Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 11:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 6:00 am
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 11:06 am
That opinion is not more valid than the converse.
Let me show you where you are going wrong.
It is obviously not an opinion as defined and as accepted generally.
You have stated that breathing is necessary for life in humans. Actually you can live without breathing, with a machine, but I'll let that go for purposes of simplicity. No one disagrees the truth of this; that at least oxygen is necessary for the persistence of a living human life.
So far so good.
That is shifting the goal post.
If you are insistent I would say "the need for oxygen" is critical or else it is death.
There are loads of moral facts and oughts other than the need to breathe.
You seem to continue to say that breathing is an objective right, or words to that effect.
Is this okay so far?
I derived the moral fact from the Moral Framework based on empirical facts, i.e.
"No human ought to prevent other humans from breathing till they die"
Let's see if you are kidding yourself and ignoring some issues here. Let's start simply by answering the questions without comment.
Can you answer these questions, yes or no, please!
1) Is it possible that the continuation of a life is a good idea, from the perspective of an individual?
I had argued,
'
ALL humans are "programmed" to survive at all costs till the inevitable.'
The "purpose" is to ensure the preservation of the human species.
This is supported by empirical facts.
Therefore the "individual" human will survive at all cost till the inevitable naturally as "programmed".
As such is not not a matter of 'a good idea' but that the "individual" of the human species is naturally programmed to survive at all costs till the inevitable.
However nature is never perfect and in general the Normal Distribution principles [Bell Curve] patterns are
a reality with all human variables.
Thus those individuals in the appx 2 sigma percentile [5%] may be the exceptions [suicidal, risk takers etc.] and may not strive to survive at all costs.
Thus the fact remains,
'
ALL humans are "programmed" to survive at all costs till the inevitable.'
Therefore the "individual" human will strive to survive at all cost till the inevitable, naturally as "programmed"
2) Is it possible that the continuation of a particular life is a good is a good idea, from the perspective of society?
Same argument as above.
'
ALL humans are "programmed" to survive at all costs till the inevitable.'
Therefore the "individual" human will strive to survive at all cost till the inevitable, naturally as "programmed" as a society to enhance a greater chance of survival.
There will be exceptions.
3) Is it possible that the preservation of life of an infinite number of humans on a planet with finite resources a good idea?
The "purpose" is to ensure the preservation of the human species.
To ensure the above,
This is effected,
'
ALL humans are "programmed" to survive at all costs till the inevitable.'
Therefore the "individual" human will strive to survive at all cost till the inevitable, naturally as "programmed" as a society to enhance a greater chance of survival.
There will be exceptions.
In addition to the above, and to ensure the preservation of the species,
Human beings are also programmed with the inherent faculty of philosophy, morality, intelligence, rationality, wisdom, continual improvement program and the propensity to
optimize within constraints.
The objective of humanity in the
longer run will be to optimize the objective laws of morality with whatever known constraints.
In the longer run, the average or the majority of individuals will have developed higher competency in their
impulse controls with understanding of
species-teamwork, optimality & fool proof approaches and will not fuck & produce like rabbits as with the current population explosion.
4) If you think that breathing is an objective moral right, who has to responsibility to guarantee that right and provide the resources where necessary to given each and every human the means to breath?
Within the Moral Framework, there will be a need to increase the average Moral Quotient of say 100 to 1,000 within the next 50 to 100 years.
Then individual will self-legislate as team-humanity and co-operate for the greater good.
You know this is crazy, don't you?
Your question is crazy and based on lack of critical thinking.
Note there are already empirical evidences of a trend of the increase in the Moral Quotient of the average human.
Example, albeit not pure morality, every sovereign nations at present has legal laws that made murder a serious crimes and punishments for various crimes.
The UN had introduced the Convention on Slavery and more than 90% of sovereign nations has recognized and ratified the Slavery Convention.
Now if the Moral Quotient of the average human was 100 during 50,000 years ago, the MQ at present, relative to 50,000 years ago, would be 1000 or more.
Thus if there is a natural increase in MQ over the 50,000 years ago, humanity with the current exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, would be able to
expedite the rate through effective and foolproof methods.
So it is not a crazy idea as evident by past empirical evidences.
