Deducing the responsibility to help others

[square4]

 

Hi philosophers,

 

I was thinking about the question if it is possible to logically deduce positive responsibilities from reality. I came up with the following reasoning:

• All humans are biologically similar

• Each human being has similar importance

• Each human being has similar needs in order to live

• It is of similar importance that the needs of each person is fulfilled, because the importance of each person is similar

• Human beings should have beliefs that correspond to reality, and act accordingly

• The vast majority of people regard it as very important that their basic needs are met

• Those people should regard it as important that the basic needs of others are met, and they should act accordingly

Compared to UPB, the argumentation above is based on shared preferences, while UPB is based on universal preferences.

The argumentation could applied to a specific case of giving to the poor:

Suppose there is a poor man that has lack of food. He knocks on the door of a rich man and asks for a gift of food. Suppose the rich man does not give it. Is this morally valid, invalid, or neutral? The rich man has eaten food regularly to keep himself alive. By doing so, he has affirmed the importance for humans to have access to sufficient food. The rich and poor man are biologically similar, so they have similar needs with regard to food. When refusing to give food to the poor man, the rich man is implicitly making the statement that it is not important that the poor man has enough food to eat. This is a contradictory attitude towards the necessity of food, inconsistent with reality, and therefore morally invalid. So it is his responsibility to give something to the poor man.

Do you see an error in the argumentation, or do you think it is valid?

Could it be that the lack of emphasis on responsibility to help others as a moral non-enforced rule, is one of the main reasons people are reluctant to accept a free society?

Looking forward to your comments.

[dsayers]

Since you asked for critique, I'm afraid your list breaks down at 2, as importance is subjective.The list can be summed up as people are not fundamentally different from one another.

Could it be that the lack of emphasis on responsibility to help others as a moral non-enforced rule, is one of the main reasons people are reluctant to accept a free society?

I don't think so. A free society helps everybody by leaving them alone. Without state regulation, the amount of wealth and disposable income would be incredible. Poverty simply wouldn't exist and the few people down on their luck would have a lot of people with a lot more disposable income HELPING them (not just giving stuff to them).The rich guy in the scenario you describe is not violating property of others, so his action could not be described as immoral. Your scenario ignores how the man because unable to eat without the charity of others in the first place. Which of the two guys are responsible for feeding the poor guy?

[alexqr1]

Hi philosophers,

 

I was thinking about the question if it is possible to logically deduce positive responsibilities from reality. I came up with the following reasoning:

[*]

 

[*]

All humans are biologically similar

[*]

Each human being has similar importance

[*]

Each human being has similar needs in order to live

[*]

It is of similar importance that the needs of each person is fulfilled, because the importance of each person is similar

[*]

Human beings should have beliefs that correspond to reality, and act accordingly

[*]

The vast majority of people regard it as very important that their basic needs are met

[*]

Those people should regard it as important that the basic needs of others are met, and they should act accordingly

1. Similar or equal? (I hope you understand the importance of the difference)

2. Importance to whom? what is your argument for that?

3. This point is obviously not true

4. The problem with #2 invalidates this

5. Where do you get the "should"? Is this your personal preference?

6. Irrelevant to the argument.

7. Again, how do you go from is to ought? What is your logical argument for this.

 

Sorry, It is not my intention to be mean, but your lack of argumentation and logical inconsistencies are too grand to even start a debate.

If you are truly interested in these topics then it would be great if you researched about ethics and meta-ethics to present a valid argument or at least one worth debating.

[tjx]

Since you asked for critique, I'm afraid your list breaks down at 2, as importance is subjective.The list can be summed up as people are not fundamentally different from one another.I don't think so. A free society helps everybody by leaving them alone. Without state regulation, the amount of wealth and disposable income would be incredible. Poverty simply wouldn't exist and the few people down on their luck would have a lot of people with a lot more disposable income HELPING them (not just giving stuff to them).The rich guy in the scenario you describe is not violating property of others, so his action could not be described as immoral. Your scenario ignores how the man because unable to eat without the charity of others in the first place. Which of the two guys are responsible for feeding the poor guy?

hi Desayers, my first day here and i'm just checking few threads and saw a couple of your answers. i have to say i completely agree with you. if your experience is like mine, then you probably find few people that agree with you.

 

i can't think of anything to add to what you wrote above. it was great.

[square4]

For those who want to engage in further debate, I will to try to further explain and elaborate my argumentation.

