Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Simple questions of right and wrong

Rate this topic


tjfields

Recommended Posts

Plasmatic,

 

Is your answer to the questions asked in the original post is that it is wrong for me to kill the man who washed up on the beach because the man who washed up on the beach has individual rights, including the right to life, and I violate those rights by killing him?

He has the right to life and this is inalienable and not given to him by any government or society. Ones knowledge of this is derived from the knowledge of ones own requirements and context of life and is dictated by mans nature as such.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has the right to life and this is inalienable and not given to him by any government or society. Ones knowledge of this is derived from the knowledge of ones own requirements and context of life and is dictated by mans nature as such.

The question though is what is wrong about murdering in this circumstance. Right to life, okay, so what? My answer for TJ's question directed at me will address the ethical considerations of why you should care. If we stop at "initiation of force is wrong" that's libertarian and/or deontoligcal ethics in a literal sense that an action is wrong if and only if it violates rights (or principle regardless of the actor)..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eiiol said:

"Right to life, okay, so what? My answer for TJ's question directed at me will address the ethical considerations of why you should care. If we stop at "initiation of force is wrong" that's libertarian and/or deontoligcal ethics in a literal sense that an action is wrong if and only if it violates rights (or principle regardless of the actor).."

Please note, I am not answering the question asked of you, or the OP, as such. I have sought simply to show that the answers given are not consonant with Oism. Also, note that I have not advocated stopping at an out of context, "initiation of force is wrong". I have indicated the root of the answer to "why", when I said, "Ones knowledge of this is derived from the knowledge of ones own requirements and context of life and is dictated by mans nature as such.".

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it would answer your question. I think answering your question is the way to reach a principle such as the right to life, not the other way around. You have to start with morality, and considerations of what is in an individual's best interest, before you can talk about rights.

You can't just go: well, I shouldn't kill someone because he has the right to live.

 

I have nothing to add to this.  I simply thought it was worth repeating. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You can't just go: well, I shouldn't kill someone because he has the right to live."

Good thing no one here is advocating the above!

Edit: added quote and :

I advocate identifying that he has the right to life and then REDUCING backwards down the hierarchy to its base in life and value!

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on what you wrote in post #42 and post #44, are you suggesting that the ultimate value is life and happiness, which means full, guiltless and long-term happiness, and that your other values, while they could be anything, should be chosen to support the ultimate value and that a judgment of whether or not a chosen value is good or bad or right or wrong would be based on how that value supports or does not support the ultimate value?

You catch on quick.  :thumbsup:

 

If this is the case, the definition of life and happiness needs to be clearer.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what I can't do; I only have a rather fuzzy approximation of this ultimate value.  I know it's directly related to living as "man qua man" but, aside from acting in accordance with man's metaphysical nature (primarily your rational mind), I really couldn't define it for you.

 

Perhaps someone else here could elaborate further on that?

 

Based on your posts, would your answers to the questions asked in the original post be different if the original post included lines that read, “I value solitude. Solitude allows me to achieve full, guiltless and long-term happiness.”?

No.

 

Solitude is a fine thing to value; it can be enormously beneficial because it allows one to think in peace.  But permanent and utter solitude is harmful (see solitary confinement).

But that's tangential.

The primary issue is that killing someone for the sake of solitude requires that you value solitude above human life- which isn't rational and hinders the ultimate value.  A mugger values petty cash over human life and that's the same sort of moral failure.

 

Anything could be valued, but values should be judged and chosen according to their relation to the Ultimate Value.  Unless this random stranger has the cure for some disease you've caught hidden away in his pancreas, he benefits you more than anything you could gain from killing him.  And not because he converts oxygen into carbon dioxide but because he's a conscious being with a rational mind.

 

I could get into how much people benefit each other, each and every day, with goods and services- but I won't.  I could get into the incalculable benefit each of us has gained from the knowledge we've inherited from past generations- but I won't.  I think you can extrapolate from there.

 

But more than all of that, we need other people in order to be happy at all.  We need people to talk to, people to share with; not even for material gain, but for mental and emotional well-being.

