25 replies to this topic

[Darkademic]

If this is the case then what is the relation between my rights and another person's? If immorality is based solely on violations of my rights, i.e violations of my potential to benefit whilst having freedom action, then it is, by your account, in no way immoral to violate another person's potential to benefit as long as they have freedom of action. In this situation I could do anything I wanted, such exploit another person, and as long as it didn't limit my potential to benefit and I had freedom of action, that act would not be immoral. I don't find this account of morality to be adequate, it seems intuitive to me that an act which hurts of exploits another, whether physically or mentally, should be considered immoral. I feel that any being that has the capacity to suffer, and therefore has an interest not to suffer, has a right to have this interested respected. Therefore, any act that does not respect this right is a violation of this right and to be considered immoral.

Rights are an extension of morality, but morality is much broader as it also applies to actions that only affect yourself.

Something isn't immoral because it violates a person's rights, and something which is immoral doesn't necessarily violate anyone's rights.

In order to define morality you have to first ask what the purpose of morality actually is, and why human beings need it.

[ReaverMage]

How could suicide be considered immoral? Why shouldn't someone be able to end their own life?

Does it violate anyone else's rights? No. Problem?

(Edit: Ofc excluding religious arguments)

[Tuskz]

morality is much broader as it also applies to actions that only affect yourself.

I don't think that suicide fits in to the category of "only affect yourself" as it has obvious implications for people extraneous to you; emotional strain, financial dependecy etc. Therefore it can be put in the cateogory of "affects others also". Both categories, by your definition, are within the scope of morality whilst 'rights' are only concerned with the latter. If this is the case then suicide must have some kind of moral standing, it can't be non-moral because the category it fits of "affects others also", which is within the scope of morality. This category is also within the scope of rights. Suicide therefore concerns both rights and morality.

Suicide has a 'morality value', whether it be moral or immoral. (It could also have a 'morality value' of 0; being neither moral nor immoral although it is still considerable from a moral standpoint). It is therefore possible for us to speculate as to whether morality is moral or immoral. As it fits the category of "affects others also" we can find this morality value by examining the effects that suicide has on others. I see these effects as negative; emotional trauma, loss of a family member, loss of income to the family household. The only example I can think of in which suicide benefits another person would be if they wanted you dead. This is very unlikely and it is debatable as to whether the fulfilment of this wish would itself be moral. So, we can conclude that the effect that suicide has on other people is, to a great extent, negative.

If we wish to continue arguing that suicide is 'moral' (or not immoral) there must be some kind of moral value that outweighs this negativity. As well as affecting other people, suicide affects oneself. We must therefore ask what positive effects suicide could have on oneself. An answer to this question could be that it ends ones life when one no longer wants to live. We can then use this answer to argue that the positivity of the effects that suicide has upon the self outweigh the negativity of the effects it has upon other people.

I do not think I could find this argument convincing. I do not think that the benefit of the fulfilment of the (justified) desire to ends one's own life could outweigh the negative effects that it would have on other people. To consider the value of one person's satisfaction over the dissatisfaction of many as beneficial, or moral, is wrong, even if one person's satisfaction outweighs the other peoples. I believe it is wrong because one cannot, justifiably, decide to benefit oneself at the expense of harming others, regardless of the consequences. One does not have the right to make this decision as it affects the lives of others without their consent. This is an unjustified attack on the autonomy of individuals; their ability to decide their actions and control their own lives. To make this decision (to commit suicide) is to violate the autonomy of other people by letting actions which are solely for your benefit affect their lives without their consent. For this reason suicide is immoral.

[ZeCooL]

I would love to have an input on this subject, However I may sound like a cynical teacher, if I sound this way to you, please, please, note that it is not my intention to be so, It may just be needed to make several points more clear.

