Whose Lives Have Value?

[Ecurb]

??

The description and explanation of property rights --- what they are --- I've given is pretty solidly supported historically and empirically. It is not controversial. That they "ought to be" something else is is the claim of their critics (e.g., that they "ought to be" based on need, rather than first possession).

Here in the U.S., property rights include an obligation to pay taxes, which are then used for purposes you claim are akin to slavery or robbery. You define property rights in such a way that the obligations (which are the law in most countries) are ignored. How (I wonder) is this "empirically supported"? The property laws of every country in the world do not support it.

Another example is your objection to my "100% chance" comment. A "chance" is a probability. Comparing a 1/52 probability to a 1/1 probability is reasonable -- wherefore the objection? Many of your "definitions" are slanted to promote your rhetorical positions. (It's not that big a deal -- don't worry about it.)

[Nick_A]

Steve

objective morality, religious, railing-against-wokeism, every-embryo-is-sacred and anthropocentric stuff.

You underestimate what respect for life is. Christianity has the commandment not to kill.

Evangelist Christians seem to only care about human life, and then only before it's born. Evangelist Christians strike me as caring considerably less about life than most people. Consider their deadly response to the pandemic; they cared not a bit who they killed with their political posturing about an issue that is intrinsically apolitical.

America used to a free country. My grandfather escaped from communism. Soon I may have to move back to Russia to escape communism.

Why do you believe all people are the same? Are all women the same? There are royal pains and also many wonderful women. Why isn't it the same with those you call Christian? Do you know what a Christian is? I doubt it yet for some reason they are all the same.

Meanwhile, once the babies are born, evangelical Christians seem perfectly happy to see them all die slow and painful deaths, if necessary, to ensure their government does not implement "left-wing policy" - policies that other western nations think of as simply a social safety net to help the vulnerable through hard times.

Some people do believe America is a free country. If that is true, the government cannot force a person to put untested materials into their body. So America is no longer free. A million illegal aliens are invading America. Many already have covid. The government doesn't care so the threat is exaggerated. So the bottom line is my body, my choice. It works with abortions so why not with vaccinations?

[Sy Borg]

Steve

objective morality, religious, railing-against-wokeism, every-embryo-is-sacred and anthropocentric stuff.

You underestimate what respect for life is. Christianity has the commandment not to kill.

Evangelist Christians seem to only care about human life, and then only before it's born. Evangelist Christians strike me as caring considerably less about life than most people. Consider their deadly response to the pandemic; they cared not a bit who they killed with their political posturing about an issue that is intrinsically apolitical.

America used to a free country. My grandfather escaped from communism. Soon I may have to move back to Russia to escape communism.

Why do you believe all people are the same? Are all women the same? There are royal pains and also many wonderful women. Why isn't it the same with those you call Christian? Do you know what a Christian is? I doubt it yet for some reason they are all the same.

Meanwhile, once the babies are born, evangelical Christians seem perfectly happy to see them all die slow and painful deaths, if necessary, to ensure their government does not implement "left-wing policy" - policies that other western nations think of as simply a social safety net to help the vulnerable through hard times.

Some people do believe America is a free country. If that is true, the government cannot force a person to put untested materials into their body. So America is no longer free. A million illegal aliens are invading America. Many already have covid. The government doesn't care so the threat is exaggerated. So the bottom line is my body, my choice. It works with abortions so why not with vaccinations?

The US is not a free country; there is no such thing, unless you count Somalia in the aftermath of the civil war. Governments make laws, and those laws are never universally accepted.

The government has a duty to ensure that hospitals, especially ICUs, are not swamped because some people want to make public health a political issue. I have had two Astrazeneca shots, as has almost everyone I know. I am not dead yet, touch wood.

[mystery]

Yes, might makes right.

Like Nick, you seem to be conflating "is" with "ought."

Not at all. That is indisputably the situation.

What of a world where the greatest financial benefits, political power and social acclaim went to those with the kindest hearts rather than those best at playing the games of business, politics or sociality (or are just lucky)?

Well, mainly because "kind hearts" don't produce much wealth, "playing the game of business" produces it all. There are no financial benefits if there is no wealth, and wealth accrues to those who produce it.

This is why things are the way they are. Humans, despite their vanities, remain a single event away from disaster (eg. nine meals from anarchy). So the focus remains on survival rather than thrival, the upshot of an astonishingly effective con job committed by the ruling classes on the masses that o entrenched their advantages.

