Craig24 Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 The following statement requires a reply but I don't know how to articulate the proper response. Human rights conflict from time to time, and the most important one will need to take precedence. If you're walking to a local cafe to get lunch, you see someone having a heart attack, then ignore them and walk on because you'd rather have lunch that is not ok. I do not give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about your right to not be "forced" to do something in this case. We live in a society for our mutual benifit, that means you do have duties to that society - helping people in distress being one of them. He's saying the right to be helped conflicts with and supersedes the right not to help and it is difficult to disagree without being judged as an uncaring brute. It is a forgone conclusion that a heart attack victim will usually get assistance from others, even those who understand and accept the proper view of rights and that this assistance will be motivated by kindness, generosity and the value one places on human beings. Does anyone have advice on how to reply to this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Every individual has a right to their own preservation that excludes a duty to the preservation of others. Emergency responders are given training and have a duty to perform because laypersons cannot be expected to act with competence. In no case can an individual right to preservation be superseded by duty to sacrifice for others. However, moral reciprocity implies a duty to offer aid if, in the same situation, aid is to be expected. Not to offer aid to a victim of heart attack, invites others to pass you by in your time of need. If that's your expectation, it would be ethically wrong to coerce your aid to others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig24 Posted July 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Every individual has a right to their own preservation that excludes a duty to the preservation of others. Emergency responders are given training and have a duty to perform because laypersons cannot be expected to act with competence. In no case can an individual right to preservation be superseded by duty to sacrifice for others. However, moral reciprocity implies a duty to offer aid if, in the same situation, aid is to be expected. Not to offer aid to a victim of heart attack, invites others to pass you by in your time of need. If that's your expectation, it would be ethically wrong to coerce your aid to others. In the interest of clarity, did the end of your final sentence mean that it would be ethically wrong to force others to aid you? Otherwise, a great response. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 I assume by "aid" he means something like calling 911. That's the right thing to do, not just if you're delaying lunch by a few minutes, but at a far greater cost. However, you must be the judge of these things. The idea that "this benefits you, so I will force you to do it" is the premise under all statism. Ask yourself how realistic this example is. Social-science experiments show that people do not always help, but it is not because they don't feel like. It is more about thinking that others will help, etc. As far as morality goes, almost anyone would want to help in that type of emergency, and would not think twice about delaying their lunch by a few minutes. The real payoff to the statist is that he will use this type of example as a wedge to ask people to do things that they actually would not choose to do. It is not about saving a life in an emergency. It is about using your car for 10 years instead of 5 so that someone else can have a car too, or so that someone else's granny can get dentures, etc. Also, people do benefit tremendously from society, but the benefits are mutual. The benefits that flow to me come from people like me, who get benefits from me. By a "law of conservation of benefits" no benefits are created except the ones that are created by all the people in society individually. So, the notion that each one has some debt is spurious. If each one of us present and past owes some debt, then who is the creditor? Is it some non-human? Logically, either it all balances out; or, some people do not owe, but are owed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 In the interest of clarity, did the end of your final sentence mean that it would be ethically wrong to force others to aid you? Otherwise, a great response. Thanks. Yes - the ethical context of moral reciprocity is expectation without coercion; one does what one does because one expects others to do the same without being coerced. In this example, offering help to a victim of heart attack is ethically dependent on the expectation of having help offered in the event of suffering a heart attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) Human rights do conflict. Not from time to time, but all the time. The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights is full of contradictions. And there is no classification of the conflicting articles, so that the reader could know which are the more important ones. Instead, that is just left to the whim of the people implementing it in various countries. If they wish, they can restrict some freedoms under the pretense that welfare is more important, if they wish, they can take away all freedoms. They are a set of "principles" that are in fact not principles at all, but a tool specifically constructed to facilitate pragmatism. Individual rights, on the other hand, don't conflict. Edited July 28, 2012 by Nicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Contradictions don't exist. Therefore a concept of positive rights is a stolen concept. No wonder they conflict all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dániel Boros Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Individuals are humans. Human rights are the same as individual rights. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not about human rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairnet Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 There isn't any stated reason as to why it is one's legal/ethical obligation to help people in distress. There is just a reliance on a sentiment grounded into people's psyche since they are young. Now I would help someone in distress, but that is only because in general a stranger is more of a value to me than the small ammount of time it takes to call an ambulance, not because I have a duty to society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 (edited) Contradictions don't exist. I believe it's more accurate to say, "Rational contradictions don't exist." Apparent contradictions (and paradoxes) can be the result of an incomplete understanding of reality, or by dismissing some necessary premise of reality; contradictions exist as intellectual markers to check premises. It's rational to believe that life, as a property, implies the owner's unalienable right of possession. This premise is validated by observing that life, as a property, isn't transferable. The result of taking life is death; not gaining additional life. Therefore a right to life stands on its own without implying any duty to the preservation of other lives. Likewise, having title to a house doesn't imply an owner's duty to aid in the preservation of a neighbor's house. However, understanding that houses can burn or be broken into, a rational homeowner may choose to foster cooperation between neighbors, so that the destruction of one, for want of help, doesn't lead to the destruction of one's own, for want of help. It's in one's rational self-interest to offer aid to the victim of a heart attack (without duty or being coerced), because such events incapacitate the victim's ability to fend for themselves, and cooperation between individuals provides a rational means for the preservation of one's own life in similar circumstances where one cannot fend for oneself. Ethical contradictions exist whenever duties and coercions interfere with an individual's right to life, rather than relying on an individual's rational self-interest to act with moral reciprocity. Edited July 29, 2012 by Devil's Advocate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overt Posted August 3, 2012 Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 One man's potential death is not a claim on another man's actual life, not ethically or politically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted August 3, 2012 Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 (edited) The right to be helped-there is no such an animal as well as rational contradictions. All contradictions are irrational. Edited August 3, 2012 by Leonid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted August 4, 2012 Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 He's saying the right to be helped conflicts with and supersedes the right not to help and it is difficult to disagree without being judged as an uncaring brute. It is a forgone conclusion that a heart attack victim will usually get assistance from others, even those who understand and accept the proper view of rights and that this assistance will be motivated by kindness, generosity and the value one places on human beings. Does anyone have advice on how to reply to this? He's confusing rights and morality. The fact that anyone with a concern for human life would at least stop and call 911 does not mean that rights are being violated if someone does not. Rights serve a particular purpose in political philosophy, and this is simply a misapplication of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted August 4, 2012 Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) The victim of a heart attack should be helped not because he has a right for such a help, but because human life is an ultimate value Therefore,.benevolence toward others is also Objectivist virtue. Edited August 4, 2012 by Leonid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabernac Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 Also, people do benefit tremendously from society, but the benefits are mutual. The benefits that flow to me come from people like me, who get benefits from me. By a "law of conservation of benefits" no benefits are created except the ones that are created by all the people in society individually. So, the notion that each one has some debt is spurious. If each one of us present and past owes some debt, then who is the creditor? Is it some non-human? Logically, either it all balances out; or, some people do not owe, but are owed. But is this not essentially just collectivism? Or is collectivism acceptable when it exists for the mutual benefit of the individual members? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 But is this not essentially just collectivism? Or is collectivism acceptable when it exists for the mutual benefit of the individual members?I don't understand the question. Could you restate it? What exactly is "just collectivism"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabernac Posted August 12, 2012 Report Share Posted August 12, 2012 I don't understand the question. Could you restate it? What exactly is "just collectivism"? Apologies... I'm extremely short on time at the moment so sorry if my posts seem a bit rushed! And likewise apologies for any ignorance. I'd love to have some long, enlightening discussions with people here, but I honestly don't have the time at the moment (or a decent internet connection) I'm afraid :-( I'm assuming you'd agree that notions of membership of a society/community being mutually beneficial to its members are inherently "collectivist", am I right? I guess my intended question was, is collectivism seen as inherently bad, or only bad if it's enforced? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted August 12, 2012 Report Share Posted August 12, 2012 I'm assuming you'd agree that notions of membership of a society/community being mutually beneficial to its members are inherently "collectivist", am I right?No, I would not agree. Trade and mutual benefit are not "collectivist"... which is when one raises the collective over the individual. ..., is collectivism seen as inherently bad, or only bad if it's enforced?In the political sphere, collectivism is enforced by force. However, collectivism is also bad when people think is racist terms (using a race as a collective), or when they engage in group-think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabernac Posted August 12, 2012 Report Share Posted August 12, 2012 No, I would not agree. Trade and mutual benefit are not "collectivist"... which is when one raises the collective over the individual. Excellent news from my point of view... That was one of my main concerns with objectivism - that it shunned collective/grassroots efforts, etc. Apologies if that seems like a stupid assumption - that's just how objectivism was explained to me, by someone who purports to be an objectivist - and being in such a remote location at the moment hinders any efforts of mine to actually read objectivist literature for the time being... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted August 12, 2012 Report Share Posted August 12, 2012 That was one of my main concerns with objectivism - that it shunned collective/grassroots efforts, etc.This forum is run by volunteers who also claim to be Objectivists Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.