Total posts: 827
Posted in:
POINT 2 - CONCLUSION:
Moral value is granted at the point when one becomes a person. That point is a change in category, not simply a small change within the current category.
Without further ado, I declare this definition of moral value to be true -- until objected against in the future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I did some research, and I accept the idea that qualitive and quantitive differences are the basis on which you establish categories.
Category: a division within a system of classification [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/category]
A category in our context means that we can put all "persons" in one simple box (category) and have them all be similar in some fundamental way. However, if our division is unclear, vague or arbitrary it cannot be accepted. For example, I could say that "persons" can run faster than crabs - but that category would be stupid and not sufficient to grant moral value. So when trying to create a perfect box (category) on the basis of which we will grant moral value, it needs to fit these criteria:
- Include everything we agree are persons (like adults)
- Not include anything we agree is not persons (like elephants)
So I would agree to such a definition as this:
Moral value is granted at the point when one becomes a person. That point is a change in category, not simply a small change within current category.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Limiting the debate seems not to be a problem - we are far too good at getting of track XD
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I am conflicted about whether or not to agree. You see, if the difference is quantitative or qualitative then "being a person" seems to only mean "more of ...something else...". It would be justified to critique the idea that 99% personhood is not sufficient to require 1% or moral value. This brings me back to point 2 arguments. If different persons get their value from being part of a category rather than having certain traits, then we could justly apply equal value to persons without being inconsistent. But we cannot at the same time claim that 200% "something else (like animal consciousness)" grants you moral value but having 500% "something else" does not even increase your value. I am sure you are aware of the idea that some races are less valuable than others, or the idea that different sexes have different values, etc. All of these ideas stem from a belief that our traits give us moral value instead of our category "person". So I am deterred from accepting the unchanged definition. Awaiting your response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Moral value is granted at the point when one becomes a person.
I can accept that, but it misses some of the meaning.
I would like to add:
The difference between a person and a non-person is category, not simply quality or quantity.
Ensuring that even if animals have many traits we consider "personal", they are not partly granted moral value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@gugigor
Yes, we have moral value. But obviously, only persons respect moral value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Conclusion:
Moral value is not granted on the basis of personal traits, but because you are a person. It is constant and granted exactly when a non-person-thing become a person.
Unless any further objections are raised I conclude point 2 and we can move on.
Moral value is not granted on the basis of personal traits, but because you are a person. It is constant and granted exactly when a non-person-thing become a person.
Unless any further objections are raised I conclude point 2 and we can move on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I apologize if I insulted you or you felt personally attacked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@gugigor
that's for later. Remember we talk about persons in general - and the specifics of each view is a later topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Age beyond exiting the womb is not a factor. Also, note the usage of "person" here in place of "human."
This to me seems like an indirect argument. You imply that a person is "a human being that has been born".
Age is never a factor with regards to value. An animal is never getting more valuable regardless of age, neither is a fetus.
Therefore, moral value is granted at the specific moment where a non-person thing becomes a person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
during the entire life of a person, his moral value is constant.If we're sticking with "person," then yes, I would agree to that.
It's settled then. Age is not a factor with regards to moral value.
Since age is already a major factor in other traits, I would extend that to every other trait like sex, strength, mental capacity and even psychology.
In other words, I claim that all "x" are equally valuable. I can quote the UN to support my claim:
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status.Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination. [https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I would prefer if we use concentrated statements instead of paragraphs to fulfil the purpose of expressing a simple idea. Simply because that allows us to disagree and use logic. It would be impossible to take any of your paragraphs and say "this is wrong" since the paragraph is too large to be tested logically. At the very least summarize your points into precise statements that can easily be rebutted or changed by the opponent.
Sorry this should have come 2 minutes earlier.
Created:
Posted in:
...It's 3 paragraphs
Yet in this discussion, a single sentence can carry enormous weight.
Being smarter, more developed, or better to others doesn't increase or decrease your access to human rights.
I assume by "access to human rights" you mean moral value? Because they basically have the same definition: "entitlement to moral treatment"
There is nothing inherent to the differences between the male and female sexes that should reduce their value as human beings.
Let us say that personA has moral value because he has enough of x - let's say personhood. What if PersonB has more of x, is he not more valuable?
I'd say that all moral value is a yes or no question.
