Are there genuine moral disargeement?

Author: Solaris1

Posts

Total: 52
Topic's author
#1
Solaris1
Solaris1's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 30
0
1
4
Solaris1's avatar
Solaris1
0
1
4
I'll attempt to defend that there are NO genuine moral disagreements. 

I'll attempt to defend that we all agree with the following principle:

We cannot violate someone's human rights without really good reason

Any reason would appeal to other's human rights. 

So.... Is there any counterexamples?

One possible one are Nazis, they believed we could violate the human rights of Jews. However, this disargeement is about reality, not ethics. The Nazis and I disagree not on the principal above, but one whether Jews are people. So there's no moral disagreement.
#2
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@Solaris1
Your argument is purely semantic, and any objection to it would be, likewise, purely semantic. Operatively speaking, though, I think the common understanding of the phrase "moral disagreement" would encompass a disagreement of whether something constitutes a violation of a principle, like in your Nazi example.
#3
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Solaris1
You're correct that everyone would agree with "We cannot violate someone's human rights without really good reason" but only because the word "rights" in that sentences invokes and contains the whole diversity of ethical theories.

Nazis or Aztec priests all think they're doing the right thing and that those they harm don't have a right to not be harmed.

There are people the average voter in the EU or USA is willing to harm in certain ways and they don't feel they're doing anything wrong either.

There certainly is genuine moral disagreement because people genuinely disagree on moral principles and the rights they imply. Some people even deny moral principle and appeal directly to power be it democratic or otherwise.
#4
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Solaris1
I don't agree. "human rights" are liberal lockean bullshit which has actually never existed. It's a complete fabrication and not grounded in reality.

In fact, the entire fucking predicate for "human rights" is literally based on the idea that humans in the "state of nature,  i.e before civilization, enjoyed freedom and rights. And that big scary government took away those rights when they entered a "social contract". As if that is how nation states and civilization came about...

"Human rights" was a philosophical thought experiment with zero basis in actual human social dynamics and history, and yet this enlightenment bullshit has formed the basis of the NWO domination, along with other imaginary civic abstractions such as "democracy"
#5
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Solaris1
One possible one are Nazis, they believed we could violate the human rights of Jews. However, this disargeement is about reality, not ethics. The Nazis and I disagree not on the principal above, but one whether Jews are people. So there's no moral disagreement.
Actually, I think that because they are Jews makes for a convincing reason to abuse them... for the evil racists known as Nazis at least.

#6
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I don't agree. "human rights" are liberal lockean bullshit which has actually never existed. It's a complete fabrication and not grounded in reality.

In fact, the entire fucking predicate for "human rights" is literally based on the idea that humans in the "state of nature,  i.e before civilization, enjoyed freedom and rights. And that big scary government took away those rights when they entered a "social contract". As if that is how nation states and civilization came about...

"Human rights" was a philosophical thought experiment with zero basis in actual human social dynamics and history, and yet this enlightenment bullshit has formed the basis of the NWO domination, along with other imaginary civic abstractions such as "democracy"
Good, so you think that people are fine to starve and die without a shelter. So you think some people are perfectly fine having no voting rights or even rights to use some water fountains.

Because that is what happens if the concept of human rights never existed. Human rights may as well be as abstract as we all are, but they enforce equality and equity. And that is what actually matters.

Topic's author
#7
Solaris1
Solaris1's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 30
0
1
4
Solaris1's avatar
Solaris1
0
1
4
-->
@MisterChris
So do you believe everyone believes the same principles, just enforces then differently? 

I could say everyone agrees on the same moral principles. What do you think of that?
Topic's author
#8
Solaris1
Solaris1's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 30
0
1
4
Solaris1's avatar
Solaris1
0
1
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I believe it evokes the same theory. 

The Nazis believes humans have rights, but that Jews aren't human, so they believe in the same theory as I. 

The Aztecs believe the theory, because they believe the human has rights, but they everyone will die if the human is not sacrificed, so they have to protect the tribes rights. 

There certainly is genuine moral disagreement because people genuinely disagree on moral principles and the rights they imply. Some people even deny moral principle and appeal directly to power be it democratic 
I guess I'll like you to provide a concrete example. 
Topic's author
#9
Solaris1
Solaris1's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 30
0
1
4
Solaris1's avatar
Solaris1
0
1
4
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I think that you'll agree that the concept of human rights are intuitive.   
#10
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@Solaris1
So do you believe everyone believes the same principles, just enforces then differently? 

I could say everyone agrees on the same moral principles. What do you think of that?
You could say that. I think there are some fundamental axioms of truth that are more or less ingrained in our being. Individual or societal ethics based on those axioms may manifest in quite distinct ways though (via differing cultures and philosophies). 

So, as you said, the Nazis also held the maxim that murder is evil. But they held that their extermination of the Jews was not in fact a violation of that maxim, whereas we now hold that it was. That is a moral disagreement in the sense that we dispute whether something was a moral violation, but it is not a moral disagreement in the sense that we are disputing a maxim of truth. 
#11
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Solaris1
A Nazi and a liberal may both agree that we should only do things "with good reason," but what constitutes a good reason may be based on emotions rather than an objective reality. To use an example, people are still racist today (whether conscious or not), even among those that may see race as a social construct. This can affect the average outcome of someone's job application based on perceived race, etc. The Nazis just used the idea of Jews as being a different type of being as an excuse to allow them to kill them. People will still genocide others even today when this is gone. That is, the problem is the emotion that drives the thought, not the thought itself. An emotion will find a new thought or medium to compel itself if one fails to align with a given reality. Just some food for thought.