One of the major flaws in the usual debates amongst the common people is that they tend to base their arguments solely on their individual thinking ability, wouldn't you find a plumber who is trying to fix your pipes with his bare hands rather inefficient? wouldn't you find a doctor who has no access to equipment or medicine unprofessional?, then why is that when it comes to debating we ignore most of the past achievments made by our great thinkers and philosophers and constantly try to reinvent the wheel?
I am not trying to imply that one is incapable of making conclusions unless he has great philosophical knowledge, However it is a fact that unless you posses such knowledge and try to base at least a several basic points on it you will never make one hundredth maybe one thousandth of the process that has already been achieved, let alone contributing anything new to it with your individual thinking ability.

So I would love to encourage people to read up a bit on Morality, and see that it is by no means as solid or as simple as one would think, Nietzsche would describe our morality and society as a web of concept we have built like a spider, each concept relative to the other, so complicated over time that it is by no means dependent on any truth or untruth. Yet Moore's explanation should make morality a rather solid concept for one who believes in the values of outcome of actions. Russel would tangle you up with something like this:
"Kate: ‘I don't want to! Why should I?’
Russell: ‘Because more people will be happier if you do than if you don't.’
Kate: ‘So what? I don't care about other people.’
Russell: ‘You should.’
Kate: ‘But why?’
Russell: ‘Because more people will be happier if you do than if you don't.’
(RoE: 16, Tait (1975): 185.)"

My point is that one has to get their head around Morality as a concept depending on their goals and values. Is your society worth anything to you? Do you value your friends and family more than yourself? Are you the centre of the universe? Does your actions and their outcomes even matter?
These are the questions one has to answer using their own individual thinking ability, BUT not before having a good knowledge on the works of past thinkers.

When you do, a concept as complicated as suicide can be very simple to you.
Remember this from me though "One has not fulfilled their life yet unless they had seriously and intelligently thought about the idea of not living it".

[Darkademic]

So I would love to encourage people to read up a bit on Morality,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've read the work of a wide range of philosophers, including Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel, Hume, Aristotle and others. I've also written a great deal on various philosophical topics.

I'm an Objectivist, so my views are heavily influenced by Ayn Rand.

The problem with all other philosophers (at least those who are regarded as "big names" in philosophy, such as those I listed above) is that they generally base morality on extremely shaky premises. Utilitarianism, for example, simply asserts that "the good" is the greatest happiness for the greatest number, without explaining why.

They fail to ask the questions "what is morality?" and "why does man need it?"

I do not think I could find this argument convincing. I do not think that the benefit of the fulfilment of the (justified) desire to ends one's own life could outweigh the negative effects that it would have on other people. To consider the value of one person's satisfaction over the dissatisfaction of many as beneficial, or moral, is wrong, even if one person's satisfaction outweighs the other peoples.

So, before I can respond to this you'll have to establish what you think morality is, and why human beings need it.

However, I would ask you to apply the same standards to other situations. For example, is it immoral for a business owner to close their business because some people will lose their jobs? Is it immoral for a man to divorce his wife because it would make the wife unhappy? If the feelings and/or benefit of other people is on equal terms with those of one's self, then these things are immoral.

[ZeCooL]

Okay I'll try to explain the Objectivist view of ethics as simply as possible, and as best I can.

Morality is a code of action. It is a guide which we use to decide how to live - what we should do and why. Why do we need morality/ethics? Because human beings, unlike animals, can't act automatically or by instinct. Human beings need to learn and find out how to survive.

Human beings have a specific nature; they need certain things to survive. The fundamental tool for survival is reason, the ability to think. Using reason, we can figure out what actions need to be taken to stay alive for longer, more easily and more efficiently, and as a result, more happily.

Now, life is something which each individual has. Society doesn't have life. Therefore a moral code is only applicable to the individual. An individual has to take a specific course of action to stay alive. Since life MUST be the standard of value (since without life one cannot have any other values), then that which promotes one's life is the good, and that which destroys it is the evil.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've read the work of a wide range of philosophers, including Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel, Hume, Aristotle and others. I've also written a great deal on various philosophical topics.

