Politics-Ethics Question

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a word to describe the situation where a lack of action can be considered a criminal act. The word is slavery.

[/ QUOTE ]

I might be missing the context here. Government inaction is different than individual inaction. If you want to use the analogy, the government should be a slave to the people, yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

All legitimate gov't power is the power delegated to it by the people. If I don't have the right to do a certain thing, and my neighbor doesn't have the right to do that certain thing, then where would the gov't get the right to do it. From God?

If it's wrong for me to do it (in principal), and it's wrong for my neighbor to do it (in principal), then it has to be wrong for the gov't to do it.

Unless the gov't has a source of power other than the people.

[fretelöo]

"The notion that a lack of action is the same as an action is absurd"

This is all I care about and all I was adressing.

BTW: In Germany, you go to jail for 10 years max if you witness a car accident and do NOT supply first aid to the best of your abilities, and, as an result of that not-supplying-aid, someone dies (You do NOT go do jail if you supply first aid to the best of your abilities and someone dies BECAUSE of that wrongly applied first aid, if you can make a reasonable case that you acted with best intentions). I trust that it's the same in your country.

Claiming that it's immoral to "force" someone to do something that you, and probably about 90-95% of the population deem morally just is ... well ... moral relativism in a pretty hardcore fashion. A philosophical try, btw, that never really got off the ground.

The basic point against MR is, that the normativity that holds your own moral code intact suffers from the relativity you allow to be able to NOT judge others within their moral. (Of cousre, there's a lot more to be said here, which I won't). Plus, of course, MR is usually applied to transnational/transreligious problems. Ehtical questions within a society are usually not the problem, as everyone, being a part of society, implicitely accepts most, if not all, of that societys ethical standards.
In that light, refraining form forcing someone to help a starving baby is not some educated way of dealing with differering ethical standards, it's just plain wrong.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
"The notion that a lack of action is the same as an action is absurd"

This is all I care about and all I was adressing.

BTW: In Germany, you go to jail for 10 years max if you witness a car accident and do NOT supply first aid to the best of your abilities, and, as an result of that not-supplying-aid, someone dies (You do NOT go do jail if you supply first aid to the best of your abilities and someone dies BECAUSE of that wrongly applied first aid, if you can make a reasonable case that you acted with best intentions). I trust that it's the same in your country.

Claiming that it's immoral to "force" someone to do something that you, and probably about 90-95% of the population deem morally just is ... well ... moral relativism in a pretty hardcore fashion. A philosophical try, btw, that never really got off the ground.

The basic point against MR is, that the normativity that holds your own moral code intact suffers from the relativity you allow to be able to NOT judge others within their moral. (Of cousre, there's a lot more to be said here, which I won't). Plus, of course, MR is usually applied to transnational/transreligious problems. Ehtical questions within a society are usually not the problem, as everyone, being a part of society, implicitely accepts most, if not all, of that societys ethical standards.
In that light, refraining form forcing someone to help a starving baby is not some educated way of dealing with differering ethical standards, it's just plain wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

For your first point, the fact that Germany passed a certain law is not evidence that such law is right.

For your second point, I do not believe in moral relativism. I believe it would be morally wrong for anyone to let the baby die. Whether or not that person believed it was wrong. I would judge him to be wrong, I would judge his lack of action to be immoral. But I would not imprison him. Imprisoning him would be wrong. I am not God. It is not my place to punish immorality. It is therefore not governments place to punish immorality.

The difference is, I do not believe it is a legitimate function of gov't to force the moral standards of the majority on any individual.

And I'll repeat what I said in another post:

Again, if there were only a few such babies, there is no issue, private charity would voluntarily care for them.

If these babies were 10% of the population, and we were all forced to collectively care for them, this would be mass slavery, more slavery than ever existed in the U.S.