As human beings we require other self-aware minds with which to interact with; when thusly deprived we cannot thrive.  And I don't know for certain, but I would bet that it's part of living as man qua man.

---

 

Now, people can be extraordinarily harmful to each other (far more than any natural danger) and that's where we start getting into politics.  But most people generally aren't; most people are indescribably valuable to most other people.

 

The right to life does apply to this situation; Devil's Advocate and Plasmatic are correct.  But if you don't have a firm grasp of the moral principles, first, then knowing about that right isn't going to clarify anything at all.

 

There are situations where other people have no value to you, or even remove value.  But if we're discussing complete strangers then there's no good reason to assume such extraordinary circumstances as would make it moral to kill them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think tjfields has a good point.

 

Can someone rationally address the issue of the pre-societal "right" to life of the in a manner consistent with rational selfishness in a manner which makes no "floating" dogmatic pronouncements, does not rely on duty or reification of "morality" in reality as such, but relies upon Objectivist ethics?

 

Because Rand said so is not an answer to "why"?

 

The word "right' has been thrown around but no definition has been offered.  If I told the dweller "but it's the man's inalienable "right". and if the dweller went ahead and killed him and said "so what?"  What would I say?  Would ANYTHING I say cause him regret? Certainly whatever THAT could be must be rational and causally linked to reality and the dweller's life... otherwise its a floating abstract nonsense "you violated his inalienable right"...

 

There is some content missing here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you asserted, nonsensically, a question directly related to another's right to life has nothing to do with rights. In case you didn't know this, the OP is [political] because it deals with how to treat OTHERS!

Yes, the OP's scenario has a political component.  It also has a desert island and someone who somehow arrived there and somehow managed to find self-fulfillment in complete isolation.

We could discuss any number of things from that scenario, but he asked a specific question about morality.  If you truly think that the right to life is the fundamental reason why killing is wrong, then you have no answer to that question.

 

If you have no answer to that question then please stop spitting on mine.

 

Ayn Rand said:

"right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)" VOS

Is it immoral to ignore the rights of others?  Riddle me that one. 

---

 

SL, about the pre-societal right to life:

 

When imperatives fly!

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A vampiric premise is closer to the kind of ethical disconnect from life in general the OP presents.  There is also an element of Hickman's, "I am like the state: what is good for me is right."

But that's it, right there- what this entire thing hinges on.

IS it good for you to kill people?  I don't think so.  I wouldn't even say it's a matter of "good for me" or "good for you"; it's a sheer misunderstanding of what "good" even is!

 

Nobody benefits from murder; not by any sort of comparison to their loss.

 

There are two people and therefore it IS a social question.

So gay marriage is the government's business; it's a political issue involving two or more people.  I think you're stretching politics a bit further than it's meant to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

SL, about the pre-societal right to life:

 

When imperatives fly!

 

HD

 

THIS is precisely the kind of Mysticism of which I am acutely aware and of which I have discussed previously with you.  Firstly, a pre-societal "right" is a stolen concept precisely because "rights" as a philosophical concept, arises in the context of society.  This we both agree on. 

 

As for "good" and "bad" as evaluation of action, i.e. as moral estimates of acts, we must look to Objectivist ethics which is based on reality and the consequences of choices on the ultimate value of an individual, his or her life. 

 

Rand DID solve the IS-OUGHT "problem" by showing the OUGHT as previously formulated is Mystical and/or incoherent.  This kind of intrinsic Ought or imperative ought is rearing its very head in this thread.  There IS no "right" and "wrong" independent of consequences, no "ought" without a "for what?".  Reality DOES dictate what one OUGHT do "IN ORDER" to achieve some result in reality.  There is NO other basis for morality than the choice to live, the metaphysically given facts of reality... all that follows is Man's choices which to be as correct as possible must be informed by rational choices.

 

Rights are a higher level concept, invoked once there is a society, which do not arise in the hypothetical.  The answer to the hypothetical CAN be found in Objectivist ethics and indeed there IS NO other kind of answer which is non-mystical or coherent.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has the right to life and this is inalienable and not given to him by any government or society. Ones knowledge of this is derived from the knowledge of ones own requirements and context of life and is dictated by mans nature as such.