-
Some people have the moral principle of preferring utilitarianism over deontology, and vice versa. To cite the trolley argument: how do you know there is a fact of the matter? When faced with the question, "Is it better to pull a lever to kill one instead of three from its natural course?" is there anything within reality to suggest one or the other is wrong?

#12
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Solaris1
One can hardly avoid speaking of value, I think, as a human.
I'd say the moral disagreement lays in what we value,

I don't quite understand your argument that people make moral judgements, mean we all have the same morals?
Unless you mean we all value the same items, which I don't agree we do.
Topic's author
#13
Solaris1
Solaris1's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 30
0
1
4
Solaris1's avatar
Solaris1
0
1
4
-->
@Lemming
Unless you mean we all value the same items, which I don't agree we do.
I say we value the same core items yes. For example:

'We cannot violate someone's human rights without really good reason'

I don't believe there are any examples of people believing any differently then the items I just stated. 
#14
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Solaris1
How is that different from saying, you can't walk ten feet without a really good reason?
Topic's author
#15
Solaris1
Solaris1's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 30
0
1
4
Solaris1's avatar
Solaris1
0
1
4
-->
@Lemming
The 'good reason' requirement is that the only good reason are other's human rights.
#16
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Solaris1
Not everyone values human rights.
Topic's author
#17
Solaris1
Solaris1's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 30
0
1
4
Solaris1's avatar
Solaris1
0
1
4
-->
@Lemming
Example?
#18
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Solaris1
Let's say someone kills another person and takes their stuff?
Topic's author
#19
Solaris1
Solaris1's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 30
0
1
4
Solaris1's avatar
Solaris1
0
1
4
-->
@Lemming
They accept the principal, and they then believe it's wrong to take someone's stuff. they just don't care about morality.
#20
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Solaris1
I'm pretty sure people exist out there, who 'don't think it's wrong to take other people's stuff.
That their morality is caring for themself.
Topic's author
#21
Solaris1
Solaris1's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 30
0
1
4
Solaris1's avatar
Solaris1
0
1
4
-->
@Lemming
Interesting. The reason I would disagree is that I never seen someone like that myself

I appreciate your input.
#22
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Solaris1
I guess I'll like you to provide a concrete example. 
Alright you said:

The Aztecs believe the theory, because they believe the human has rights, but they everyone will die if the human is not sacrificed, so they have to protect the tribes rights. 
Then their moral theory involves contradictions that must be solved by quantitative analysis. The greater deprivation is paid for with the lesser deprivation.

My moral theory was developed with the understanding that contradictions are a sign of error. There are no contradictions between rights in my moral framework, only contradictions between interests. Thus my ultimate principle of liberty would certainly break before it could be twisted enough to justify human sacrifice even if the gods demanded it.
#23
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Solaris1
It's a bit at odds with what humans usually want, to act or state oneself publicly in such a way, I'd say.

Humans being social animals, the amount of power one can claim as an individual being limited.
Others are useful in watching one's back, or preying on others, Ingroup, Outgroup,

Even criminals, will have a 'code, concern and laws for their Ingroup, a method to protect themselves from each other,
Redirect their aggression outward to Outgroup.

I think that people often value the familiar, habits,
One get's used to a behavior, a claim,
That even if one values themself, because they've lived in a community, acted by and enforced X rules,
They 'then also have come to value those X rules.

. . .

Groups of humans tend to value other humans,
Because such is a successful strategy, and the habit becomes ingrained in societies,
Children are indoctrinated to value other humans,
I could have said taught, I suppose, but taught would imply 'right.
#24
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Solaris1
It's all made up stuff generated by a human database or human databases.

So within that context, meaningful.

But externally perhaps meaningless.


Though the species continually displays ideological behaviour which demonstrates that we can readily alter responses according to necessity. 
#25
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Solaris1
Nope, it's actually the opposite. It is intuitive to violate our human rights
#26
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
Good, so you think that people are fine to starve and die without a shelter.

No I don't think it's fine. But no declaration on a piece of paper have changed the fact that some people starve to death and some people are homeless. Actually, the opposite is true: Human rights and liberalism depends on individualism-so it's the individual's fault if they starve or are homeless.
So you think some people are perfectly fine having no voting rights or even rights to use some water fountains.
Yes I do. Voting laws should be reverted back to the days of 1787. And segregation is up to states if they want to implement it, ok.

Because that is what happens if the concept of human rights never existed. Human rights may as well be as abstract as we all are, but they enforce equality and equity. And that is what actually matters.
What has human rights done? Exactly. Any specific evidence because they certainly DO NOT enforce equality any equity.


#27
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Solaris1
Interesting. The reason I would disagree is that I never seen someone like that myself

I appreciate your input.
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
Topic's author
#28
Solaris1
Solaris1's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 30
0
1
4
Solaris1's avatar
Solaris1
0
1
4
-->
@3RU7AL
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
What exactly is your point here?
#29
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Solaris1
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
What exactly is your point here?
this is the instinctive basis for human morality
#30
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yes I do. Voting laws should be reverted back to the days of 1787. And segregation is up to states if they want to implement it, ok.
Why?