 

2. Importance to whom? what is your argument for that?

 

What I meant with importance was not subjective importance, like when someone says: That person is important to me, because he does this or that for me.What I meant was this: If someone is more important than another, than his needs and preferences may rightfully take precedence over the other one. UPB and NAP also assume similar importance of people, because they forbid forcibly imposing your preferences on someone else. Suppose two people want to take an apple from a tree at the same time, and they both say: "I am more important than you, so it is mine". They cannot be both right. At least one of them must be wrong in their view of relative importance.

 

3. This point is obviously not true

 

What I meant was: Each human being has similar needs that must to be satisfied in order to stay alive. Each human being needs food with certain properties, water, and oxygen.

 

5. Where do you get the "should"? Is this your personal preference?

 

It is my opinion that it is universally the right thing to do. If it is not important to have beliefs that correspond to reality, why bother to discuss reality? And if beliefs are not acted upon, what is the point of discussing them? It is difficult to engage in a debate without assuming these things have at least some importance.

 

7. Again, how do you go from is to ought? What is your logical argument for this.

 

It follows from proposition 4, 5, and 6. If they would regard is as unimportant, while at the same time considering their own basic needs as very important (prop.6), they would have an opinion that is inconsistent with reality (if prop.4 is true), which is something they should not do (prop.5).Actually, there is one other way out that I overlooked: that they would downscale the importance of their own basic needs, in order to match those of others. The corrected proposition is as follows:7. Those people should either A) no longer regard their basic needs as very important, or B) regard it as important that the basic needs of others are met, and they should act accordinglyHowever, I do not advocate option A), but would rather see an upscale of the needs of others.

 

If you are truly interested in these topics then it would be great if you researched about ethics and meta-ethics to present a valid argument or at least one worth debating.

 

Do you recommend specific books or authors?

 

[dsayers]

What I meant with importance was not subjective importance, like when someone says: That person is important to me, because he does this or that for me.

What I meant was this: If someone is more important than another, than his needs and preferences may rightfully take precedence over the other one.

 

I don't know if you realize it, but you just said, "not subjective importance, but subjective importance." Then you tried to use an explanation of what this "importance" would lead to as if it established it as an objective measure.

 

Do you recommend specific books or authors?

 

I think Stefan Molyneux's An Introduction to Philosophy series is a great place for anybody to start. It deals with a lot of thinking errors most people have as a result of heavy propaganda. It's long, but only because it's quite exhaustive.

[alexqr1]

OK I'll engage, why not?You did not address #1, if all humans are similar then they are not all equal. Besides focusing only on biology arbitrarily disregards other human aspects like psychology.

What I meant with importance was not subjective importance, like when someone says: That person is important to me, because he does this or that for me.What I meant was this: If someone is more important than another, than his needs and preferences may rightfully take precedence over the other one. UPB and NAP also assume similar importance of people, because they forbid forcibly imposing your preferences on someone else. Suppose two people want to take an apple from a tree at the same time, and they both say: "I am more important than you, so it is mine". They cannot be both right. At least one of them must be wrong in their view of relative importance.

Do you mean to say that in order for a theory of ethics to be valid it has to be applied the same to everyone, i.e. universal? 

What I meant was: Each human being has similar needs that must to be satisfied in order to stay alive. Each human being needs food with certain properties, water, and oxygen.

OK, agreed. 

It is my opinion that it is universally the right thing to do. If it is not important to have beliefs that correspond to reality, why bother to discuss reality? And if beliefs are not acted upon, what is the point of discussing them? It is difficult to engage in a debate without assuming these things have at least some importance.

But how do you go from your opinion to establishing a fact? It is also my opinion or personal preference to use reason and for my actions to be consistent with reason, but how do you universalize that into a principle for everyone. Is it immoral for someone to be irrational?So I guess you and I could engage in a debate because we both value these things. “Value” is the operative word here, value is subjective.

It follows from proposition 4, 5, and 6. If they would regard is as unimportant, while at the same time considering their own basic needs as very important (prop.6), they would have an opinion that is inconsistent with reality (if prop.4 is true), which is something they should not do (prop.5).Actually, there is one other way out that I overlooked: that they would downscale the importance of their own basic needs, in order to match those of others. The corrected proposition is as follows:7. Those people should either A) no longer regard their basic needs as very important, or B) regard it as important that the basic needs of others are met, and they should act accordinglyHowever, I do not advocate option A), but would rather see an upscale of the needs of others.

Then you would have to resolve the issue with proposition 5, also the original proposition 4 is not the same as the one you stated above, with which I agreed. Also, proposition 6 is irrelevant, how do we use “The vast majority of people regard it as very important that their basic needs are met” ? We have not established that what the vast majority of people regard as very important is moral. 

