@GeoffreyThomas Well good luck with that. :-D To put it simple: ownership is the right to decide what happens with something, be it a material or immaterial object, a life-form (pets, livestock, plants), or —as here — the body of a human being. We have determined that noone has the right to decide over the body of another living person (which is why we ended slavery). So that leaves only one person left to decide over a body: the person inhabiting it. So therefore — unless you want to define ownership differently and uproot our anti-slavery ethics — you are consequently the owner of your body.

You can take the two first points in any order you like because they define each other, a sort of a loop. But that loop is resolved by saying that someone inescapably will be in control of that body. You cannot have a human body that is not under some kind of control. And if no-one else in the world is in control of your body, that only leaves one person to be in control and thereby be the owner: you.

What about if it's better for the group/community to sterilize those that they deem to "hinder" the group development? Then having everyone have human rights would potentially make the group less well off, just to protect some of the "weak"? I think it's also a fully rational, if not even naturalistic stance to make sacrifices, if they benefit the group. I don't believe (all) human rights are a naturalistic concept. Therefore I don't think having a right to one's body is an intrinsic feature, but rather it should depend on some circumstances.

@PhilipKlöcking I find it problematic that human rights are at least partially an artificial ideological construct. Therefore I find it difficult to trust them as being in accord with naturalistic features. Resource overconsumption, overpopulation, diseases etc. they all could have some relationship to allowing wrong members of groups/societies breed. And then everyone pays for them. It just seems that at least up to some point "nice ideas" curb cold rationality. Of course pure naturality is not good either, but perhaps "excessive" human rights aren't either.

@mavavilj There is nothing about "naturalistic features" that in any way annotate them as good or bad. To assume that "natural" in anyway infers an annotation of "good" is called The Naturalistic Fallacy. Nature is not good, nature is not evil.... nature just is, without any regard for what we humans think is good or evil. That is why we have constructed these rights, because nature simply does not care and will not do anything to enforce anything.

@MichaelK Which is why they're quite neutral, because they do not rely on ideological beliefs, but "what nature does". If one agrees on that nature often (through biology) has a feature of "balancing itself out over time", then this would suggest that people shoudl adopt to natural laws more than their wannabe-laws. The construction of rights could be "universally questionable", because it doesn't base on nature. So proving them de-ideologically is impossible?

@PhilipKlöcking I don't think survival of the fittest is an ideological construct. It occurs, because the stronger are stronger. But "rights" prohibit it from occurring. And this is not to suggest that stronger should win. But to question the (societal) consequences of following "natural rule" vs following "artificial rule".

@mavavilj Nature has no laws. To assume that a "natural law" — like the law of gravity — is anything like a judicial law, is simply an equivocation fallacy. They are not the same in any way. To assume that the way nature operates is how things ought to be, is also an Is-Ought fallacy. To put it plainly: humans cannot break the laws of nature, but we are definitely allowed to work around them or even use them to improve our situation. And there is nothing that says that we should not or may not do this.

@MichaelK You do realize that those fallacies are not clear-cut? Rather there exists critique towards "either" directions, so the fallacies are therefore non-conclusive arguments. They could be more rightly called hypotheses. By natural law I referred to these sort of things: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_nature

@mavavilj Pointing to a fallacy is not an argument. It is simply to show that your argument is invalid. Your argument is that nature dictates or at least hints how we humans should behave towards one another. I say this argument is not logically sound, and therefore invalid.

@MichaelK I say that it's valid, because it does not base on our interpretations. It just occurs. Therefore it exists independent of any linguistic argument or interpretation.

@mavavilj Nonsense. All you have is a bare assertion that nature serves as a template for how humans should construct their rights and laws. You have not affirmed that assertion in any way. And as we know: that which is asserted without evidence or argument can be dismissed without evidence or argument. You have no argument for that human rights and laws should not be constructed in the way we humans see fit.

@PhilipKlöcking I thought that's only one school out of many? I think there's a school that promotes survival of the fittest as the point of evolution: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huxley

@MichaelK One cannot prove or disprove (at least some) natural aspects. You cannot disprove that (lets assume) I'm physically stronger. Ideas don't really alter physical features, because physical features are "hard". Although here we step into the realm of relationship between humans affecting natural state and natural state existing "independent" of human ideas about it.