I agree. So during the entire life of a person, his moral value is constant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I am sorry for oversimplifying things. But once we get the facts on the table - first then can we have a meaningful debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Please answer with a yes or no - I will regard a long answer as a NO.
Created:
Posted in:
Again, you're oversimplifying
That's the core of any ethical discussion.
Tell me the answer, do you regard two adults that are quite different to have the same moral value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I am overwhelmed by the sheer amount of text you wrote.
Now you're starting to move beyond this portion of our discussion.
No. I am returning to the start of point 2.
I don't want to get into the specifics of my views
Ok, I understand.
Simple question: is a man and a woman equally valuable? (assuming that the man is smarter, has a more developed personality and is kinder - all other things being equal)
In other words: is moral value a yes or no question or is it a variable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Why do you think that I will only talk about biology? I will take on philosophy as well.
But first, let us forget the semantics and just call all adults a part of the group "x" ( it can mean a person or a human or whatever )
There are only two alternatives:
- All x have an equal value by simply being humans - a dualistic view [1]
- All x have different values based on individual traits - a relativistic view [2]
I hope you will agree that every one that is x, has equal value. This would mean that a man is not more valuable than a woman, and an adult is not more valuable than a child, and a jew is not less valuable than an "arian". If you read my first post, you see that I only wanted to prove that everyone that falls into the category x has equal value - regardless of their non-x traits. Do you disagree with such a claim? If not, we can proceed to point 3 and talk about the definitions of x.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@gugigor
Your argument is a fallacy of false equivalence.
When you commit a crime
You show that you do not understand the law. One cannot be convicted for crimes if another person controlled your arm and pulled the trigger. You cannot refuse to be conceived either - so "infringing" on another person by being conceived is a ridiculous statement to make. Additionally, NO, your moral value doesn't drop. If I kill the one that stole my tv that is just as immoral as killing a stranger. Ethics are universal, but you are talking about another part of the social contract - the law and the state. Obviously, an act by a judge is not bound by ethics, it is bound by the law. So your example is not valid.
Spare your abortion arguments for later - right now we are discussing the general problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Yet, your argument is that it clearly comes pre-defined, i.e. that what is human is absolutely known.
Every single thing can be accurately defined by science. However, the absolute answer of science depends on how we define a "human". There is still room for discussion.
In point 2 I just wanted to assure that we are not applying a relativistic model for value, namely that different adults or even adults and children have a different value.
Created:
Posted in:
It’s a purely scientific determination
Well, the same problem applies to a person. If x regards y as not being a person he can kill y - But that is not ethics, rather it is just subjective (or statical) opinion. An objective, (aka scientific) way to solve the problem is more accurate in its classifications and thus better. We would never click a button to kill something that had a 50% percent chance of being our children, and a 50% chance of being a mouse - even with a million dollars as a reward. Therefore, a scientific definition is better, we must strive to minimize the chance of judging incorrectly. The law of "innocent until proven guilty" also applies here. If there is any uncertainty around your choice to pull the trigger, then you should not do so. As is an idiom in Norway: "it is better than 10 guilty t freed than for 1 innocent to be punished".
I believe that the usage of the term “human” could refer to any subset of life from individual skin cells up to individual persons.
I understand your concern. But it also applies to the term person. Person: A human being regarded as an individual.[1-same as above]
So unless you know what a "human being" is, you cannot decide what a person is. Instead of solving the problem, using the term "person" only deepens the problem. That is because we would have two layers of uncertainty instead of one:
a) what is a human being
b) which human beings are persons.
I see no difference between the two terms, so a change to the words would be a semantic's problem rather than a real solution.
Conclusion: changing the word "human" for "person" cannot solve any of the complications, it just adds a new layer of semantics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I disagree.
Explanation:
P1: All adults are equally valuable (as established in point 1)
P2: The only trait all adults share is being 100% human (all other traits are variable or subjective)
C: If we are to assign moral value to any characteristic, it must be "humanity"
Elaboration:
Being a human is a yes or no question that can be answered by biology concisely and coherently for everyone - once defined. Being a person is not clear-cut enough to decide who is entitled to being valuable. Who is a person? This is not a yes or no question - since different degrees of personality obviously exist, even between adults. Saying all persons literally translates into: "all humans, except those not regarded as individuals"[1]. But we could just as easily debate who is a human as which humans are persons. I see no reason to move moral value from a clear, consistent, and scientific definition onto a word that is vague, variable, and partly subjective.