Slavery is immoral. Refusing to enslave a nation is not immoral, even if some deaths occur due to this refusal.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming the US has a population of 300 million and the wealth it now owns, should a baby born with no arms and no legs, (with no chance of being fixed), but otherwise healthy, be kept alive and healthy by the government if no one else will do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The government should do this only if the people want them to do it. Most people would have no problem taking care of a few babies like this (or whatever handicap), but as the expenses increase, the degree of discomfort to the taxpayers will increase. Eventually it will get to the point that a majority will think it not worth the expenses. Then the government shouldn't do this (or find some other means).

FWIW, I think almost all political debates are on the implications, not the underlying axioms. Even the slavery issue was (I think) based on the Confederate States concern about the impact on their economies, not because Southerners felt Africans should be slaves. And the issue is almost always money, power or religion when it comes right down to it.

[fretelöo]

"For your first point, the fact that Germany passed a certain law is not evidence that such law is right."

If we start nitpicking, then yes, it IS evidence. It is not conclusive proof. But evidence it is, seeing that Germany is a democratic, more or less open minded society that, when it comes to passing laws, embarks on as much discussion as needed to ensure maximum fairness of the law to be passed.

"It is not my place to punish immorality."

Who's then? Gods? What good is ethics if all you can do with it is shrug your shoulders, pat your OWN back and say "You're doing something terribly wrong, but go right ahead, I don't feel morally qualified in hindering you."

And, before we get this wrong, I'm not talking about punishing someone for being immoral. I'm talking about not letting immoral behaviour get it's way and punishing behaviour that by current law (whether that law in itself is just or morally justified is yet another question) is criminal.

And, the problem with your "figure-dependent" approach is, that we can very well extend the thought experiment. Assume that now, 10% of all kids are born that way. Every year, 1% increase to those 10%. After 40 years, half the kids are born w/out limbs, in 80 years, those supposedly healthy kids with legs and arms are severy outsiders.

Just assuming that by then we will have come up with SOME remedy to the situation, if the same sentiments raised in this thread were roused then, it would be the arms-and-legs children who would have to fear for their life as they would be those that make the limbless life so much more difficult to organize as they would move differently, grasp things differently etc etc etc.

The bottom line is, that any number-based argument is bound to fail in the end.

"Slavery is immoral."

If nothing else, I would turn your own position (see above) against you in saying that it might well be imoral but you see no way of punishing immorality. So what the heck do we bother?

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming the US has a population of 300 million and the wealth it now owns, should a baby born with no arms and no legs, (with no chance of being fixed), but otherwise healthy, be kept alive and healthy by the government if no one else will do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The government should do this only if the people want them to do it. Most people would have no problem taking care of a few babies like this (or whatever handicap), but as the expenses increase, the degree of discomfort to the taxpayers will increase. Eventually it will get to the point that a majority will think it not worth the expenses. Then the government shouldn't do this (or find some other means).

FWIW, I think almost all political debates are on the implications, not the underlying axioms. Even the slavery issue was (I think) based on the Confederate States concern about the impact on their economies, not because Southerners felt Africans should be slaves. And the issue is almost always money, power or religion when it comes right down to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point. There is a big difference between a person's honest political beliefs and what they wish would happen.

For example, I smoke. I do not believe the gov't should outlaw cigarettes. That's my political belief.

But I think it would be good if they did. It would make it easy for me to quit smoking.

But some people (if not most) replace their true beliefs with what they want to happen. ie, the ends justify the means.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
"For your first point, the fact that Germany passed a certain law is not evidence that such law is right."

If we start nitpicking, then yes, it IS evidence. It is not conclusive proof. But evidence it is, seeing that Germany is a democratic, more or less open minded society that, when it comes to passing laws, embarks on as much discussion as needed to ensure maximum fairness of the law to be passed.

"It is not my place to punish immorality."

Who's then? Gods? What good is ethics if all you can do with it is shrug your shoulders, pat your OWN back and say "You're doing something terribly wrong, but go right ahead, I don't feel morally qualified in hindering you."