@mavavilj You are directly contradicting Huxley. Quoting: "The ordinary man, or at least the ordinary poet, philosopher and theologian, always was anxious to find purpose in the evolutionary process. I believe this reasoning to be totally false".

@mavavilj So what? The true statement "the sky is blue" tells us nothing about how we should construct our rights and laws. So I say again: you have nothing that says that humans should form their laws and rights on how nature behaves. On the contrary: we form them to counteract aspects of not just physical nature but human nature... because we find some of those aspects troublesome, harmful and/or heinous.

@MichaelK How about Occam's Razor? That relying on nature makes fewer assumptions?

@mavavilj: Eugenicist - guess which regimes practised eugenics. Who is to decide which genetics are "better"? Exactly: The stronger, more powerful ones. In other words: Those who are more powerful decide that their genetic material is more worth preserving than that of others on the basis of the interpretation that they have the right to do so because they are the more powerful and thus it is just "natural". This is circular.

Modern evolutionary biology is explicit in stating genetic and behavioural diversity to be the key element of sustained evolutionary success.

I'm not suggesting that kind of circular argumentation. But a rational view that eugenics may lead to better human conditions for all. Since I'm pretty certain that no-one wants to be: ugly, sick, fat, stupid etc.

Also there's more aspects to eugenics than "regimes".

@mavavilj That is entirely trumped by that no-one wants to be forced into doing things just because someone else is of the subjective opinion that you are ugly, sick, fat, stupid etc...

I don't think they're subjective views. Some of them are natural features.

@mavavilj Also: Occam's Razor speaks against trying to look to nature when forming judicial laws.

"Do not multiply entities beyond necessity". Adding nature into the equation is adding an entity we do not need.

We can just look directly to human needs and desires and form them from there.

But at what costs?

Nonsensical statement.

I don't think anyone can understand how much human rights natural system can sustain. There might be overconsumption etc. just because "we want human rights for all".

@mavavilj So what?

it's an unsustainable construct?

To bereft humans of their dignity obviously bears no cost for you? And how can you bring values into the equation while claiming that you are talking about natural laws?

that could e.g. lead to wars.

It could be materialistically valid. If one could in theory calculate it, then it would definitely be stronger than subjective views on "deserving" rights

That the costs of forced sterilization are lower than the gains is a value judgement

perhaps, but if one takes the "nature does not care", then it's not?

THIS is a category error. You cannot possibly get from empirical data to "this is what we should DO" without involving value judgements - see the German Werturteilsstreit

Doesn't that contradict the point of empirical study? E.g. economic calculation?

I have difficulties in seeing how it would be a value judgement, if one shows that "this is how many these resources can support". It's an objective fact.

The Werturteilsstreit resulted in economics not making any value judgements - leaving it to the political sphere - but only pointing out the theoretical outcomes of possible options

Pointing that out itself does not involve value judgement - deciding what to do about it does

Nevertheless, I think I got some new viewpoints. I need to go study now.

Have a nice day.

you too

@mavavilj The problem you will always be facing is: what if you are wrong? How will you say "I am sorry" to all those you have mutilated or killed, when it turns out it was not necessary? If you cause irreparable damage and/or deaths for nothing, you will be judged for having committed crimes against humanity.

@mavavilj If you want to argue that you have a case for setting aside the three first articles of the universal declaration of human rights, then you will need a rock solid case... basically proving "If we do not do this, humankind will go extinct". The claims that you have put forth here... "Occam's Razor", "Nature does survival of the fittest" and similar... does not even come close to proving such a thing.

@mavavilj You would also need to prove that we have exhausted all other options... that this is it; we are at way's end and it is either this or annihilation. And you simply cannot do that as things stand now, because you cannot predict the future and what breakthroughs await us.

Should for instance fusion power turn out to be feasible and cheap enough to be mass produced, then we have a solution to many of our present woes, such as climate change, energy shortage, water shortage (abundance of energy = easy desalination), feeding (fertilisers require energy), and we can increase standard of living quite easily while maintaining sustainability.

