keep applying double-standards.

if you have no assurance of shared moral values, and hence that the other person will act with reciprocity towards you, then is it reasonable not to act to eliminate a possible threat?

It is not reasonable to do so based on that justification alone -- it's an awfully vast leap to go from "shared values are not assured" to "I am justified to strike first."

...all that needs to be asked is if it is possible for one actor to reasonably believe that the other could create such a system, and thus not be inclined to act with reciprocity.

It is entirely possible for one actor to reasonably believe that another actor is not going to reciprocate, but the key word is "reasonably" -- it is only possible for one actor to reasonably believe that this is the case if he/she can justify said belief, otherwise the belief is unreasonable. "Joe has killed people with premeditated malice before, and it is likely that he will do so again" is one such justification. "Joe is not as fast as me, so it is likely that he will kill me with premeditated malice" is not.

The question is not whether you do: the question is: Is that a link that CAN be made (the logic of it is immaterial)?

The logic is not immaterial -- if a "justification" is illogical, then it is not a reasonable (i.e. applicable) justification. You're asking "is it possible that X logically follows from Y," and the only way to justify that X logically follows from Y is to construct a logical argument showing that this is the case.

...I have no way of knowing if he has augmentend and altered this code in ways which would make it impossible for me to expect reciprocity.

You do have a way of knowing, though: if the person is reasonable, then he can be expected to apply reasonable justifications in his moral code, and thus he can be expected to reciprocate; if the person is unreasonable, then there is no reason to expect him to apply reasonable justifications to his moral code, and he cannot be expected to reciprocate.

Ah, but you see, it is what they CAN NOT KNOW that matters most. You are right, there is no reason to infer a difference,but there is no reason to infer equality either.

I was operating on the assumption that both parties recognized the other as human. This provides the basis for inferring equality -- "this person is like me, he therefore thinks like me." Obviously all people do not think alike, but this does not present a problem, since it's possible to reasonably infer the presence of differences ("this person is wearing a yellow hat, he apparently has no fashion sense"). The point is that the default inference is that of equality, and differences must be justified from there on out.

And no, man does not have a universla desire not to be murdered, man has a universal desire not to die, whatever the cause of that death might be.

Man has a universal desire not to die, but a great deal of this desire is beyond the scope of rights/morals -- it would be nonsensical to say that people have a right to live forever, because it's impossible for people to live forever. However, the desire not to be murdered is within the scope of rights/morals.

[Az]

Originally posted by Berzerker
What question, Azazel? Your last post was ~3 pages ago and was a statement about your philosophy of happiness, not a question to me.

Well, I kinda expected feedback on that.

BeBro. I used to like those. I am too tired now.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger
It is not reasonable to do so based on that justification alone -- it's an awfully vast leap to go from "shared values are not assured" to "I am justified to strike first."

"justified"? Who needs "justification"? Who is going to complain? You conscience? If you are dead, that don;t matter, now does it? The question is not one of justifications. The question is "if shared values are not assured, and I can not expect recirpocity, is it reasonable to allow an armed individual who might be my opponent to be there?"

It is entirely possible for one actor to reasonably believe that another actor is not going to reciprocate, but the key word is "reasonably" -- it is only possible for one actor to reasonably believe that this is the case if he/she can justify said belief, otherwise the belief is unreasonable. "Joe has killed people with premeditated malice before, and it is likely that he will do so again" is one such justification. "Joe is not as fast as me, so it is likely that he will kill me with premeditated malice" is not.

Why? Lack of previous action is NOT proof of no future action. I refer above: "justifications" are irrelevant really, I mean, to whom will the action have to be justified? Yourself? BUt you already acted with reason, so what would be left?

The logic is not immaterial -- if a "justification" is illogical, then it is not a reasonable (i.e. applicable) justification. You're asking "is it possible that X logically follows from Y," and the only way to justify that X logically follows from Y is to construct a logical argument showing that this is the case.

It is not difficutl to go from any of those difference to a moral value judgement. If I am faster, all other things being equal, I wil be more successful in life. I am better, and will be better. What more is needed to justify my belieef in my superiority? And if I am superior, why would that not be a moral superiority as well? What argues for moral equality? Is not the difference based on somehting? Why is my being fater NOT proof of my speriority, and thus greater moral value?

You do have a way of knowing, though: if the person is reasonable, then he can be expected to apply reasonable justifications in his moral code, and thus he can be expected to reciprocate; if the person is unreasonable, then there is no reason to expect him to apply reasonable justifications to his moral code, and he cannot be expected to reciprocate.

