By the way, feel free to absolutely stun me by actually answering the question: "Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?"
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It's a delusion to think I'll stun anyone, but I'll give it a shot. Imagine a free society where person A wants to do something but fears it might hurt person B. Is it moral for him to do it without consulting B?
Extrapolating on that, the exchange of information between individuals allow them to take actions that would be immoral to individuals alone, either because they are unsure of the outcomes or not completely confident on the principles behind the action.
Not a bad shot, but I'll explain how you miss the mark...
We can concretize your scenario fairly easily: let's say person A is hungry and person B has an apple. Person A would like to eat the apple. If person A simply eats the apple, then it is an act of theft and is immoral. But if A asks B if he can eat the apple, and B consents, then it is no longer theft.
The difference between whether the act is moral or immoral is consent. (You could substitute lots of stuff in the scenario, by the way, including sex and even death.) So the exchange of information is required not to make an immoral act a moral one, but to determine whether the act itself is moral or immoral.
If B says "no, that's my apple and I want to eat it myself", then for A to eat it would be immoral. A cannot delegate to person C the right to take the apple without B's consent, because A didn't have the moral right to do that in the first place.
The question itself doesn't pertain to a right like self-defense. It pertains primarily to taxes and regulations. Since you have no right to steal, you can't delegate to someone the right to steal on your behalf.
But your response does a great job of honing in on the difference between moral and immoral acts: consent. The exchange of information is necessary to establish consent and therefore the morality of given actions.
And in case anyone wants to walk down the road of ethics in emergencies, there are scenarios where consent can be obtained after the fact. Like pushing someone out of the way of a speeding bus -- an act which is rescue with consent, but assault without it.
You're a wordsmith -followed
Thanks for a great answer! But I'll try a second punch, if you don't mind.
Somewhere on this forum I argued that maybe we make judgment calls based on both principles (deontological ethics) and consequences (consequentialism). I know the author is concerned with principles alone, but our brain probably weighs the two, in ways I don't claim to know, to get to an answer of right or wrong.
That said, I throw in the towel on deontological grounds. There is no way to delegate a moral right that you don't have. (Well, unless it was thought in advance that the collective had the moral right to act, but that is another discussion.)
But in terms of consequentialism, things change. It might not be moral for one person to act because he feels he cannot adequately predict the consequences. But if enough people join in, their prediction might be good enough for them to act.
I'll illustrate. Imagine your neighbor's wacky religion makes him treat his kid in a way you disapprove. Questions about his freedom of religion against his kid's rights will pop up on your head and you might find the problem too tough. You might then default to not intervene. (After all, maybe the kid can survive without a blood transfusion.)
A solution to this problem lies in asking for help from the community, so the issue is assessed by more people and more solutions arise. This is not exactly delegating a moral right you don't have - it's more like consolidating a moral imperative - but its end result is the same: the collective may morally act when the individual can't.
I'd just point out the the same principle acts in reverse, in what's called diffusion of responsability. In this phenomenon, people don't act because they believe it is society's responsibility to act. The existence of such a phenomenon is a hint that sometimes it might be moral for the collective to act, even if no individual could.
Moral right? Who decides these morals? What do you think I don't have the right to do? You ignored my question earlier, why do you think I don't have the right to protect myself? Or if you do, why do you think I can't delegate that right?
Natural rights. Behaviours which can be universally shared between all individuals. For example: Murder, theft, assault, and rape are all examples of property violations which we can not prefer for ourselves.
You do have a right to protect yourself, if that drunken driver was gunning straight for you then yes you can make a case for either yourself or another individual to shoot the driver in defense. However you made no claims of where the driver was heading, just that he was drunk. It doesn't matter whether there's a man in a blue costume or not, do YOU in that scenario have the right to shoot/stop the driver, and can you make a case for your defense upon doing so.
"...are you assuming that people universally do not want to be murdered, so there's a right not to be murdered?"
In order for it to be murder, the person must refuse consent. If the person consents to be deprived of life, that's assisted suicide. The denial of consent is built in to the definition of the action.
What do you mean by "behaviors which can be universally shared?" That is, are you assuming that people universally do not want to be murdered, so there's a right not to be murdered? If so, isn't that essentially a mandate due to popular opinion?
By the way do you realize that in certain cultures people considered being sacrificed to be an honor? And in other cultures there is no concept of ownership at all, so property rights and the right not to be killed are, in fact, not universal. These things are derived from majority consensus in our culture, in exactly the same way government authority is.
That these behaviors can be practiced by everyone simultaneously without contradiction. Not that they ARE, but that they CAN BE without inconsistency.
"Who decides these morals" is begging the question. It presumes that morality is subjective. If it were, it would be meaningless, as you attempt to point out. So instead of using that as a reason to accept the theft, assault, rape, and murder of human beings in the name of the State, perhaps instead use it as motivation to learn whether or not morality even IS subjective.
It is objectively true that theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally consistent. The person engaging in these acts is using their property to deprive another of their property. In other words, the perpetrator is telling you with their very actions that their action is wrong.
I'd actually argue he's begging the question. He's claimed we don't have the moral right to delegate things he claims we don't have the moral right to do. Circular reasoning at it's finest. No wonder no one can effectively argue his question, it's logical garbage at the outset!
I have no idea what you mean by that. As best I can tell you've just stated the equivalent of 2 = 2.
Tell that to a culture which doesn't even believe in property. You're making huge assumptions based on... what, exactly? Why do you believe your property is yours? A few thousand years ago your "property" could actually have been a kings.
So you claim morality is objective, and we're supposed to believe that government is immoral because of your specific moral claims... but you haven't shown that morality is objective, nor that your specific moral claims are objectively correct.
answering telos
The morals are decided by what is logically consistent. If you decide murder is moral then you are saying that another person can exert his will upon (kill you) you but you can't exert your will upon him (not be killed) (assuming you want to live, if you don't, then it isn't murder, it's assisted suicide). So it's logically inconsistent, like saying 2=3, which we all know to be false simply my empirical facts.
The case for property rights is this: you own yourself (if you need logical proof on this go search it, I just assumed it as true). When you are born you aren't born into slavery. No one can take your arm, eat it, and you'll be ok with it. So by owning yourself you can do whatever you want to do with your time, as long as it isn't causing harm to anyone (you aren't murdering anyone, raping anyone, etc). So if you decide to spend 8 hours to get money and then you buy property with that money, no one should be able to steal any part of that property or the money you worked for, unless you consent to that (social contract doesn't involve consent).
A culture without personal property would be sustainable only insofar as it would be moral, ie the people would have to CONSENT to give their property away. So if I work for 8h and you work for 4h I would have to freely give my 2h of work to you (in the form of currency or food or whatever). But this, as you know, has too many ways to go wrong... that's why communism doesn't work.
So there, I just proved morality is objective despite cultural beliefs (which aren't logical - if you are going to use tribes to base your arguments remember that we used to burn witches, commit infanticide, etc. the only logical argument that can be sustained is that an immoral action (murder) can become moral once you have consent (murder -> euthanasia, rape -> sex, theft -> giving stuff, violence -> martial arts, etc...)