@DonQuiKong There is nothing the first principles of jurisprudence (more about that here) that motivates mutilating criminals. On the contrary, even if you go for the most primitive motivation for punishment (retribution), all agree that once you have atoned, you are free of moral debt and shall not suffer more.

@DonQuiKong Mutilating someone would mean that the punishment is permanent. And that does not fly well with human ethics.

We already sacrifice other animals towards our own pursuits. So I compared to that I think killing few humans is small.

I don't think a human being is more important than another animal in a "naturalistic perspective", where the breadth of species should also be a criteria for "goodness"

@mavavilj Every time you say "I think that...", you are adding a subjective opinion to this mix, not any argument found in nature.

But it's a value judgement.

So what other options are there than "I think".

@mavavilj And you are well aware that we humans have dictated one set of rights for ourselves and an entirely other set of right for non-human life.

If there's an objective truth then say it. I don't think there is. But I just think that holding humans in too high value is "skewed". "Animal supremacism".

Yes, humanism is a kind of species-ism.

We are discriminating against the animals.

So what?

We are talking entirely about how humans interact with each other. why are you brining the animals into this?

Well it alters the perception on "untouchability" of humans.

Since then the value of human members is "more relative", rather than thought to be intrinsic

Not really, it possibly alters the touchability of animals, and vegetarians/vegans make that case constantly.

But that is a separate discussion.

It does not belong in the discussion about forced sterilisation of humans.

...nor eugenics.

I personally could allow eugenics that discriminate against some of the weak. Because I don't think the weak have "enough" value.

It could be better for e.g. other animals that they don't eat other animals.

If a bull could tell us "No, do not sterilise me, I do not want that", the discussion would be held.

What makes you think that you will not be marked as "weak"?

But one can use rational to decide whether some weak, stupid alcoholic is worth more than the bull.

It's not a problem

Since surely subscribing to such ideologue would require "living in accord with it".

But I consider it moral.

Easy for you to say now when you think it will not happen to you.

It's about being ready to sacrifice oneself towards utilitarian goals.

...or your loved ones... or your children.

Those are emotional aspects, which rational ought to override.

According to you and who else?

Well emotions are too subjective to be used as a basis for rational calculation.

...because you will not get many more to agree with you.

Therefore they're in a sense "not true".

So what?

Any judgement a human makes will be subjective, and coloured by emotions.

And when it comes to predicting the future — which you will have to do in order to try to set aside our most basic human rights — you will have no chance to do that objectively.

Which I read would make eugenics and no-eugenics as valid approaches. Because they both contain uncertainty. However, one could argue that eugenics (given current circumstances) is safer, because it e.g. aims to conserve finite resources.

The overpopulation currently, I think, is totally uncontrolled so that no-one really knows what it will lead to.

Oh my... this will be so hilarious... :-) Play along for a moment please: 1) Why do we want to manage our resources in a sustainable way?

In order to retain the species

since the species will die if they run out of resources.

In other words: we do not want to die, correct?

I think it's a basic "axiom" of animals that they avoid dying.

So your argument then becomes: "we must start killing each other in order that we shall not be killed".

However, as rational beings humans are also capable of planning into the future. So that future generations would not be deprived of resources.

Well as I said: you cannot predict the future. Hence you cannot plan it.

It's irrational to waste resources on useless or weak members at the cost of future "strong" members.

One can try to adjust to it.

You cannot predict the future. You have no idea what happens in 5 years, 10, 50, 100, 1000 years when it comes to our resources and our needs.

We're living a century when oil might run out. So now societies are planning towards that, if they're rational.

So I wouldn't say predicting is impossible. It's imperative.

"might" is not enough to start killing people.

There are calculations about oil for example

You will never get a mandate to set aside basic human rights on "we might run out of oil".

And since humans lived just fine for hundreds to millennia without oil, you will never be able to make that case.

Well I think that's just a different "paradigm".

Since one could argue that "Lets save those resources for future strong members"

"I think that..." again. So what?

rather than waste them on current weak members

So who decides what counts as "strong" and "weak"?