And how did you ever arrive at this knowledge?

 

Also, note that I have not advocated stopping at an out of context, "initiation of force is wrong". I have indicated the root of the answer to "why", when I said, "Ones knowledge of this is derived from the knowledge of ones own requirements and context of life and is dictated by mans nature as such.".

??????????????????????

 

"You can't just go: well, I shouldn't kill someone because he has the right to live."

Good thing no one here is advocating the above!

. . . ? . . .  Moving on. . .

---

 

SL:  INDEED!  It's intrinsicism, pure and simple.

Rights aren't granted by society or by compromise- NOR do they exist in CONCRETE REALITY.

 

A million scientists with a million microscopes could never actually find a right, and yet here they apparently are- washed ashore with our hypothetical castaway.

 

Anyway.  It's understandable; I didn't even realize my own intrinsic tendencies until after I found this forum (so very, very recently).  But damnit, it's wrong!

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrison:

You have now ignored my completed post 2 x.

You wrote:
 

"Yes, the OP's scenario has a political component. It also has a desert island and someone who somehow arrived there and somehow managed to find self-fulfillment in complete isolation.
We could discuss any number of things from that scenario, but he asked a specific question about morality. If you truly think that the right to life is the fundamental reason why killing is wrong, then you have no answer to that question."

 

I specifically edited my post and removed the accidental "political" and corrected it with "ethical".

Edit: Heres what my post actually says :

 

 

No, you asserted, nonsensically, a question directly related to another's right to life has nothing to do with rights. In case you didn't know this, the OP is ethical because it deals with how to treat OTHERS! Edit: had political but meant ethical. That it is ethical doesn't mean the right to life is political...
 

 

This is NOT a political question. And the rational man rejects invalid questions and points out ( if he chooses) the context of the question that is invalid. In this case its invalid to attempt to separate the right to life from ethics as much as to imput it to politics!

"So gay marriage is the government's business; it's a political issue involving two or more people. I think you're stretching politics a bit further than it's meant to go."

 

It is you who are stretching and ignoring what I actually have said into the opposite. Ill repeat, this is NOT A POLITICAL PROBLEM! This is, however, a question of the right to life, which I have said from the beginning relies hierarchally on knowledge of the conditions and values involved in ones own life. I do not have to spoon feed anyone all that this entails.
 

"If you have no answer to that question then please stop spitting on mine"

 

I do not have to educate you on all the logically prior questions that you are missing to point out that you are misrepresenting Oism. That goes for you too SL. The complaints here amount too, "if you are gonna point out a part of my argument is wrong then you have the duty to be the one to correct and answer all my deficiencies of knowledge of Oism"...

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A million scientists with a million microscopes could never actually find a right, and yet here they apparently are- washed ashore with our hypothetical castaway.

A million scientists with a million microsopes can not find a slide containing free-will either. If you choose to live, it requires the right choice of actions to achieve that end. It requires the right thoughts to select those actions. It requires the right excercise of your free-will to guide those thoughts to arrive at the right conclusions. Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SL said:

 

 

 

Rand DID solve the IS-OUGHT "problem" by showing the OUGHT as previously formulated is Mystical and/or incoherent.  This kind of intrinsic Ought or imperative ought is rearing its very head in this thread.  There IS no "right" and "wrong" independent of consequences, no "ought" without a "for what?".  Reality DOES dictate what one OUGHT do "IN ORDER" to achieve some result in reality.  There is NO other basis for morality than the choice to live, the metaphysically given facts of reality... all that follows is Man's choices which to be as correct as possible must be informed by rational choices.

 

Rights are a higher level concept, invoked once there is a society, which do not arise in the hypothetical.  The answer to the hypothetical CAN be found in Objectivist ethics and indeed there IS NO other kind of answer which is non-mystical or coherent.  

 

I have quoted Rand DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING your claim that individual rights arrive from society. You continue to assert that you are representing Oist ideas to the contrary.  You have ignored the obvious fact that there are TWO people in the hypothetical and that makes it a social issue. You have ignored the fact that Oist ethics bases individual rights in the individual! Without this understanding one cannot even form a valid political system!

 

I invite you to substantiate any instance of the above you wish to impute to me.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dreamweaver:  Yes.  Point being that a "right" is a concept which must be reached through a certain process, and cannot be taken as an out-of-context absolute.  It doesn't exist in its own right (nor does consciousness or free will).

 

I have quoted Rand DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING your claim that individual rights arrive from society.

SL said that rights become relevant once a society exists, not that they're a gift from society.  Do you think they apply to isolated men, without contact with any other men?

If so then there's actually something to argue.

 

You have ignored the obvious fact that there are TWO people in the hypothetical  and that makes it a social issue.

And in that scenario, how many people have a rational consciousness capable of decision-making?

 

You have ignored the fact that Oist ethics bases individual rights in the individual!

You're ignoring the reason for that, with this very statement.

 

And I'm ignoring your other post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then it seems pretty clear. If an unconscious man is washed ashore, and a hungry bear or other non-reasoning critter arrives on the scene and decides to make a snack of the unconscious man, he is unable to exercise his right to self-defense.

Presumably, the OP, walking up to an unconscious man and willfully destroying that which is not his to destroy, has either not arrived at the conclusion what the right to life consists of, or has willfully disregarded such a consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm saying your argument that value of the particular person isn't why murder is wrong just isn't true.

 

I am saying the value of life "in general" implies that individuals in general are valuable and therefore shouldn't be killed. I still can't evaluate the scenario, though.

Why?

 

Did not the inclusion of the man washed ashore, increase the ethical consideration to life in general?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I have quoted Rand DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING your claim that individual rights arrive from society. You continue to assert that you are representing Oist ideas to the contrary.  You have ignored the obvious fact that there are TWO people in the hypothetical and that makes it a social issue. You have ignored the fact that Oist ethics bases individual rights in the individual! Without this understanding one cannot even form a valid political system!

Kinda besides the point anyway. The "social context" is so small that you don't need to refer to rights anyway. The thread is basically about if and why it would be wrong to murder some random stranger. Some replies seem to be along the lines of "well, it's their moral choice, not yours", which is far from a selfish standard, and other responses seem to be like "respecting rights is valuable". This gets confusing due to the lack of reasons connected explicitly to one's own life. What would happen if the guy lived with regards to your own life? "Guilt" is a bad reason to avoid murder, because emotion itself shouldn't guide action, so besides that, what else matters?  Think of the topic is trying to reduce rights and validate the concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eiuol : I don't agree with pretty much all of your last and it seems you aren't reading or comprehending my post.

"Think of the topic is trying to reduce rights and validate the concept"

It is not I who need to be hand held regarding what is actually at issue:

Plasmatic said:

"I advocate identifying that he has the right to life and then REDUCING backwards down the hierarchy to its base in life and value! "

I'm just refusing to do this for those who are too second handed to do it for themselves. It is worth noting my initial post were simply questions, which were promptly met with snark and defensiveness.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda besides the point anyway. The "social context" is so small that you don't need to refer to rights anyway. The thread is basically about if and why it would be wrong to murder some random stranger. Some replies seem to be along the lines of "well, it's their moral choice, not yours", which is far from a selfish standard, and other responses seem to be like "respecting rights is valuable". This gets confusing due to the lack of reasons connected explicitly to one's own life. What would happen if the guy lived with regards to your own life? "Guilt" is a bad reason to avoid murder, because emotion itself shouldn't guide action, so besides that, what else matters?  Think of the topic is trying to reduce rights and validate the concept.

Eioul

 

Answers were given which did not in any way resort to the concept of rights. In particular rational reasons were given which discussed causality, consequences, outcomes of the possible choices of the dweller and yes relied on concepts of value, but in no way was anything related to "respecting rights is valuable".