I'm an Objectivist, so my views are heavily influenced by Ayn Rand.

That is why I encouraged people to read and expand their view before deciding, not that anyone can hope to come to any true answer, but to probably compare views and thoughts objectively and see the contradictory points in them.

For example I find the views of Rand not very dependable. As he (and you here) base your morality and much of your philosophy on life and survival. That the "will to survive" or "survival" is in nature of living things and humans specifically. However those views fail to explain why people build empires,risk their lives in wars, why even animals risk their lives and their survival to gain advantages in many occasions. thus Survival or the will to it cannot be taken as granted or fundamental to living creatures.

Nietzsche for example describes this behaviour as the "Will to Power". That this might be the driving source to many actions, even the "Will to Survive" is just a means to "Power". (note that I write Power with "P").

Thus I think basing one's values and arguments on "Survival-ism" may not be very steady ground to stand on.

[Darkademic]

That is why I encouraged people to read and expand their view before deciding, not that anyone can hope to come to any true answer, but to probably compare views and thoughts objectively and see the contradictory points in them.
For example I find the views of Rand not very dependable. As he (and you here) base your morality and much of your philosophy on life and survival. That the "will to survive" or "survival" is in nature of living things and humans specifically. However those views fail to explain why people build empires,risk their lives in wars, why even animals risk their lives and their survival to gain advantages in many occasions. thus Survival or the will to it cannot be taken as granted or fundamental to living creatures.
Nietzsche for example describes this behaviour as the "Will to Power". That this might be the driving source to many actions, even the "Will to Survive" is just a means to "Power". (note that I write Power with "P").

Thus I think basing one's values and arguments on "Survival-ism" may not be very steady ground to stand on.

Well the purpose of philosophy is not to explain a person's actions, it's to guide them.

Objectivism holds one's life as the standard of value, and it's actually logically inescapable, as all actions and values first require one to be alive. Therefore, actions and values which are detrimental to one's own life are contradictory (and immoral).

The "Will to Power" is quite different in that it does not imply or require a logical chain of reasoning based on man's nature - it is merely based on feelings or arbitrary whim.

And yeah I don't expect to convince anyone who already has strong views - I've debated across the Internet long enough to know that people rarely change their minds in forum debates, but it's still interesting to discuss!

[Eridan]

I'm going to deal with several points in this thread seperately over time lest my wall of text crit for over 9000. (btw What happens on the Philosophy forums stays on the Philosophy forums right?)

but if it was a moral option it would be legal, or at least not seen as a taboo, in this society.

Legality and morality have no causal connection.

Murder is immoral. Murder is illegal. Killing is generally illegal because of pratical reasons not moral ones. Its legal when it suits those in charge (Police, War, death penalty etc). The fact that peoples practical desire not to get killed and most moderns people's mortality closely over lap is not directly related.

Take slavery it has often be legal but never moral.

Take modern copyright law, legal but not moral.

Also suicide has been legal for decades, does that make it moral now and immoral 100 years ago?

Laws are generally made by and for the elites which ever society you are in. Sometimes they are fuedal, sometime religious, sometimes a politcal extreme, sometimes corporate interests, sometimes dictators. Do not let anyone ever tell you there law is the way it is because of anything can be considered moral in the positive sense. (Religious government can confuse the previous statement by doing very immoral things in the name of religous morals).

(I'll stop there are hopefully we can agree that one and move back to the subject. I do want to get back round to the point as I have a question to ask some one(s) of a religous mindset to see if I am imagining their point of view with some accuracy)

[Lycan]

I'm not being rude or ignorant or anything so please forgive me if I am.... but I haven't read the posts before mine, I will be doing so in the future. This topic is so big, it warrants everyone getting stuck in with mini essays (so if I do say something that someone has already said, again, I apologise).

Anyway.... I am a deeply religious person. My faith determines every major aspect of my life, from what I can/ can't eat or drink, to smoking, drinking, etc.
Picture painted. Good.