Subjective assessments again.

Not set aside basic human rights is also "I think".

No they aren't

there are few objective criteria

100% subjective.

that is your opinion.

physical fitness, health, practical uselfulness

...i.e. another subjective assessment.

no it's not

you claim it to be but it's not

According to your opinion and who else's?

By that definition, Stephen Hawking would have been put to death at the outbreak of his ALS.

Not necessarily. Since his practical usefulness could "balance out" his physical impairment.

So what I suggest is that weak are those that dismiss most criteria for "strongness"

No-one knew at the outset of his ALS that he would make the groundbreaking work he later did.

but different features can balance out weaknesses

I mean different strong points

In the end, humans have to decide, and that will therefore be subjective assessments.

And we have — collectively — decided that no human should be deprived life, liberty or security of person, nor equality — based on the subjective assessment of other humans.

No if they base on objective criteria

such as: physical fitness and usefulness to community

those are measurable

No, they are not because a) setting up the criteria will be a subjective process and b) the interpretation of the measurements will be subjective.

It'd be insane to suggest that physically weak are strong

because it contradicts physics

Stephen Hawkins would laugh at you from above if he heard that

Why

@mavavilj It does not matter. Physics does not come into it at all. We humans have decided — collectively — that as a first principle, we will not discriminate any human for any reason. You will have to argue against that with much more compelling reasons than "it's physics".

Physicality does not need argumentation

Because your position argues that he should never have lived because of his physical constitution

If I'm more powerful than you then I can kill you.

there's not arguments needed for that

...and in the end you are most likely to get overruled anyway because humanity will — collectively — say "We want it this way... we value equality way too much to overrule it".

That's still ideological compared to physicality

@mavavilj So what? who cares?

if the ideologue was away the strongest could well get rid of all the weak

but the ideologue blocks it

@mavavilj Yes! Finally you get it!!! Because we DO NOT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN.

Physicality itself is not ideological - taking physicality as the only standard worth considering is

But I believe that the rational for "not wanting it happen" is questionable

that ideologue overrides "naturalistic features"

Just as the rational for "stronger is better"

@mavavilj Question it all you want but the answer you will get is still "screw your 'naturalistic features', because we still want it our way".

but I really nede to go continue studies

I will perhaps look back later.

@mavavilj "Questioning" does not automatically equal "invalidating".

Speaking of layers of discourse, strength as a physical property is ordinal and it seems convenient to use it for the ordinal scale of "better", but this itself is a leap to another layer of discourse as it involves a value judgement

@PhilipKlöcking Plus if I fight smarter, I will kill the "stronger" one. Case in point: youtube.com/watch?v=vdnA-ESWcPs

@MichaelK Being a martial artist, I will use an even better example (esp. second round against girl): youtube.com/watch?v=KzXQGMqY8_E

@PhilipKlöcking Heh, though I suspect that is staged just to demonstrate that point... it does so well.

Hello @DonQuiKong, my answer to you is quite high up by now. Want me to re-post it?

The funny thing is: Strength in the sense of fighting prowess through coordination of body and mind is not physically measurable. Which - again - points towards the limits of any scientism

@PhilipKlöcking Well it makes for interesting dystopian fiction if anything.

@PhilipKlöcking Then again all such fiction always seems to want to send the message that all attempts to objective measuring of people's fitness will fail, and do so spectacularly. :-D

@MichaelK: Most certainly. Having studied philosophy for so long, it seems strange for me to simply adhere to scientism when it is in blatant contradiction to naive experience.

@MichaelK no thx, I found it ;) don't really have time for discussing it, and I do agree

@PhilipKlöcking Sometimes they even introduce a smidgen of measurable inequality into the story (Gattaca, Soldier ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier_(1998_American_film) )). But in the end they always end up with "We shall not discriminate".

@DonQuiKong :-)

@MichaelK: One of my favourites dystopian calls for humanism is Equilibrium

@PhilipKlöcking That Christian Bale movie?

@MichaelKaye

@PhilipKlöcking I did not like it... too dumbed down: authoritarian society using drugs and suppression of culture to keep the peace... but in the end the authority turns out to be just as human as everyone else.

