Whose fault was it that you were born? Were you consulted? No. People don’t choose to be born. They don’t choose their circumstances. They don’t choose their genes. But they still have to live their lives (last I heard, it is socially unacceptable to commit suicide). Because we are all in this together, and we are all struggling for the same desires of stability, shelter, opportunity, education, community, family, friends, and ultimately a purpose, it is our duty as human beings to help our fellow man to attain these. Especially, when we ourselves are capable.
So whose fault? Does it really matter? In a deterministic world there are no faults, but there are still victims.
Nor do I expect that others take care of me (except for my parents when I was young, but they DID choose to have me and so voluntarily accepted that responsibility, as will be the case with me when I have children).
You have failed to answer my point in my previous post.
So my ability means I deserve to get punished by being forced to take care of other people as well as myself?
Kurt, allow me to illustrate with a hypothetcial situation why all humans have a right to live, even if they are unfortunate enough to be unable to support themselves.
Suppose Kurt, that your parents died while you were at the tender age of two. Infact, let us suppose that every relative of your’s died instantaneously in a horrific and tragic accident, leaving you no one with any direct responsibility to your life. Soon your parent’s house will be reposessed as the payments cease to be made, and a toddler will be forced to live on the streets, eventually starving to death. Why would this happen? Because unfortunatly for young Kurt, the rest of the people in this hypothetical world of mine live under the same mantra that Mr. Kurt Weber purports in this very forum; they believe they are not morally responsible for young Kurt’s life, as they had no decision in bringing him into this world. So are they correct Kurt?
Kurt has also stated that it is morally wrong for the gov’t to take money from him, to pay for things he doesn’t need, or is not “responisble” for. I wholeheartedly disagree, however, for the sake of argument let us suppose this is true. Now we are left with a decision to make: what is more morally reprehensible? “Stealing” , or allowing children to die painful and merciless deaths? Not a tough decision.
Therefore, Kurt is arguing that it is morally wrong for the gov’t to force people to do what is morally right. Oddly, the gov’t is responsible for maintaining Law; an entire institution whose premise is forcing people to do what is morally right. Otherwise rapists and murderers would run rampant, as it would be “morally wrong” to force them to do what is “morally right,” which is to not rape and kill. Do you want rapists and murderers running amock Kurt because you do not want their “rights” to be infringed upon? Once again, a question that does not need much deliberation.
I recommend you read the thread on Moral Luck Kurt, you might realize just how determined things really are.
A right to live at the expense of others is what you mean–in other words, a right to enslave.
Right. The end does not justify the means.
The use of the word “more” there is pointless…all evils are equally evil, and all virtues are equally virtuous.
Not at all. Theft is completely wrong. Again, the end does not justify the means, no matter how desirable the end is. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
There is no right to take from another what is his, be it his person or his property–therefore, there is no right to kill, maim, or rape, there is no right to kill, and there is no right to enslave.
[moderator] Kurt, one purpose of this website is to provide a forum where people can apply a rigorous rational critique to other people’s views in order to expose shortcomings. I’m not sure you’ve entering into this spirit. I am afraid that simply stating ‘The means do not justify the end’ to a perfectly feasible and carefully thought-out moral scenario is not good enough, and a little insulting to other posters. Can you fully explain the moral assumptions you apply to your world view to avoid your contribution becoming dogmatic. Too many of your assertions seem uninfered. Can you qualify them, and try to engage rationally with those offering arguments which expose flaws in yours. Thanks. mate
I believe I have begun to partake in an exercise of futility, for reasons Pangloss has already pointed out- but I shall give it one more try.
Two things come to mind Kurt, intentionalism and consequentionalism. As far as intentions go, it can be argued that no distinguishment can be made between two immoral acts, as if the intent was immoral, the results are irrelevant. However, with regards to the consequences, some evils are infact “more” evil than others. Being tortured to death is by far worse than having a penny stolen from you. These are sometimes considered the two main viewpoints of ethics, and while some consider them to be mutually exclusive, the same way determinism and freewill can be considered mutually exclusive, both must be taken into account in order to devise a capable moral code.
Therefore, it is a matter of mere addition:
stealing and allowing babies to die are both equally evil, as far as the intentions of their agents are. Therefore, we can assign them each a value of one. However, the results (or consequences) of a child dying are far more horrific than having an obscure amount of money taken from you. With this in mind, one could assign murder as having a consequential value of 10, and perhaps stealing with a moral consequence of 1.
Therefore
Stealing= an intentional value of 1+ a consequential value of 1= 2
Murder= an intentional value of 1+ a consequential value of 10=11
Who is to say that the consequences of murder can be accurately quantified in comparison to stealing, not I, but the figures are irrelevant. What is relevant is that any damage done by murder far outweighs any damage done by theft thereby making some acts more evil than others.
I stated:
and Kurt responded with:
I have taken the liberty to interpret your vague response. You are are stating that the end (of having more than you need) does not justify the means (allowing innocent children to die).
I hope I have suffiently pointed out the circularity of your argument.
Kurt stated:
Following is a specific portion from the above quote that I would like to comment on- “There is no right to take from another what is his…”
If we trace this assumption back to it core, it would follow that you have no right to take away my right, to kill you. If we are to believe that it is never wrong to take away anyone’s rights, then if we cease with taxes and stop abusing your right to 100% of your earnings, it will also follow that we should not deter murderers from taking your life. This is very similar to screaming “fire” in a crowded movie theater. Not all rights are guaranteed if it is deemed that the consequences of removing that right are more beneficial than the right itself.