Do you recommend specific books or authors?

I think there is plenty of information online. I'd recommend researching the is/ought problem, and just research ethics, even on Wikipedia if you haven't. If you really like this stuff then you won't stop. The more you research, the more you want to know. That is what I am doing, I do most of my research online.I'd also recommend deontology and consequentionalism, but if you research ethics your momentum will certainly get you to that part.

[square4]

 

Your remarks have helped me see several weaknesses in my argumentation, so I appreciate your feedback. Here is my next attempt:

• Assumption: The way we assign value should be according to reason

• Assumption: We value that our own basic needs (food, water) are met

• All humans are biologically similar. Each human being has similar basic needs (food, water) that must be fulfilled to stay alive

• We should value that the basic needs are met of people that value such themselves, until a good reason to do otherwise appears, because there is no known difference between us and them at this point, and therefore no reason on which to base a difference in valuation

• Because people act to ensure that which they consider as valuable, if we really value that the needs of others are met, we will act accordingly

• When we know more about other people, then every difference that we make in our valuation of their needs, should be made according to reason

The conclusion depends on the assumption that the way we assign value should be according to reason. The following can be said in support of this assumption (although it is not a proof): Good reasons take account of reality, but valuing things differently without reason does not. Moral rules must be objective in order to be valid. If there are valid moral rules that say something about what we should value, they must therefore be grounded in reality. So when we assign value according to reason, we prevent the possibility of violating moral rules that might exist. Beside that, if those that do not prefer to value things according to reason, would be convinced to such a degree that they will say that the only way to reject the conclusion is to assign value not according to reason, then that would almost seem as if they agreed.

In the scenario of the rich and poor man, if the assumption is accepted that we should assign value according to reason, then the rich man, if he does not give to the poor man, should have a reason for that. The scenario does not give any details about the two persons, except a difference in wealth, but that alone does not seem to be a very good reason to warrant a difference in valuation.

[dsayers]

Now your list breaks down at step one. Value is not objective. I'm using my time right now to communicate to you by way of this forum. Does this mean this is how everybody should spend their time? I could make a reasoned argument for personal and societal benefits

 

For what it's worth, when you say next attempt, it comes across as you're more interested in making an idea work than you are in whether or not that idea conforms with the real world.

[alexqr1]

1. As you admit, this is an assumption so you would have to prove it as objective truth in order for anything that follows to have any value outside of your personal preference.

2. Same as #1. Also, value is subjective like dsayers said.

3. I do not like the wording but I will not disagree.

4. How do you arrive to this? Also, saying there is no know difference between us and them invalidates #3 when you said we are biologically similar, not equal, and again, biology is not all of who we are. About valuation, not only is it subjective, but I think it is fair to say that many people, and I can say it is true for myself , value themselves more that they do others and those dear to him/her more that they value those who are not.

5. Agreed, but there is a huge IF in that statement

6. I don't understand the relevance of this one.

 

“So when we assign value according to reason, we prevent the possibility of violating moral rules that might exist”

Do you mean to say that everyone should value everyone else the same?

[square4]

Now your list breaks down at step one. Value is not objective.

It is possible to let our valuation be grounded in some reason, and apply that reason objectively (consistently), right? I am not sure I understand this objection.

 

I'm using my time right now to communicate to you by way of this forum. Does this mean this is how everybody should spend their time? I could make a reasoned argument for personal and societal benefits

 

If you make a reasoned argument, that implies it is according to reason, so it is in conformity with the rule. The rule does not imply that everyone has to do the same thing. There are indeed many reasons to do otherwise.

 

1. As you admit, this is an assumption so you would have to prove it as objective truth in order for anything that follows to have any value outside of your personal preference.

 

 

It would still be relevant, because the first assumption could be modified as follows: If you want to assign value according to reason, then you should do the following to reach that goal. The other proposition could remain the same. And if someone does not want to assign value according to reason, then a reasoned debate about values is not possible anyway.

 

4. How do you arrive to this? Also, saying there is no know difference between us and them invalidates #3 when you said we are biologically similar, not equal, and again, biology is not all of who we are. About valuation, not only is it subjective, but I think it is fair to say that many people, and I can say it is true for myself , value themselves more that they do others and those dear to him/her more that they value those who are not.