5) It is necessary for a potato eelworm to have potatoes to live. Does a potato eelworm have the right to potatoes?
Straw man!
Note Hume's example of Patricide,
i.e. it is immoral for a new plant from seed of tree-X to grow so tall and big nearby that it monopolized all the sunlight and in the end kill its father tree-X?
Hume is way off with morality in this example.
Point is, DNA/RNA wise all humans are programmed with a faculty of morality and ethics and neuroscientists and neuropsychologists and others are slowly discovering this faculty within the brain of human and to some minute degree in primates.
Lets' have more of the sort of the above discussions instead of intellectual violence.
A question cannot be a strawman since it does not imply an argument.
You have not begun to answer this question. You do not even seem to understand it. If a human objectively deserves air, then why not an eelworm deserves potato?
Had you simply answered the question we might have had some progress.
Sadly you failed to answer the question.
I have answered the questions your raised, in the perspective that is effective for morality.
I don't see you have a good grasp of
what morality meant in general and you are stuck into one perspective of the rigid is-ought dilemma.
So now lets try to ask some counter questions.
1)Is it possible that the continuation of a life is a NOT good idea, from the perspective of an individual?
As an individual of the human species, and from the moral perspective of the species as a whole, it is not a good idea to die prematurely [not naturally].
As an individual on the
personal basis, for some individuals, it may not be a good idea for them [from their personal
opinion] to continue life based on their personal reasoning, e.g. the suicidal, those with terminal illness, etc.
2) Is it possible that the continuation of life is NOT a good idea, from to the perspective of society.
Same is 1 - not possible from the moral perspective of the human species.
As specific group, yes, some may be misled by the leader or tradition to die prematurely, e.g. members of the Heaven's Gate, Rev Jim Jones and his group, group of suicide bombers, groups that kill their deformed/mentally-ill babies, and other groups or society.
3) Is it possible that the preservation of life of an infinite number of humans on a planet with finite resources is bad idea?
It is obvious and very logical, an
infinite number of human in a planet of infinite resources is a bad idea.
However the above bad situation will not happen since what I proposed is based on the establishment of an effective Moral Framework and System in the future. In this case team-humanity will emerge to find OPTIMAL solutions to balance future populations numbers sufficient to preserve the human species within infinite resources.
In addition, team humanity will co-operate to find ways to increase resources but maintaining optimality at all times.
Note crudely, nations are already co-operating [a moral feature] to find new resources and habitable location in other planets and outer-space. There will be greater efficiency if there is an effective Moral Framework and System in the future.
4) If you think that breathing is an objective moral right, who has to responsibility to guarantee that right and provide the resources where necessary to given each and every human the means to breath?
I'm asking this one again.
The above is applicable when the effective Moral Framework and System is already established and working.
At that point, the average human will have high MQ and will co-operate as team-humanity. In the event there is a constraint in "breathing" the whole team-humanity will work to find the
OPTIMAL solutions.
There would be no ONE or elite group to decide.
Critical Note:
My proposal rely on a Moral & Ethics Framework and System with empirically and philosophical justified objective absolute moral objectives which are ideal to act as GUIDEs only. This is the PURE aspect of Morality.
My proposal obviously has to cover the APPLIED i.e. the practical where variations [inevitable due to existing human nature] from the ideal has to be accounted for. In the APPLIED aspects, individuals and groups will rely on utilitarianism, consequentialism and other effective ethics strategies to achieve as near as possible to the impossible ideals.
5) If you think it is okay to deny an eelworm potato then why do you think a human deserves oxygen.
Morality is conditioned upon the individual species.
As I had stated earlier,
DNA/RNA wise, ALL humans are "programmed" with the potential and drive to survive at all costs for the sake of the preservation of the human species.
It is evident in nature, the main purpose of each species is to preserve the species and each species either
compete or
co-operate with other species for the specific species' survival.
As such, for humans, they are "programmed" to give priority to the human species and not other species like the eelworm species.
If humans has to kill other species to survive, they will do so as "programmed" to give priority to the survival of its own species, i.e. the human species.
ps. I bet you [with kindergarten variety of morality] will never be able to 'checkmate' me at all because I still have loads of moves in my reserve. The onus is on you to expand and enlarge your knowledge database.