Last century workers were persuaded to be patient with automation, dangling the prospect of a world where machines did all the work, allowing the average person unlimited leisure time. Instead, people were pushed into working ever longer hours at ever lower effective payment (once inflation is taken into account). Who did this to the workers? Those whose lives have greater value than ours, moguls.

the difference between the mogul and not mogul is only ability.

[LuckyR]

Steve

objective morality, religious, railing-against-wokeism, every-embryo-is-sacred and anthropocentric stuff.

You underestimate what respect for life is. Christianity has the commandment not to kill.

Evangelist Christians seem to only care about human life, and then only before it's born. Evangelist Christians strike me as caring considerably less about life than most people. Consider their deadly response to the pandemic; they cared not a bit who they killed with their political posturing about an issue that is intrinsically apolitical.

America used to a free country. My grandfather escaped from communism. Soon I may have to move back to Russia to escape communism.

Why do you believe all people are the same? Are all women the same? There are royal pains and also many wonderful women. Why isn't it the same with those you call Christian? Do you know what a Christian is? I doubt it yet for some reason they are all the same.

Meanwhile, once the babies are born, evangelical Christians seem perfectly happy to see them all die slow and painful deaths, if necessary, to ensure their government does not implement "left-wing policy" - policies that other western nations think of as simply a social safety net to help the vulnerable through hard times.

Some people do believe America is a free country. If that is true, the government cannot force a person to put untested materials into their body. So America is no longer free. A million illegal aliens are invading America. Many already have covid. The government doesn't care so the threat is exaggerated. So the bottom line is my body, my choice. It works with abortions so why not with vaccinations?

You obviously don't live in Texas.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, might makes right.

Like Nick, you seem to be conflating "is" with "ought."

Not at all. That is indisputably the situation.

What of a world where the greatest financial benefits, political power and social acclaim went to those with the kindest hearts rather than those best at playing the games of business, politics or sociality (or are just lucky)?

Well, mainly because "kind hearts" don't produce much wealth, "playing the game of business" produces it all. There are no financial benefits if there is no wealth, and wealth accrues to those who produce it.

This is why things are the way they are. Humans, despite their vanities, remain a single event away from disaster (eg. nine meals from anarchy). So the focus remains on survival rather than thrival, the upshot of an astonishingly effective con job committed by the ruling classes on the masses that o entrenched their advantages.

Last century workers were persuaded to be patient with automation, dangling the prospect of a world where machines did all the work, allowing the average person unlimited leisure time. Instead, people were pushed into working ever longer hours at ever lower effective payment (once inflation is taken into account). Who did this to the workers? Those whose lives have greater value than ours, moguls.

the difference between the mogul and not mogul is only ability.

... along with opportunity, inheritances, family networks, ruthlessness, aggression and resilience.

[Steve3007]

You underestimate what respect for life is. Christianity has the commandment not to kill. People take it superficially. The commandment is not to kill from the heart. Killing from our ego serves selfishness while killing to eat or to protect the quality of a species is normal for humanity tending the garden.

Have you ever read Hemmingway's "The Old Man and The Sea"? If not, I think you'd enjoy it. I'd say it's main themes are faith, what it means to respect life, and what it means to fit in as part of the system of life. They're played out through the old man's faith in "The Great DiMaggio" and his thoughts about and changing attitudes towards the pursuit and catching of the marlin.

[Steve3007]

It's interesting when people accidentally submit a new topic twice, as happens occasionally. Inevitably, and probably mostly randomly, one of the two sibling-topics gains critical mass before the other, and then the other is doomed. It's a bit like Facebook versus MySpace. Or VHS versus Betamax. I guess this sibling is Betamax.

[Steve3007]

Some people do believe America is a free country. If that is true, the government cannot force a person to put untested materials into their body.

I agree with Nick. I suspect most people would. The actual debate would be over what constitutes "force". I haven't kept up with the details of US news recently, but I'd be surprised if people are being literally forced to take Covid vaccines. I presume they're required to do so as a condition of going to particular places or doing particular jobs. In the case of jobs, the debate might then focus on what conditions an employer ought or ought not to be allowed to attach to working for him/her. For example, a believer in a complete free market in labour would probably say that the employer can specify any conditions he/she likes because the potential employee is free to decline and look for work in which the conditions of employment are more to his/her taste.

[GE Morton]

The US is not a free country; there is no such thing, unless you count Somalia in the aftermath of the civil war. Governments make laws, and those laws are never universally accepted.

Freedom and laws per se are not incompatible, though, of course, many current laws do infringe freedom.