Conclusion:
I insist that we stick to the current definition. I still hold that option 1 is the correct one: all humans are equally valuable.
Instead of trying to figure out which humans are persons, we can get the exact same result by trying to figure out who are humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I see no problem with using the word "human" in this context.
Please elaborate on why you think we should change the wording, and please define the word "person".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
@MisterChris
@Theweakeredge
@gugigor
@Wagyu
I invite you to participate in this debate.
But please wait for the appropriate time before posting, and stick to each point. We are not in a hurry to write every idea at once, we have a structure making it easy to discuss.
Here is how far we have come already:
Point one - Killing adults is immoral
Point two - there are two alternatives:
- All humans have an equal value
- All humans have a different value
My claim is that since age is arbitrary on the scale of society, all humans have equal value.
Any objections? Only object if you think that all humans have a different value. We will discuss WHO are humans later, so no need to bring up fetuses yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@gugigor
There is a difference between refusing to save a life and intentionally kill another human being.
humans have only the future value
I agree. Killing an unconscious adult is definitely immoral because he will lose future "well-being". But that statement is also a natural conclusion of point 2.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@gugigor
You did not really disagree with point one. You just said that more humans have more value combined - which is an obvious conclusion from point one.
Point 1 - Killing adults is immoral (unless specific circumstances make the alternatives impossible)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I never addressed your response because it was not clear what you meant. I will critique it when you explain it to me.
You call my dichotomy false. But it's not, it's basic logic. Either human have equal value or they don't:
- All humans have an equal value
- All humans have different values
I ask you a simple question: are all humans equally valuable, or do different humans have different value?
Again, do not use fetuses as an example, we are just trying to agree on an ethical model. What is needed for an object to have moral value. I say it needs to be human.
The third view is that there is a single characteristic which establishes this: personhood
All people have different degrees of personhood. In other words, all people have different values - the second category.
Are you proposing a relativistic view of moral value? You know that "personhood" is relative and also based on opinion rather than empirical facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Let's first get the definition cleared out: Human = member of the species homos sapiens [3]
We are not talking about fetuses at this point - we are talking about humans in general. We are trying to take a step back and look at all humans - and look at how we value them. The debate will become complicated later on for sure. But right now, the question is simple: how valuable is each human?
There are only two alternatives:
- All humans have an equal value by simply being humans - a dualistic view [1]
- All humans have different values based on individual traits - a relativistic view [2]
I claimed that a five-year-old is just as valuable as a seven-year-old. Yes, they are different, but they have the same value because both are humans.
You claim different humans have a different value. I would like you to elaborate on why you think so. Also, tell me which category you would put your position into.
[1]: since "are you a human" is a yes or no question
[2]: since "describe yourself" is not a yes or no question
[3]: we can debate the criteria for being a member later on
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Interesting theory.
But it has a fatal flaw: without time "succession" has no meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
Interpretation:
In other words, we can say that "if x is a human, x is entitled to human rights" (at least those that it needs to prosper)
We started without any moral axioms, but now, using the fact we agreed on, I have constructed one:
"All humans must be treated like they are inherently valuable"
Later, we will discuss implications and WHO are humans.
Any objections or new input?
Created:
Posted in:
Point 2
Question:
Do all humans have the same value, regardless of age, sex, ethnicity or any other such trait?
My claim:
Yes, all humans are entitled to the same rights. Morality is to be applied equally to everyone.
Justification:
1. The official human rights:
"Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination." https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/
2. A logical deduction:
P1: Today, I am entitled to human rights
P2: No difference exists between me today and me yesterday
C: I were entitled to human rights also yesterday
Extend line of though - and we ultimately conclude that my life is equally valuable throughout my entire life as a human
Since all adults have the same value as me, we can conclude that all humans - regardless of age - must necessarily have the same value
Conclusion:
All humans have the same value, regardless of age.
Elsewise, different adults would have different value, destroying the purpose of rights in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
@Theweakeredge
I assume point 1 has been accepted. We will assume it to be true until objected against in the future.
Created:
Posted in:
Each human has "equal value" to themselves.
Jews were not valueable to Hitler.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes I know all the arguments.
The fact of the matter is that religion cannot adequately provide a coherent moral view.
However, only religion can support universal human rights - because reasoning would always put different "Humans" in different regards.
Only if humans have a soul - or something - can they have equal value.
