Is morality objective?

[PocketZeven]

That's not a right.

Point me to the correct list of human rights. There is much conflicting information on the internet.

If I can have a clear list of human rights that are universal, then I can judge if I agree with that concept or not. Because initially I was using these various lists of human rights and therefore argued these are not universally recognised.

People get discriminated upon all the time. Kids get discriminated on for their age and cant buy quite a few products. Non IT types will get discriminated on when they try to apply for an IT based job. Lots of examples where discrimination isnt violating rights are out there. Quite frankly, as abhorrent as it is, being racist alone doesn't violate anyone's rights either. Acting on that may infringe on someone's rights. Just as in some cases discrimination may be used to justify infringing someone's rights, however to not be discriminated upon as a whole is not a right.

I used the example that not all rights are as universally recognised as was claimed. However I get confused each time, because it seems they are cherrypicking human rights that suit their statements. I am not trying to insult their theory, but I am genuinely confused.

 

[Famine]

Point me to the correct list of human rights. There is much conflicting information on the internet.

If I can have a clear list of human rights that are universal, then I can judge if I agree with that concept or not. Because initially I was using these various lists of human rights and therefore argued these are not universally recognised.

Human rights thread.

The complete list is one right long, by the way.

 

[PocketZeven]

Human rights thread.

The complete list is one right long, by the way.

so the basis of every conversation about human rights is in the human rights thread of GTplanet? Is that the basis you are using and should I ignore other sources? Every other right that is defined in other sources are just not human rights? How is that a fair debat?

 

[Famine]

so the basis of every conversation about human rights is in the human rights thread of GTplanet? Is that the basis you are using and should I ignore other sources? Every other right that is defined in other sources are just not human rights? How is that a fair debat?

No, as if it's something you should read, because you're retreading that discussion and it'd be more helpful to you to read that first rather than continuing to do so.

And, although it's covered in that thread, every list you've posted as a reference for human rights includes at least one thing that someone is required by that 'right' to provide to another person, which contradicts the usual first item on the list.

You really should read through that thread. It's all been done in there.

 

[PocketZeven]

And, although it's covered in that thread, every list you've posted as a reference for human rights includes at least one thing that someone is required by that 'right' to provide to another person, which contradicts the usual first item on the list.

You really should read through that thread. It's all been done in there.

Doesnt that contradict the right to not be raped?

 

[Famine]

Doesnt that contradict the right to not be raped?

I think I'd have to see the mental gymnastics behind that absolute peach.

 

[PocketZeven]

I think I'd have to see the mental gymnastics behind that absolute peach.

A "right" that needs to be provided to another person. How is that different then the right to not be discriminated? Disregarding the specifics of physicallity.

 

[Famine]

A "right" that needs to be provided to another person.

What is? The right not to be raped? Who needs to provide "not rape"? Whose body and labour is required for the not-rape to be given to someone else?

How is that different then the right to not be discriminated?

Rape is always an initiation of force against the right to self. Discrimination is not. It can be, if it's violent discrimination, but it is not a requirement - and the force used in the violence is the issue, rather than the reason behind it. Rape is an act of violence.

 

[Danoff]

What is? The right not to be raped? Who needs to provide "not rape"?

He's still equating inaction with action. He's equating the affect that people's actions have on their rights with the effect that people's rights have on the actions of others. So for example, your right to life is in conflict with someone else's right to shoot you. It's because he still doesn't understand where rights come from, because he hasn't read the human rights thread.

The short answer (as always) is reciprocity.

 

[PocketZeven]

What is? The right not to be raped? Who needs to provide "not rape"? Whose body and labour is required for the not-rape to be given to someone else?

Rape is always an initiation of force against the right to self. Discrimination is not. It can be, if it's violent discrimination, but it is not a requirement - and the force used in the violence is the issue, rather than the reason behind it. Rape is an act of violence.

He's still equating inaction with action. He's equating the affect that people's actions have on their rights with the effect that people's rights have on the actions of others. So for example, your right to life is in conflict with someone else's right to shoot you. It's because he still doesn't understand where rights come from, because he hasn't read the human rights thread.

The short answer (as always) is reciprocity.

I actually tried to read some pages of the thread, but going through all 67 pages is something I dont have time for. Could you refer to specific sections that are more relevant to the origin of human rights? Do you consider the human rights thread as the universal settled interpretation of human rights? Am i not allowed to disagree?

Like you said violent discrimination is also initiation against the right to self. Do you consider force always to be violent? Isnt someone who is discriminated violated, although not always violent. Is violence a rule to violating rights?


edit:

 

[Danoff]

I actually tried to read some pages of the thread, but going through all 67 pages is something I dont have time for. Could you refer to specific sections that are more relevant to the origin of human rights? Do you consider the human rights thread as the universal settled interpretation of human rights? Am i not allowed to disagree?

Like you said discrimination is also initiation against the right to self. Do you consider force always to be violent? Isnt someone who is discriminated violated, although not always violent. Is violence a rule to violating rights?

I'm taking this to that thread.

 

[Famine]

Like you said discrimination is also initiation against the right to self.

I said literally the opposite of that:

Rape is always an initiation of force against the right to self. Discrimination is not. It can be, if it's violent discrimination, but it is not a requirement - and the force used in the violence is the issue, rather than the reason behind it. Rape is an act of violence.

Am i not allowed to disagree?

You can disagree if you like. I'm not sure why you'd think you can't. You'll just need to bring rational reasons for doing so rather than the usual form of ignoring questions and posts, saying things you apparently don't mean, and acting like things are the opposite of what's been said. Like just then.

 

[PocketZeven]

I said literally the opposite of that:



You can disagree if you like. I'm not sure why you'd think you can't.

Made a mistake I wanted to write: "violent disctrimination" (see edit) The question after that was asking if force (or violation), always needs to be violent to be against the right to self.

The counterargument I receive is: "it is in the human rights threat", in combination with "it isnt a right". Even though I posted sources that do list human rights, considered to be universal.

 

[BobK]

The counterargument I receive is: "it is in the human rights threat", in combination with "it isnt a right". Even though I posted sources that do list human rights, considered to be universal.

You were told where those lists were discussed and the problems found with them, but you can't be arsed to go read them yourself, instead asking us to spoonfeed you.

 

[Famine]

Made a mistake I wanted to write: "violent disctrimination" (see edit) The question after that was asking if force (or violation), always needs to be violent to be against the right to self.

The issue with violent discrimination when it comes to rights is violence, not discrimination.

Force can take many forms, but violence - or the threat of violence - is pretty much the root of it. It can be more subtle, like an abuse of power or a threat of consequences (like the alleged Weinstein tactic of promising career advancement, or threatening career stagnation, or an abuser's war cry of "you'll be taken away from your parents if anyone finds out"), but ultimately it always comes down to violence (after all, violence and violation have the same etymology).

The initiation of force against another is the key to rights being breached.

The counterargument I receive is: "it is in the human rights threat", in combination with "it isnt a right". Even though I posted sources that do list human rights, considered to be universal.

You keep being pointed there because, and I appreciate the irony of me having to repeat this, you are literally retreading discussions from there. Your questions have all been answered there. You can go through the reasoning there. It's all there. You can read it and learn everything you need to learn. This thread is a different thread - although morality (a moral being a principle of "right" behaviour, and morality being a system of morals) emerges from rights, it's a different discussion.

Any source that lists a human right that requires another human's rights to be breached is simply not capable of listing human rights. You cannot have a right that requires another human surrender their rights. Look at any list of rights and think "Would this thing require a human being to act to provide this?". If the answer is yes, it's not a right.

The core right is the right to self. You are entitled to do whatever you like with your body, your mind and your time. So is everyone else. If you someone uses their body/mind/time to prevent you using yours, they are violating your right to self. Of course if someone seeks to do so, you are entitled to defend yourself.

The right not to be discriminated against is not a right, because it requires your mind to be bound by someone else's. You're allowed to think bad things. You're allowed to discriminate - and we all do, and not just in the "bad" way. A young woman is allowed to be slightly more suspicious of a young man following them down an alley late at night than an elderly woman. Under the right not to be discriminated against, she would not be permitted to do this - she would not be allowed to treat the person considerably more likely to assault her as any more of a threat than one who isn't, and I'd hope (although I'm just not sure) that you'd agree she should be more wary.

A baker is allowed to choose not to sell his labour (thus body/mind/time) to bake a cake for a cause he doesn't agree with. Under the right not to be discriminated against, they would not be permitted to do this - they would be required to sell their labour when they do not want to. That's a pretty clear-cut violation of his right to self.

The right not to be violently discriminated against is a right, because it involves a use of force against a person - but the right is the freedom from violence emerging from the right to self, not the right not to be discriminated against, which isn't a right.


And all of this is in... the Human Rights Thread!

 

[PocketZeven]

You were told where those lists were discussed and the problems found with them, but you can't be arsed to go read them yourself, instead asking us to spoonfeed you.

And all of this is in... the Human Rights Thread!

Spoonfeeding? You cannot ask a newcomer to read through 67 pages of discussions. At least post a sticky. Also I dont even see the relevance. We are not speaking about GTplanet's definition of rights, but human rights in general. And I have posted other sources that list human rights. I have pointed that out and I receive an answer in the line of "read through 67 pages of discussions in a thread on a Gran turismo forum" . Which I hardly consider a reasonable source.

If someone ask me a question about god's commandments, I wont answer: "read the religion thread" or by answering "read the bible".

 

[Famine]

You cannot ask a newcomer to read through 67 pages of discussions.

Why not? Is it against their rights?

We are not speaking about GTplanet's definition of rights, but human rights in general.

GTPlanet doesn't have a definition of human rights.

And I have posted other sources that list human rights.

Which, as patiently explained, are contradictory. Some of their rights require breaking others by forcing people to provide them.

I have pointed that out and I receive an answer in the line of "read through 67 pages of discussions in a thread on a Gran turismo forum" . Which I hardly consider a reasonable source.

You were directed there to read the discussion that you're retreading - endlessly - in the wrong thread.

If you're interested in learning about the rational basis of rights you'll read the thread. If you aren't you'll make excuses why you don't need to...

 

[PocketZeven]

If you're interested in learning about the rational basis of rights you'll read the thread. If you aren't you'll make excuses why you don't need to...

I know of the rational basis. But somehow you are treating the human rights thread as if it is Human rights 101. I read appox 6 pages, but I guess it makes sense for you to ask someone to read through 1600+posts, instead of engaging just to dodge a real conversation.

 

[Famine]

I know of the rational basis. But somehow you are treating the human rights thread as if it is Human rights 101. I read appox 6 pages, but I guess it makes sense for you to ask someone to read through 1600+posts, instead of engaging just to dodge a real conversation.

I'm not asking you to read anything. I'm telling you that you will learn everything you're asking from doing so. It's a better use of everyone's time, including yours.

You're asking questions in this thread that are not on this thread's topic and have already been answered in that thread. I don't know why you're so resistant to reading through there and finding your answers, and prefer to post questions in this thread instead.

 

[Danoff]

Sophie's choice
I get a little loose sometimes with how I frame this - such that it starts to look like the Trolley Problem. Colloquially it gets used as choosing between two bad things. But it's not quite the Trolley Problem. So here's Sophie's choice.

Premise:
You have two (innocent) children, and you're told they will both be executed if you do not choose which of them to execute.

What is the moral decision?

Altered Premise:
You have two children, and you're told one will be executed at random if you do not chose which of them to execute.

What is the moral decision?

Note: opting for suicide does not answer the question.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Sophie's choice
I get a little loose sometimes with how I frame this - such that it starts to look like the Trolley Problem. Colloquially it gets used as choosing between two bad things. But it's not quite the Trolley Problem. So here's Sophie's choice.

Premise:
You have two (innocent) children, and you're told they will both be executed if you do not choose which of them to execute.

What is the moral decision?

Altered Premise:
You have two children, and you're told one will be executed at random if you do not chose which of them to execute.

What is the moral decision?

Note: opting for suicide does not answer the question.

There are no children. The decision is irrelevant.

 

[Danoff]

There are no children. The decision is irrelevant.

While it may be true, all of the evidence that you have thus far suggests that you should behave as though reality exists outside independently. Take reality as an assumption of the hypothetical.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Fine, I'll play by your rules. Are you forcing me to cause one (or both) of these children to die? If the answer to that is yes, there is no suitable moral answer and the outcomes are not meaningfully different - this dovetails nicely with my "there are no children" answer. The same is true for the Trolley problem. They are flawed, implausible tests with no answer.

Gun still to my head - I flip a coin and remove my agency: And the universe says....child on the right! Thanks for playing.

 

[Danoff]

Fine, I'll play by your rules. Are you forcing me to cause one (or both) of these children to die? If the answer to that is yes, there is no suitable moral answer and the outcomes are not meaningfully different - this dovetails nicely with my "there are no children" answer. The same is true for the Trolley problem. They are flawed, implausible tests with no answer.