I mean... that is one of those no-brainers done in such a way that no-one can sympathise with the baddies.

Sterilizing people is dehumaning, which sounds like slippery slope leading to further human right abuses slavery etc..

@PhilipKlöcking Starship Troopers — the novel — is much better there... because it dares to make the society such that equality and rights are not granted on birth... rights have to be earned, without showcasing it as automatically bad.

@MichaelK: I liked three aspects of the film: a) the fighting, b) the children playing as if taking the drug perfectly for so long (showing that it is a reduction of humanity) c) how it so pointedly showed the consequences of the idea at the beginning

@clark Well that is the practical outcome of it, but the original poster asked for ethical arguments.

@PhilipKlöcking Well ignoring the pretty aesthetics (I agree the choreography is pleasing to watch) it has just been done so many times already... remove the gun kata and you are just left with Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four in long leather coats. :)

@clark: I think the author was questioning the ethical status of human rights from the beginning, so the slippery slope is not a bad thing in itself

I would like to argue that this slippery slope would lead to medieval times

@PhilipKlöcking Plus the argument for gun kata is just silly... as the film starts quoting statistics. Anyone that has ever rolled a D20 knows that sooner or later, you will roll a 1 and you will do so at the worst opportune moment. :D

@clark Saying "That's a slippery slope, and we will keep sliding" is a fallacy.

And in medieval times, what iI think is greatly hindered is a society that can produce new ideas hence in the long run it would a impendiment of further progresss

@MichaelK Yes, but somehow I think someone would be able to argue that we would indeed keep sliding

@clark In order to use the Slippery Slope as an argument you must say "It could lead to us keeping on slipping... and even the possibility of that happening is unacceptable to us, therefore we nip it in the bud and do not even set foot on the slope".

@PhilipKlöcking Guns are the great equalisers in one aspect: no-one can defend themselves from a shooter by any other means than disabling the opponent first. Which — in case you are out of hands' reach — means: shoot them first.

@MichaelK: On the other hand, they de-equalise as soon as a) not everybody involved has a gun or b) there are differing starting points (e.g. having it drawn, cover, training, etc.). When fighting for one's life, hand to hand is more equal in almost every respect (even considering training).

@PhilipKlöcking That may be the case but that is not how the fights were presented in the film. As I said: the motivation for gun kata was presented as so-and-so many more percent survivibility/likelyhood of hitting.

And if I do not recall wrong that was presented to be in the order of 70%.

Which means that after a mere 10 gunfights, the likelihood your highly trained cleric is still alive is about 2%

@MichaelK: Yeah, that was hogwash anyways. But it followed the Rule of Cool like so many other aspects in movies.

@PhilipKlöcking Indeed. I just hate it when they try to justify Rule of Cool.

@PhilipKlöcking First rule of Rule of Cool... there are no rules... it just wins, because it's cool.

My goodness, it is crowded all of a sudden.

Yeah, popped up in the HNQs

Summary to all newcomers: OP tried to claim that there are objective ways to determine who is a "better" person than others. Everyone else disagreed and also stated that even if so was the case, humanity would ignore that and keep holding equality as the higher standard.

OP then went to do other things, might be back later.

@Casperrw It's you!!

Interesting dialogue, lots of good points touched on. One thing I don't see emphasized, though briefly mentioned, is that people change.

To take a snapshot of objective qualities and achievements does not sufficiently measure utility of individuals, because things change. 1) circumstances change, so the same qualities one has now may not result in the same fitness later, and 2) individuals change, so the qualities one has now may (I'd argue, are likely) not the same as the qualities they will have in the future.

With those two uncertainties in mind, how can one measure utility? Without a good measure of utility, how can one make any decisions or policies based on utility? Better to prioritize other rules we can be more certain will minimize suffering & maximize well being (at least that is the paradigm I'd advocate for).

Someone brought up Stephen Hawking as an example. Very strong intellect, turned out to be a huge drain physically due to unforeseen ALS, expected to be doomed but turned out to be a critical contributor to modern physics.

@cr0 Well I made the more general statement that no-one can predict the future with any certainty. People changing certainly fits into that but to apply that to the selection process also means you have conceded that eugenics can be justified, only that the selection process is uncertain.

I agree with you @MichaelK, just emphasizing the uncertainty which makes any argument of eugenics for utility unreasonable.

@cr0 Quite so. The uncertainty argument strikes against all parts of the eugenics suggestion... both before it is approved and after it is adopted.

That can also change depending on conditions - do we need defending from natural disaster, information security, angry people with guns, a pack of viscous dogs? The skills and qualities which make one more fit than another are also not static or a birth-right, much of it comes from willful acts (training) and uncontrolled experiences/circumstances, and the fittest today may not be so fit tomorrow.

Was continuing to emphasize that: Martial arts was also brought up. There are different kinds of strengths. The person in the room who can lift more weight than anyone might not be the same person who can physically defend all in the room from impending harm.

@cr0 And in any case: plain old human (or rather: sentient beings') sense of fairness will strike down any attempts at selective culling.

I think that point of uncertainty is very important to understanding why we should prioritize diversity, decentralization, etc. and not try to control evolution. So, I'm emphasizing it here.

Yes, our intuitions (like fairness) separate us from the raw neutrality we see in most natural phenomenon

The fact that a sense of fairness is a universal feeling that goes beyond humans is very humorously demonstrated here: youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

xD

Thanks for that

@cr0 Says something, doesn't it... that advanced ethics such as "Equal Pay For Equal Work" is not an exclusively human notion.

@cr0 OP tried to argue that since we treat animals unequal to how we treat humans, should this not then say that it is OK to treat humans unfair? I say the opposite: this rather speaks for the vegan case: we should be nicer to the animals.

@cr0 ...because they demonstrably have ethics.

@cr0 I am very curious about the day when we can start accessing brains for real; to the point of sensing thoughts and feelings in other beings... that is to say: true, physical empathy... to literally and directly feel what someone else is feeling.

@cr0 Until then, I will continue to enjoy my steaks in blissful ignorance.

@MichaelK I'm with you there. It is a decent point that "we treat animals unequal to how we treat humans", but I agree that just points out how we need to adjust our attitude and treatment toward animals.

Not all steaks are made equally too :P similar to how humans practicing farming can be slavery or a labor of love.

@cr0 Well I am not saying it is inherently wrong. And we were talking about human rights (side-note from our friends the Klingons), not "living being rights". However... we can only assume that being unfair to the animals as long as they have not demanded person-hood and rights of their own.

We could get into the ethics of agriculture and speciesism, which I'm sure would be a good discussion, but I'll leave it at what's been said with hopes OP will come back and consider how uncertainty and chaos in nature calls for us to embrace diversity and chaos in our groups.

You've got some good YT references lol that's for sure @MichaelK

@cr0 Culture exists to visualise deep ethical questions. :)

Star Trek very much so even. They have always used ethical topics as a sort of plot hook for some episodes.

@MichaelK Reading your argument, I wonder why your argument against sterilization of infants could not also be used against vaccination of infants.

@StevenGubkin: Vaccination a) does not lead to permanent mutilation and b) in the overwhelming number of cases to the contrary leads to a more healthy body, even if not in the short term.

@StevenGubkin What @PhilipKlöcking just said: vaccination is not a mutilation and parents — who are the ones in control of their children's bodies at that time — can technically say "No" to it. It is just that we can slap them over the head for it and tell them "Do not be stupid".

@StevenGubkin Also relevant: in a society where the people have obliged said society to provide universal healthcare, the healthcare system is also usually given the mandate outright tell parents "Bring your kids for their inoculation".

I think that mandatory vaccination is a very good thing. Even if it is "not a mutilation", it is a permanent change to the child which is made before they can consent to it. I think this is worth it for the benefits to society as a whole (especially disease eradication and herd immunity).

Forced sterilization of infants is similar in that it could have large benefits for the planet, and occurs before the child is aware enough to make a choice about it.

Another interesting comparison to make is to circumcision, although in this case I see no benefits so I do think it should be outlawed.