I had.... a decision? maybe? where I was like... this is it (about a week ago... lol). And I was gonna go. I love life, and am NOT an emo, or moan a lot, etc., but I just hit a time where everything was wrong and (for a second) I looked at an easy way out. Being quite intelligent (without sounding boastful), I had quite a few ways of doing it, without failing... lol.

But there was something I had learned from religious studies (not RE at school! real stuff, at home), which basically stated that if you were to commit suicide, you are taking your own life before GOD wanted you to, and in return, you relive that death at the same time everyday until judgement day (literally). This is what I believe, and this (and the fear of this alone), was enough to stop me. Oh yeah, I also wouldn't be able to play GW2 (I swear I'm not joking, I really DID think about that... quite seriously. Maybe go after I get bored of the game? lol).

anyway.. is it moral? I think it depends on the situation. For example euthanasia; it is assisted suicide. If you really are in so much pain, or are basically dead, and a machine is making your heart beat etc. then I would argue that if the bed space could save another person's life, or the money/ facilities spent on you could help another etc. then yes, you should be able to ask for it. But it should not be abused. I think this is the line that people will cross, with people possibly asking for it too quickly, or even people forging euthanasia forms to get access to money etc. You can make the decision to take your own life, but have no right to take another's without permission. If your "prolonging of life", causes a few people with good chances to deteriorate, then it's moral and right to do so. But that's my opinion.

Was it moral in my case? No. Never. It was weak, petty and a potential waste of a good life. It affects far more people than yourself, and the repercussions can have very long lasting effects. If things are bad, you need to find and hold onto the thing that isn't. for example GW2, or the fact that you want a kid someday, or that you haven't seen such and such a place/ person in a long time etc.

No one is so weak in my opinion that they cannot face life's challenges. Anything is better than ending it. How many times have you had an argument which at the time you thought was the most important thing in the world, and that you were right and the other person was such a so and so for not seeing it your way?. But later on you think... I was such an idiot, I should have just agreed with her/ him and cooled off. Now imagine there is no "resume from last checkpoint" button. Nothing is worth that in my opinion.

I know I may have hovered past the "that's not the question" Line, but I can relate to this. It was something I've never thought of doing before, or will ever think again. I hope it gives people a bit of a fight inside them to do something (if anything) to help themselves and not take the easy way out like I tried to.

Btw, I'm on top of the world now!! the problems still persist, but they're shadows of a bad dream now...

so happy days!!!!!!!!!

[Tuskz]

Take slavery it has often be legal but never moral

I disagree, I think at the time when slavery was seen as commonplace, such as in Ancient Greece or colonial Great Britain it was not seen as immoral.
I am not suggesting that legality = morality as I do not believe it does. However, there are certain connections between the conceptions of each that people have. For example, some people see certain things as immoral, such as cannabis, simply because they are illegal.
However, I do that when slavery was in 'full swing' (before the movement for abolition came to people's minds) it was morally acceptable. I don't wish to turn this discussion into a matter of debate over the specific views as to the morality of slavery of people at the time, although Aristotle thought that some people were naturally subordinate. Nor do I wish to express the sentiment that the slavery of yesteryear is morally acceptable now because it might have been legal and moral then.
The suggestion that slavery was immoral in the past because it is now immoral is a suggestion of moral objectivity. This would propose that if something is immoral it was immoral in the past, is now, and will be in the future. If morality is objective then this suggests some metaphyically existent moral values that are independent of the human beings that partake in them. I think that morality is subjective and its existence is within the mind of the person considering it, whether his mind be made up of influences internal or external to him. If this is the case, what is seen as moral now was not, and will not, always be seen as moral. To conclude, just because slavery is immoral now doesn't mean it was and always will be immoral; to suggest it does requires moral objectivity which I believe is not adequately defensible Also, there is some evidence that slavery was seen as moral when in 'full swing'.