BUt the other person could have reasonably come to the conclusion that lacking shared values other than a core belief in reciprocity among equals, they can not trust you, just as you do not trust them.

I was operating on the assumption that both parties recognized the other as human. This provides the basis for inferring equality -- "this person is like me, he therefore thinks like me." Obviously all people do not think alike, but this does not present a problem, since it's possible to reasonably infer the presence of differences ("this person is wearing a yellow hat, he apparently has no fashion sense"). The point is that the default inference is that of equality, and differences must be justified from there on out.

I do not think the default is equality. That other is not like you. Yes, he is human, but he is very different, and I have no way of knowing what they are thinking. I am "I", he is "he", we are distinct. We may share a common humanity (though if the differences in look are extreme enough, that might not even the the first belief) but it does not really follow that our thoughts are so similar to trust in reciprocity. I think that what one has to prove is that a basic common humanity leads to equality: not that the obvious difference between individuals do not equate to other differences deeper down.

Man has a universal desire not to die, but a great deal of this desire is beyond the scope of rights/morals -- it would be nonsensical to say that people have a right to live forever, because it's impossible for people to live forever. However, the desire not to be murdered is within the scope of rights/morals.

That it is impossible to live forever is not an arguement against the notion that people never want to die: desires are not rational, and it is possible to desire the impossible. How much of humanity would jump at the chance of immortality? Is it not one of the greatests dreams?
Very few things are as important to a living thing as life, with immortality for their genes being one of the few things that trump this.

And again, I doubt sldiers want to die in war, even though their deaths are not murders.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
"justified"? Who needs "justification"?

You do, if you want to make the case that your beliefs are reasonable. A reasonable belief is a well-justified belief. You asked "is it reasonable to do X," my answer was "if you are justified in doing X" -- that's what it means to be reasonable.

Why? Lack of previous action is NOT proof of no future action.

Lack of previous action provides a basis for justifying the belief that there will be no future action. Unless we assume the presence of additional information, there is no basis for justifying the belief that there will be future action.

I refer above: "justifications" are irrelevant really, I mean, to whom will the action have to be justified? Yourself? BUt you already acted with reason, so what would be left?

The action would be justified to yourself. I don't understand your final question.

If I am faster, all other things being equal, I wil be more successful in life. I am better, and will be better. What more is needed to justify my belieef in my superiority? And if I am superior, why would that not be a moral superiority as well?

What does "how fast you can run" have to do with your moral worth? If you're a faster runner, all things being equal, then you're not stronger than anybody else, so you are not superior with regards to weightlifting. You're not smarter than anybody else, so you are not superior with regards to, I dunno, fixing a plow, or winning at Trivial Pursuit. You're not hardier than anybody else, so you are not superior with regards to fighting off disease. You're not more righteous than anybody else, so you are not morally superior.

BUt the other person could have reasonably come to the conclusion that lacking shared values other than a core belief in reciprocity among equals, they can not trust you, just as you do not trust them.

This is not a reasonable conclusion for him to make, for the same reason that it is not a reasonable conclusion for you to make.

I do not think the default is equality.

It makes no sense for it to be anything else. If I meet Joe Blow for the first time, and default to the assumption that his thought processes are vastly different from my own, then I'd never attempt to interact with him since doing so would be impossible. Even if I were to attempt such an interaction (for whatever reason), I would be severely hampered by the fact that I would have no idea what Joe was thinking (rather than having "incomplete information" as I would were I to default to equality, I instead have "zero information" by defaulting to alienism)-- rather than operating on the working assumption that his desires were "like mine, more or less," I would have to operate on the assumption that his desires were "completely alien and beyond my comprehension," so we would never be able to reach an accord on anything. Man is a social animal, so obviously people did interact with each other, this being the result of people defaulting to equality rather than alienism (or inequality or whatever you want to call it).

That it is impossible to live forever is not an arguement against the notion that people never want to die:

It's an argument against the notion that "living forever" is a natural right. I didn't say that people didn't have this universal desire, I just said that the presence of this desire is not relevant to the topic.

[Berzerker]

Gepap -

And no, man does not have a universla desire not to be murdered, man has a universal desire not to die, whatever the cause of that death might be.

You know people who want to be murdered?

That it is impossible to live forever is not an arguement against the notion that people never want to die: desires are not rational, and it is possible to desire the impossible.

Rights - moral claims - are not immunities to the laws of physics, they are moral claims against other people taking what belongs to you.

Azazel -

Well, I kinda expected feedback on that.

Not much to add to what I've already said about utilitarianism. Increasing the happiness of one group by decreasing the happiness of another is not a moral foundation for "society" even if the first group is larger than the second.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Lorizael -

You twice claimed that science says the universe has always existed and I responded with a question you ignored - why do we see the universe expanding as if it began with a "big bang"?
Recognise that term? It's what many scientists believe began the universe... So "science" doesn't say the universe has always been here...

One more point for you to ignore, regardless of whether or not the universe has always been here, this planet and life on it has not always been here so someone or something did create the Earth. Are you now going to tell us the science says the Earth and life on it has always been here too?

Ack, you're not getting the point. There was no time before the universe existed. What that means is that there was never a time in which the universe could not have been, because there was no time when it did not exist. Therefore it has always existed.

Yes, before the Big Bang the universe as we know it today did not exist, but the universe in some other form was there. The universe itself has no origin.

And the Earth came to be because a lot of atoms swirling around the Sun began to hit each other, clump together, and form their own gravitational mass. No design needed there.

As far as life goes, there's evolution. And evolution, contrary to what creationists and intelligent design people may say, does include the genesis of life.

Now, for a third time, I ask you to respond to this.

Quote:

This is circular reasoning here. You say that there is a Creator who made the universe. You say that this creator made natural rights. You say that the Creator shows evidence of natural rights in the universal desires of humankind. Then you say that the evidence of this Creator is in the universal desires of humankind. That doesn't work. You prove the existence of a Creator by citing the existence of a part of the Creator's creation, but without actually presenting any hard evidence that the Creator had anything to do with that creation.

[David Floyd]

Agathon, I haven't abandoned our discussion, just been busy

Seriously, you did. Not as bad as Berz though.

Well, when orange - someone who is pretty much anti-David in terms of political beliefs - says that I beat a fellow lefty, I tend to believe him

In this case it is also preventing 100 other murders.

No, the 100 other murders are prevented by a guy deciding not to kill 100 people. He can make that choice no matter what you do.

No one said that the decision didn't lie with him. But if you have good reason to think he'll go through with it then the choice you mentioned isn't available - you have good reason to believe that either 1 or 100 people will die.

Point A)Your scenario is absolutely not realistic.
Point B)I may believe that another person will murder 100 people, but that wouldn't excuse my murder of one person. My actions and his are NOT dependent upon each other - we are individuals capable of making our own decisions, and we each are responsible for what we decide. If I decide to commit murder I am just as much in the wrong as he is, because murder is wrong. There aren't degrees of wrong - murder IS wrong, 100%.

No. All I am saying is that you can make a difference. So do you want to make things worse or better.

You're absolutely right. I can make a difference by taking positive moral action, rather than negative moral action. That is, I can make a difference by behaving morally, and refusing to commit murder, thus saving the life of the person I am being told to kill. This is the only life I can personally affect, and I can either kill this person, or not. I choose not to commit murder - what's YOUR choice?

No, in the case described you have the power to ensure that 1 or 100 people die.

No, you, and the mass murderer, are simply trying to push extra responsibility onto my shoulders. I am responsible for my own actions, and the 100 people have nothing to do with me. The 1 person only has something to do with me, should I decide to murder that person. But if I do nothing, and refuse to commit murder, I also refuse to become involved in a situation that is not of my own creation - that is, I solve a supposed "moral quandry" by refusing to play the game. My decision is that I won't murder anyone, period, and that I refuse to accept responsibility for someone else's murders - I refuse to take ANY responsibility, as I did not "pull a trigger", as it were. I am in NO way responsible for the life/death of ANYONE, except for the person I am being told to murder.

Blame isn't an all or nothing property.

Oh, there are situations where blame can be distributed. For example, if I told Person A that Person B was coming to kill him, and as a result Person A hit Person B with a baseball bat, I would share partial responsibility because I intentionally misled Person A as to the intentions of Person B.

But in your scenario, you have already said that there is no lying taking place - no fraud. It is hard for me to envision a case other than fraud in which responsibility would have to be shared (yes, yes, if there were two murderers, but they would each by equally responsible anyway, so it doesn't matter - since morality isn't a math problem, the moral/legal responsibility doesn't diminish by being involved in a group), so in this case, there is no shared responsibility.

What matters is that you acted or did not act to make the best of a bad situation.

Sure, and by refusing to commit murder, I am taking all of the positive action that I am able to take.

Because you are changing the case. The proviso in this case is that you have good reason to believe that he will carry through his threat.

But this doesn't matter - evil does not justify evil.

I didn't say it wasn't. But aren't 100 murders worse than one?

Interesting, yet irrelevant question. It doesn't matter how many people he is threatening to kill, because evil doesn't justify evil, and one can't pass personal responsibility on to another simply by wishing it away.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

You do, if you want to make the case that your beliefs are reasonable. A reasonable belief is a well-justified belief. You asked "is it reasonable to do X," my answer was "if you are justified in doing X" -- that's what it means to be reasonable.

A reasonable act does not need to be justified: it needs to conform to reason. They are similar, but not the same. Let say two people are on a boat, and the boat is not seaowrthy enough to last long with both people in it, so one throws the other out. The act is reasonable: if one does not leave the boat, both die. If one exists the boat somehow, one lives. It is rational, reasonable then for one actor to dispacth the other, to save himself. BUt how can you moraly justify the act? BY your line or arguement, only if one decided to take thier own life would both living be justifiable: but that is not rational, if one can live. It is rational, if not justifiable, to save yourself by kiling the other. Reasonableness and justified are NOT equal.

Lack of previous action provides a basis for justifying the belief that there will be no future action. Unless we assume the presence of additional information, there is no basis for justifying the belief that there will be future action.

Again, reasonable and justified are NOT the same.

The action would be justified to yourself. I don't understand your final question.

You may justify afterwards, perhaps build a moral code to justify your act retroactively, but at the moment that it happens, justification is really moot. And the second part reffers to my above arguement: reason and justification are NOT equal. I mean, look at the very word, "justify", can such a word be utterly separate from its very roots, Justice? But we live in a situation before justice. Where does justification all of sudden come from?

What does "how fast you can run" have to do with your moral worth? If you're a faster runner, all things being equal, then you're not stronger than anybody else, so you are not superior with regards to weightlifting. You're not smarter than anybody else, so you are not superior with regards to, I dunno, fixing a plow, or winning at Trivial Pursuit. You're not hardier than anybody else, so you are not superior with regards to fighting off disease. You're not more righteous than anybody else, so you are not morally superior.

"Righteous"? "Righteous" assumes a already exiting and shared moral code by which you could measure a thing called "righteousness". BUt in this situation there is no shared moral code. I said" all things being equal", which means that one know he is as strong, as smart, but there is a difference, one is faster. All other things being equal, this difference does give one advanatges over the other: were did this difference come from? Why does one have a natural advantage oevr the toher, period? And why wpould this natural,e asy to measure, easy to sense difference not be the surface evidence of a deeper superiority? After all, I am better. (Remeber, all other things being equal-except one thing, in which one does have advantage).

This is not a reasonable conclusion for him to make, for the same reason that it is not a reasonable conclusion for you to make.

Of course it is reasonable: just examine the facts: We are different, i do not know how he thinks, I have nothing to base my trust that he will act with recirpocity towards me but his word, which could be a lie, and he has the baility to end my life: why not kill him? Again, to whom does the act need to be "justified"? He will be dead, I alive! Who is left?

It makes no sense for it to be anything else. If I meet Joe Blow for the first time, and default to the assumption that his thought processes are vastly different from my own, then I'd never attempt to interact with him since doing so would be impossible. Even if I were to attempt such an interaction (for whatever reason), I would be severely hampered by the fact that I would have no idea what Joe was thinking (rather than having "incomplete information" as I would were I to default to equality, I instead have "zero information" by defaulting to alienism)-- rather than operating on the working assumption that his desires were "like mine, more or less," I would have to operate on the assumption that his desires were "completely alien and beyond my comprehension," so we would never be able to reach an accord on anything. Man is a social animal, so obviously people did interact with each other, this being the result of people defaulting to equality rather than alienism (or inequality or whatever you want to call it).

I agree that man is a social being: that very fact argues deeply against liberterianism, since liberterianism is a system deeply built on the notion of the individual being are atom in relation to all others: the very fact that man in the state of nature is NOT alone. If we view man as atoms, as distinctly alone, seperate from each other, if we accept the notion that all of men's social structures are created by different atoms choosing to come together (as opposed to naturally occuring structures, or artifical structures being built upon natural foundations) then you have to assume alienism between the atoms coming together, becuase anythign else is not rational. And how then did society come to be? That is my point: if you acceot that man is by nature social, it becomes, as far as I am concerned, much mroe difficult to accept liberterianism at any level.

It's an argument against the notion that "living forever" is a natural right. I didn't say that people didn't have this universal desire, I just said that the presence of this desire is not relevant to the topic.

It is relevant, since this is what Berz feels is the foundation of natural rights, or one of them and this is his thread. And when he says "people have a universal desire not to be murdered", he is being somewhat disingeneous, since he sepaartes this from the universal desire not to die, but for the person murdered, the end result is the same, so it really does NOT make a true difference to them.

[Drake Tungsten]

Good god, this has to be the longest 299-post thread in the world.