[GE Morton]

I was not parrotting because I am not beholden to political ideologies. Rather, I root for underdogs, whereas you despise them for their weakness. Siding with the weak promotes balance.

YOU: "Who did this to the workers? Those whose lives have greater value than ours, moguls."

That is not "rooting for." It is an accusation. It is the standard Marxist "exploitation" dogma.

You parrot right wing and libertarian clichés all the time so you cannot validly accuse others of parrotting.

Which clichés would those be? A claim supported by evidence or valid argument is not a "cliché."

The tedium you felt was familiarity, because exploitation of workers by corporates has been the norm throughout history.

And you parrot the same false dogma again.

"To exploit" has two current meanings in English. Originally, the term just meant, "to use, to make use of." Yes, employers "exploit" workers in that sense. So do workers exploit employers, in the same sense. They make use of each other. But Marxism adds a moral component to that definition, so that it means "unfairly" or "unjustly," or even forcibly makes use of the workers.

EXPLOIT: transitive verb

1: to make productive use of : UTILIZE
exploiting your talents
exploit your opponent's weakness
2: to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage
exploiting migrant farm workers

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit

"Exploit" in the 2nd sense is false for virtually all workers in Western countries, and has been since the abolition of feudalism.

Similarly dull are your Stockholm Syndrome-esque assumptions that everyone must work to receive benefits at a time it's possible for most work to be automated.

What is possible is irrelevant. They must work to be entitled to any benefits, because others have no duty to supply them with any benefits resulting from investments of their own time, talents, and labor.

[GE Morton]

Here in the U.S., property rights include an obligation to pay taxes, which are then used for purposes you claim are akin to slavery or robbery. You define property rights in such a way that the obligations (which are the law in most countries) are ignored. How (I wonder) is this "empirically supported"? The property laws of every country in the world do not support it.

Well, first, you're confounding natural/common rights with legal rights. But, no, not even legal property rights "include an obligation to pay taxes." You may have such an obligation, but it does not derive from your property rights --- it derives from the benefits you receive from government services (which may include protection of those property rights).

It is empirically supported by every decision handed down every day regarding ownership of some item of property, whether in common law courts or informal contexts. When cops return recovered stolen property to its owners, or a court orders it to be returned, they don't inquire as to what taxes the owners may owe. That is irrelevant to ownership.

[Ecurb]

What is possible is irrelevant. They must work to be entitled to any benefits, because others have no duty to supply them with any benefits resulting from investments of their own time, talents, and labor.

This is another example of what I mentioned earlier. Whether others have such a "duty" is exactly the question at hand. Simply claiming they do not (based on your defionitions of "duty" and other words) begs the question.

Clearly -- based on the laws of most Western countries -- people DO have a legal duty to supply others with benefits.

[GE Morton]

This is another example of what I mentioned earlier. Whether others have such a "duty" is exactly the question at hand. Simply claiming they do not (based on your defionitions of "duty" and other words) begs the question.

Yes, indeed, that has been the question in these moral threads. I've been arguing that no such duty can be derived from a moral theory based on self-evident or empirically verifiable and morally neutral premises. But if you claim there is such a duty, please present the arguments for it (the burden of proof rests with he who holds the affirmative).

Clearly -- based on the laws of most Western countries -- people DO have a legal duty to supply others with benefits.

Laws can impose any duties some lawgiver with the power to enforce them fancies. Per se they have no moral significance.

[Ecurb]

Your theories about property are neither "self-evident" nor "empirically verifiable and morally neutral" , in my opinion. They are certainly NOT "empirically verifiable (per my last post) and they are NOT morally neutral. As I've stated before, I don't see the need to argue my position from "first principles". For one thing, I think morality is analogical as much as it is logical.

However, in the interests of debate, I'd suggest that some of the following principles might seem reasonbable.

1) It is the moral duty of citizens to follow the laws of the land unless they have a morally significant reason not to. Since they benefit from said laws, they have a duty to support even those from which they do NOT directly benefit. I do not consider greed a morally acceptable reason to avoid following the law.

2) The greatest good for the greatest number suggests that the minor inconvenience to rich people of paying taxes (minor because they can't spend all their money anyway) is trumped by the major benefit of providing a safety net for poor people.

3) Providing a safety net for poor people helps preserve a stable society, from which everyone benefits (especially the elite).

4) "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" suggests that we DO have a duty to help the poor, if (given that we might be poor) we would want others to help us.

Are these principles at least as "self-evident" and "empirically verifiable and morally neutral" as yours? Yes they are.