I flip a coin and remove my agency: And the universe says....child on the right! Thanks for playing.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I mean, it's fair.

 

[zzz_pt]

What is the moral decision?

Is there one even?

 

[Danoff]

Fine, I'll play by your rules. Are you forcing me to cause one (or both) of these children to die? If the answer to that is yes, there is no suitable moral answer and the outcomes are not meaningfully different

Not necessarily "cause". I'm forcing you to choose one, and one will get killed, or don't, and they both get killed. It depends on what you think constitutes causing them to get killed.

The same is true for the Trolley problem. They are flawed, implausible tests with no answer.

If you can't answer the most basic morality questions, how can you possibly claim to know what it is to be moral?

Gun still to my head - I flip a coin and remove my agency: And the universe says....child on the right! Thanks for playing.

Obviously it's then your agency to put it to a coin. This was always the case with Harvey Dent as well, it's his agency that puts it to a 50/50 chance.

I'll put my own response to this in spoiler tags.

Spoiler

You don't know whether the person will actually go through with it. It's their act, not yours. If you abstain, and they murder two children, that's entirely their act, and your refusal to participate in their murder does not implicate you. Your inaction is not your culpability. So early on we can establish that refusing to answer is moral.

So what happens if you answer. Well, you still don't know whether they'll do it. One question is whether your answer will cause them to do it, but clearly it can't be the entire cause, and you're not responsible for everything that might tip the scales of how a murderer acts. For all you know, they earlier decided that if you wore blue that day they would murder someone. This does not make you culpable. They could ignore you answer entirely and kill both. Or none. Or the other one.

If you answer, you're answering from the premise that both of them will be murdered if you do not. And so your answer is to save a life. Let's put it slightly differently. Two children are drowning in a pool. You only have time to save one. Is it moral to save one? Yes, how could it be immoral to save someone. Your actions do not violate the rights of anyone by saving the child. The same is true in the Sophie's choice i propose above. In response to the dilemma, you would save one, rather than see both die. That's not the same as putting yourself in the dilemma, or murdering the other.

However, if we modify Sophie's choice slightly and put the gun in her hand. She needs to shoot one, and if she does not, she's told two will die, then it would be immoral to shoot - even if you are reasonably convinced that someone else will change their actions based on your shooting - it's still your act.

Edit:

In the altered premise (where it's random if you don't pick), there's no one to save. One person is going to die, and you're determining which. It's almost like a 1 vs. 1 Trolley problem. You switch the lever and now you've sacrificed one to save the other. It's a little more complicated than that because you're not as directly responsible for the outcome (unless you're holding the gun). But I think you should not pick in the random case.

 

[PocketZeven]

Sophie's choice
I get a little loose sometimes with how I frame this - such that it starts to look like the Trolley Problem. Colloquially it gets used as choosing between two bad things. But it's not quite the Trolley Problem. So here's Sophie's choice.

Premise:
You have two (innocent) children, and you're told they will both be executed if you do not choose which of them to execute.

What is the moral decision?

Altered Premise:
You have two children, and you're told one will be executed at random if you do not chose which of them to execute.

What is the moral decision?

Note: opting for suicide does not answer the question.

Why does opting for suicide not answer the question?

Morality is subjective. One could choose their least favorite child, oldest, gender etc. In these kind of scenario. There isn’t one correct answer. Except the one you chose to exclude perhaps comes close.

edit:

 

[Danoff]

Morality is subjective.

Only in so far as thinking that you ought to adhere to human rights. Otherwise not really.

Why does opting for suicide not answer the question?

All it does is sidestep the moral dilemma. The question at hand is to investigate the morality of the various options, not to investigate the morality of killing yourself.

One could choose their least favorite child, oldest, gender etc. In these kind of scenario. There isn’t one correct answer.

You think she's not culpable. Why? And what if she's told to do the shooting?

 

[PocketZeven]

All it does is sidestep the moral dilemma. The question at hand is to investigate the morality of the various options, not to investigate the morality of killing yourself.

You think she's not culpable. Why? And what if she's told to do the shooting?

Sidestep?there is morality in forcing yourself not to make the choice at all. I coincidentally similar to Sophie have both a boy and a girl. I would rather shoot myself then make a choice. I could not live with making a choice.