 

 

Plasmatic

 

In a society a consideration of "rights" is a proper consideration as it applies to reality, i.e. causality and consequences. In a society there is a voluntarily chosen code of conduct, there is extension of "rights" to and amongst (from) the members. If A treats B a certain way, C or a thousand C's WILL base their judgement of A on that treatment in view of those "rights", and they will act in regard to A in a certain ways based on that treatment in view of those "rights", and C's could prevent A acting or mitigate the effects of A's action. In a REAL sense there are consequences in view of "rights" and hence "rights" are not floating abstractions in the context. They can lead (actually be involved in causation) to the kind of society rational selfish individuals can flourish in.

 

In the OP, there is no society. What is the existential referent to which your concept of "rights", IN THE PARTICULAR CONTEXT refer and what ARE ITS CONSEQUENCES?

 

Are RIGHTS here:

 

A. What WE as an external group of civilized people WOULD judge the dweller's actions against? Keep in mind, since WE ARE NOT there, our judgement can have NO causal consequences for the dweller in any way.

B. What WE WOULD follow and enforce were we there and able to interfere? Again, since we ARE NOT there we CANNOT actually affect the dweller...

C. What the dweller "SHOULD" follow, if ..... if what? If he wants any third person not to treat him the way he treated the stranger? BUT then in the hypothetical THERE IS no third person. What the dweller should follow IF he wants the DEAD GUY not to treat the dweller the way he treated the dead guy... but then again the DEAD GUY is already DEAD...

Honestly what of any consequence in REALITY, can be ascribed to these thing you call "rights" when there is but one conscious person and another unconscious one?

 

THE CURRENT QUESTION IS:

 

If we slip the dweller a note which says "He has the right to live, IF you kill him you violate his rights" and the dweller responds quite reasonably:

 

"WHAT CONSEQUENCE IN REALITY, independent of ALL OTHER actual CONCRETE CAUSAL consequences, such as the loss of potential value (economic - production, spiritual - friendship, intellectual - inventions discoveries, etc.), the possibility of being rescued and subsequently being shunned or imprisoned Or having to lie for the rest of my life, the possibility of guilt or other mental disquiet, etc does my VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS AS SUCH have toward the pursuit of my rational self interest, with MY LIFE as the STANDARD of value?"

 

What is your answer to him? 

 

Plasmatic simply answer the dweller... he's not even asking you what you mean by "rights" in the context, he ONLY needs YOUR REASONS WHY these "rights" in and of themselves should influence his decision in any way over and above ALL the other reasons he has considered... in order to understand that RIGHTS themselves (whatever they are here) are relevant to the context.

 

(As an aside I ask: If you invoke a concept which has no CONSEQUENCE in REALITY, WHAT ARE you invoking?)

 

 

 

PLEASE DO NOT EVADE ANSWERING, in logical and rational terms. I would honestly like to know WHAT *YOU* .......   "THINK" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil’s Advocate,

 

In post #74 you wrote, “You cannot assert the value of your life by dismissing life as a value, or to paraphrase a proverb frequently relied on by Objectivists...You cannot have your cake as a value and dismiss the value of cake to others.”

 

I am confused by your statement. It seems as if you are suggesting that “life” or "life in general" (stated in post #93) is some entity or force that the individual must value if the individual values his or her own life or be at odds with “life” or "life in general" and therefore be in the wrong. Is this what you are saying?

 

As to your paraphrased proverb, it seems to be making the following assumption: that I do not recognize that you value your life just as I value my life. This is not necessarily true. I value my life and I may recognize that you value your life. However, just because I recognize that you value your life, why does this mean that I ought to value your life as well, other than some vague notion of empathy based on personal experience?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eiuol : I don't agree with pretty much all of your last and it seems you aren't reading or comprehending my post.

"Think of the topic is trying to reduce rights and validate the concept"

It is not I who need to be hand held regarding what is actually at issue:

Plasmatic said:

"I advocate identifying that he has the right to life and then REDUCING backwards down the hierarchy to its base in life and value! "

I'm just refusing to do this for those who are too second handed to do it for themselves. It is worth noting my initial post were simply questions, which were promptly met with snark and defensiveness.

 

 

To reciprocate my asking you to answer a question I will attempt a succinct answer myself to your question, a first version relies solely on ethics and the second introduction of perhaps what a "pre-societal" right could be:

 

I propose the following framework to assess right and wrong in the context:

 

Q:           In context (I), is action (II) "right" or "wrong"?

 

R1:          Action (II) in Context (I) is "wrong" because:

 

                A.  In Context (I) the facts of reality are such that Action (II) actually constitutes self-destructive behavior which is NOT in accordance with the rational self-interest of the individual actor with the life of that individual SOLELY as the standard.

 

                B.  Any action which in any context constitutes self-destructive behavior which is NOT in accordance with the rational self-interest of the individual actor with life of that individual SOLELY as the standard, is WRONG for the individual to engage in BECAUSE and TO THE EXTENT that it is self -destructive.

I assume the above is correct and is missing no "un-selfish" element that must inform right and wrong…

 

To answer the question of tjfields what is further required is an explanation of WHAT constitutes "self-destructive" behavior and WHY?  This has already been done.

 

IF we try to start with "right to life" we could try to add another layer ON TOP so to speak

 

R2:          Action (II) in Context (I) is "wrong" because:

 

A.  Rights in general define reciprocal treatment of others which, if violated or acted against by an actor, for reasons of reality, constitute ACTUAL self-destructive behavior which is NOT in accordance with the rational self-interest of the individual actor with life of that individual SOLELY as the standard.

 

B.  The particular right, the "right to life" is a valid right in this context (I) (an unconscious and "as far as you know" innocent man on a deserted island) because ANY action against or violating it in fact performs EXISTENTIALLY REAL self-destructive behavior which is NOT in accordance with the rational self-interest of the individual actor with life of that individual SOLELY as the standard.

 

C.  Action (II) violates the unconscious individual's "right to life"

 

D.  Action (II) therefore constitutes EXISTENTIALLY REAL self-destructive behavior which is NOT in accordance with the rational self-interest of the individual actor with life of that individual SOLELY as the standard.   

 

E.  Any action which in any context constitutes self-destructive behavior which is NOT in accordance with the rational self-interest of the individual actor with life of that individual SOLELY as the standard, is WRONG for the individual to engage in BECAUSE and TO THE EXTENT that it is self -destructive.

 

Here again the task is to show that the definition of the right to life is valid in the context, i.e. that any action violating it actually constitutes self-destructive behavior.

 

Again I differ with you on the need of rights in the context.  The reality is there are the actions and the consequences.  In fact the formulation of rights in A) IS lacking, it is precisely lacking because in a pre-societal context there is little if anything to inform the concept… perhaps here, your idea of some "pre-societal" right would be useful. 

 

A right in society can define behavior against which action in general is destructive of individual members of that society, all of whom have agreed to live in that society and in essence agree that they do not want to be destroyers or the destroyed.

 

I am trying to maintain the ROOT of the morality in self-interest and DEVOID of any form of altruism.  If the base IS selfishness then "rights" MUST be validated BY SELFISHNESS, and it cannot be that we try to validate selfishness by "rights".

 

I tried to formulate pre-societal rights Plasmatic, I honestly did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrison Danneskjold,

 

In post #82, in response to my request for a clarification of life and happiness as the ultimate value, you wrote, “Unfortunately, that's exactly what I can't do; I only have a rather fuzzy approximation of this ultimate value.  I know it's directly related to living as "man qua man" but, aside from acting in accordance with man's metaphysical nature (primarily your rational mind), I really couldn't define it for you.”

 

How can you base your ethical arguments on a fuzzy approximation?

 

You further state in post #82, “The primary issue is that killing someone for the sake of solitude requires that you value solitude above human life- which isn't rational and hinders the ultimate value.” If you only have a fuzzy approximation of this ultimate value then how can you make a statement that valuing solitude above human life is not rational and hinders the ultimate value?

 

You further state in post #82, “The right to life does apply to this situation; Devil's Advocate and Plasmatic are correct.  But if you don't have a firm grasp of the moral principles, first, then knowing about that right isn't going to clarify anything at all.” If the ultimate value is the source of moral principals, and you have a fuzzy approximation of ultimate value, how can you have a firm grasp of moral principals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...