And, before we get this wrong, I'm not talking about punishing someone for being immoral. I'm talking about not letting immoral behaviour get it's way and punishing behaviour that by current law (whether that law in itself is just or morally justified is yet another question) is criminal.

And, the problem with your "figure-dependent" approach is, that we can very well extend the thought experiment. Assume that now, 10% of all kids are born that way. Every year, 1% increase to those 10%. After 40 years, half the kids are born w/out limbs, in 80 years, those supposedly healthy kids with legs and arms are severy outsiders.

Just assuming that by then we will have come up with SOME remedy to the situation, if the same sentiments raised in this thread were roused then, it would be the arms-and-legs children who would have to fear for their life as they would be those that make the limbless life so much more difficult to organize as they would move differently, grasp things differently etc etc etc.

The bottom line is, that any number-based argument is bound to fail in the end.

"Slavery is immoral."

If nothing else, I would turn your own position (see above) against you in saying that it might well be imoral but you see no way of punishing immorality. So what the heck do we bother?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the key here is when it is OK to use force against another person. Using force to punish immorality is not OK.

Using force to defend oneself against force or the threat of force is OK.

There is a huge difference between offensive force and defensive force.

Defending ourselves against murder, slavery, etc. is defensive force.

It's logically inconsistant to claim to be using defensive force to protect oneself from another's lack of action.

This belief system is Libertarianism.

Defensive force good, offensive force bad.

And in your last statement, I would not punish a kidnapper because it was immoral to enslave someone. I would imprison a kidnapper to defend myself and others from his actions.
Again the purpose of the imprisonment is not to punish immorality.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
If, as is the case with babies, that not-helping implies certain death, yes, I have to confess that the difference between the two escapes me.

[/ QUOTE ]
The most obvious difference is one requires action and one doesn't. I notice later you make the extension that it makes one a murderer not to help another survive. Are private ciizens murdering people in the third world by not donating all the disposable income to those with no food? Under this defintion, I could think of dozens of ways that you, me, and everyone on this board is a murderer. I find this to be absurd. Murder to me requires action or intervention.
[ QUOTE ]
...rinse yourself from any guilt and responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]
What 'responsibility' do I have in the first place?
[ QUOTE ]
The point of Kants categorical imperative (or Singers preference utilitarism, for that matter) is, that this "good reason" has such a force and weight, and that not obeying that "call of reason" has such dire consequences that "good reason" and "being forced to" blend into each other, become more or less the same.

[/ QUOTE ]
But in this scenario 'good reason' is subjective. What may be a good reason to one is not a good reason to another. I don't feel comfortable forcing my subjective values of what is good on others, and I don't feel comfortable having others force them on me.
[ QUOTE ]
That sounds pretty clumsy, I know but I'm German, my vocab is good enough for discussing poker but not the intricacies of Kant. ;o)


[/ QUOTE ]
You're doing just fine, I would have never thought English wasn't your first language based on your posts. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
[ QUOTE ]
Probably true from a US point of view. Over here, the sole reason (or at least one of the major ones) for government is to take from the "strong" what it needs to provide for the "weak"

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, it's more or less the same thing over here, I just disagree with it.

[valenzuela]

no.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a word to describe the situation where a lack of action can be considered a criminal act. The word is slavery.

[/ QUOTE ]

I might be missing the context here. Government inaction is different than individual inaction. If you want to use the analogy, the government should be a slave to the people, yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

All legitimate gov't power is the power delegated to it by the people. If I don't have the right to do a certain thing, and my neighbor doesn't have the right to do that certain thing, then where would the gov't get the right to do it.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is changing the subject. Of course if a person a person commits a despicable act, the act would be equally despicable if taken by the government. Who would ever say otherwise?

If a person commits an inaction, though, it is somewhat forgivable. I can forgive someone who doesn't fly 3000 miles to the other coast to save the life of a stranger. First, it is a larger effort. Second, one person does not exist to serve another. However, if the government commits the same inaction, it does not require nearly as much effort and is despicable. Government action and inaction are roughly the same thing.