 

 

Indeed, humans are not equal but similar, but unless you know more about the other person, or about yourself compared to the general population, you cannot know or guess if the needs of that other person warrants more or less importance than your own, so why assume less? A possible valid reason that might justify a lower valuation could be precaution, because you don't know the other person yet (it might be a thief or so). But the mere fact that the other person is not part of your family, would not be an objective reason, because the other person is part of some family. It is normal that some people will be more personally valuable to us than others, in the sense of personal benefit, appreciation, and attachment. However, at the same time, we might realize that there are other people, not fundamentally different, that are similarly precious to others, and take that into account in our final valuation. This might sound contradictory, but I hope you are understand the distinction I am making.

 

Do you mean to say that everyone should value everyone else the same?

 

 

Not necessarily, but that every difference in valuation should be grounded in some reason that is applied objectively to everyone.

[alexqr1]

Not necessarily, but that every difference in valuation should be grounded in some reason that is applied objectively to everyone.

I find many wholes in other things you said, but this is specially important.Are you implying that value can be somehow objective?

[square4]

Are you implying that value can be somehow objective?

 

Values are subjectively assigned by people, but I would say they have a relation to objective reality.

 

I would be interested to know how you think then any objective moral rules can deduced. Why is objectivity a requirement for a moral rule? Or is objectivity of moral rules only our shared personal preference? And if objectivity should be applied to moral rules, why not to values? Are moral rules not based on the idea that what they require is universally preferable?

[Andrew79]

In other words, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

[dsayers]

I would be interested to know how you think then any objective moral rules can deduced.

 

You own yourself and people are not fundamentally different from one another. Therefor everybody owns themselves. If everybody owns themselves, then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. I think your confusion comes from religion and statism's (another religion) misuse of the word to pass off their decrees as objective, absolute, and immune to scrutiny.

 

The definition of value includes the fact that it is an opinion.

[square4]

Are you implying that value can be somehow objective?

 

 

To clarify the issue, it is useful to have a definition of objectivity. Something is objective if:

Definition 1. It exists independent from a mind

Definition 2. It is without bias

My statement that “every difference in valuation should be grounded in some reason that is applied objectively to everyone”, was based on the second definition of objectivity: to be without bias. We can use our rational mind to prevent bias in our values to a reasonable degree. I don't think that anything in my argumentation (the revised one) depends on the assumption that values can exist independent from a mind.

If the idea of unbiased values (to a reasonable degree) is controversial, I submit the following argumentation: Moral rules, in order to be valid, must be objective, that is, without bias. If a moral rule is valid, then all people should follow that rule. Because people do that which they, on the whole, prefer, this implies they should prefer conformance to the rule. Or in other words, conformance to the moral rule is universally preferable behavior (UPB). Because a preference is a valuation of one option above another, this means that our values should conform to an unbiased rule. So if there is any morality at all, then our values not only can, but should be objective in some respect (again objective in the sense of unbiased).

A similar argumentation is possible in support of the idea that something can be valuable objectively in the sense of independent from a mind. Suppose everyone would disagree with some valid moral rule, this would not invalidate the rule. This means that the moral rule is independent from a human mind that affirms it, and therefore objective in the fullest sense. If a moral rule is valid, then people should follow the rule, which means they should prefer conformance to the rule. But this means that conformance to moral rules is a objectively valuable (not valued, but valuable). If something is objectively valuable, then it can be said to have value objectively.

[dsayers]

Pardon my anecdote as I feel I've already made an unbiased argument against the concept of objective value. I'm laid up here at the moment, so I can't help but think of its relevance.

 

Monday afternoon, I sustained a pinched nerve or muscle in my back while shoveling snow. I'm left as such that if I turn my body or even move my arms in a certain way, muscles tense up in my back that prevent me from breathing. This has happened to me several times in my life. The first was a work-sustained injury where I placed immense pressure on my spine from the front. Subsequent occurrences have been from being bloated or otherwise "stuffed." Today (I work 3rds, so this is the same day to me) was no exception. This left me in a state where eating would actually exacerbate my condition despite nourishment being necessary to survive. Right now, food is actually anti-valuable to me.

 

I think you did a fantastic job of clarifying your position and even making an argument for "objective value." The fact remains that even within the same mind, the value of various things fluctuates constantly based on any number of factors.

 

On a side note that might not even be relevant, there is a difference between preference and preferable.

[Iconoclastic]

What's missing in the first post is: the means by which the rich man earned his food.

 

Assuming the rich man worked for it and earned it. The rich man acknowledges the topic starters premise that it's a biological necessity. Hence he works to have the food. He did what is necessary to make sure he has food. The rich man does not have a moral obligation to provide food. He can choose to give if he wants. He should never be forced.

 

What would be "morally valid" is to acknowledge that he earned it and has the right to choose whether or not do donate food.

 

So yes: there is an error in argumentation.