Sorry, but I am tired of the discussion. Feel free to read my private debate with some of my friends:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are the social norms of animals based on "religious axioms"?
I am growing tired of your questions.
With all respect sir - I wrote that UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS are based on religious axioms.
Proof:
- The rights declared by the USA first amendment are based on religion
- No other thing can defend said rights
- Therefore, only religion can support those rights
Feel free to prove how reason can defend universal human rights - or how religion cannot support said rights.
Created:
Posted in:
ALL CONCEPTS ARE COMPRISED OF AXIOMS.
Yes. But that destroys the weight of your claim.
Of course, human rights are not based on axioms but rather religion - based on religious axioms.
Created:
Posted in:
The concept of MORALITY is comprised of AXIOMS.
No. Just ask Theweakeredge and he can prove using non-axioms that morality is a thing.
Created:
Posted in:
As this discussion has proven, universal human rights have no basis in reason.
It was based on religion, like the American constitution:
"All men are created equall, and are endowned by ther creator some inalienable rights ..."
Therefore, religion is necessary for accepting universal rights.
So either we must all adhere to religion (at least their ethical claims) or we must remove universal human rights.
Created:
Posted in:
I will give time for everyone to comment on point 1 before we proceed. In that way, we can keep the argument structured and avoid repetition based on disagreement later.
For clarity regarding the terms:
Ethics: Principles of deciding what is right or wrong,
Moral law: The rules we construct using ethics, such as "do not kill"
Value: moral worth. If something has value, it is to be considered entitled to moral treatment - for example, adults are entitled to not be killed, they have moral value.
Created:
Posted in:
I claimed people believe point 1 because of religion. The point does not require Gods existence, just the belief in it.
Regardless, reason 2 should be enough to prove the claim anyways. I conclude that since reason 2 was not challenged that point 1 has been affirmed.
Any other objections?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Thanks for the question.
I will provide justification.
Point 1 - Killing adults is immoral
This claim is founded upon ethics. Different ethical systems generally fall into two main categories:
- Religion. For example, Christianity, which inspired human rights in the first place. [1]
- Philosophy. For example Kant, Utilitarianism and many others. Among them you also have one [2] or my "basic" version [3]
Details
[1]:
"all men are created equal - and are bestowed by their creator certain unalienable rights" This was written in a country where everyone was at least culturally Christian.
[2]:
P1: Humans value their own well-being
P2: If you desire others to respect your well-being you ought to respect theirs
Con: Therefore you ought to value well-being
[3]:
P1: Adults might want to kill each other
P2: Adults does not want to be killed
C: Adults writes a contract, where adults are prohibited from killing each other
Extend the line of though until we have a functional ethic's system. Which one does not matter since all must forbid the killing of adults.
Conclusion:
Point 1 has been justified beyond a reasonable doubt.
Any other objection?
Created:
Posted in:
First point.
I make a claim: "Adults have moral value - killing adults is morally wrong, regardless of which adult that is"
Everyone might have different reasons for believing so, but we should all do.
Any objections?
Created:
Posted in:
The other forum became messy, unstructured and it got out of hand.
This will be different. I want us to have a clean discussion.
Rules:
- We use short and precise posts
- We try to follow a linear pattern where we build slowly up
- We do not rush a lot of question instead we take each question slowly until we can kind of agree.
Are you in for it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
@fauxlaw
@Theweakeredge
You are granted free permission to participate - I feel like you are all serious and interested in debating fair and square.
Created:
Posted in:
This is a private forum - in order to make the discussion clean, structured and concise. Feel free to read through.
If you want to post on this forum then ask me for permission to join. Elsewise your post will be reported as distracting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I am tired of this entire debate.
It is becoming exhausting with all the points and opinions. I think I want to start over in a new, private forum.
There we can discuss without constant interruptions - and also start over with a fresh groundwork.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The point is that a person, as in, a human - does not have inherent value.
You are very honest.
Well, technically that's correct, but in reality, a person has value.
"god" give people value, society does, ethics and philosophy do. There is no way to avoid this.
Created:
Posted in:
Linking DNA and "human rights" seems to be a double-edged-sword.
In other words, you want human rights not to apply to all humans. You want peoples traits, not their humanity, define their moral worth.
Created:
Posted in:
We do not measure "time", we measure space and time and speed together and then calculating the results.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Time exists. That is the thing Intelligence does not believe in.
Created: