Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

In your mind is there such a thing as inheritance rights? Heirs of course don't have first possession, right?

The full statement of the first possession principle is, "P has a right to x if P is the first possessor of x and has not subsequently freely conveyed it to another, or P acquired x via a chain of consent from the first possessor."

Ah so. So currently (multiple hundreds of generations later) most of what is valuable has little to nothing to do with first anything and everything to do with chains. Or to put it another way, the rich pass along riches and the poor start the 100 yard dash 70 yards behind. I suppose you find inheritance taxes as immoral.

[Belindi]

GEMorton wrote:

Thus in a post-Christian culture the received moral theory is Christian.

I asume that by "received" you mean "dominant." It may be, but unless it can be rationally defended it is not binding on anyone. Theories which depend upon supernatural assumptions are very difficult to rationally defend.

Christians ethics are also secular ethics in a post-Christian culture of belief. Humanism is the foremost example of secular ethics that stem from a synthesis of scientific enlightenment and Reformation Christianity.

But all living things have always struggled for survival. Struggle for survival means that there is invariably loss or injury. There is no such thing in nature as a first possessor.

Of course there is. A bird who builds a nest is the first possessor of that nest. Moralities, however, are not natural --- they are human constructs --- and they only address the behaviors of moral agents, not the rest of the natural world.

No, the bird who builds her nest is the possessor by force of her power to build a nest. She cannot build unless she eats other organisms and drives off contenders for the nesting site.

Moral codes of belief and practice are man-made as are all codes of belief and practice.

Rights or duties are two ends of a continuum.

Well, you seem to have some different understanding of what constitutes a "right." As understood in the common law and in the liberal tradition, rights entail no duties on the holder --- they only impose constraints on everyone else with respect to the thing to which the holder has the right. Perhaps you can set forth your conception of what a "right" is.

No, rights and duties constrain everyone under the law, including the owner and all others. This is judicial impartiality.

Employers, landowners, and other members of the elite of society often can and do control general lack of work. Where there is lack of work the governing elite should make work available. They can do so by public projects such as training people to fill useful roles in new projects, and by giving tax concessions to small employers so they are solvent enough to pay employees. Some large industries too may be aided by government concessions if by doing so there might be work opportunities and benefit to tax payers.

Well, I agree that politicians can create economic conditions that discourage investment, stifle innovation, restrict trade, suppress production, and thus reduce employment opportunities. But employers (including farmers) don't, and cannot, do any of those things. You have to place the blame where it belongs.

The more powerful the individual the more she has a duty towards herself and others to care. Thus this hypothetical farmer who employs labourers who have no choice but to work her land owes her labourers a duty of care, more so than she owes to her powerful peers. Duty of care includes intelligent and efficient use of the land or other natural resources and also intelligent and efficient use of the labour force. It is neither intelligent nor efficient to regard labourers as machine components.

The moral theory which is rationally defensible is traceable to Christianity. "Who is my neighbour?"

I've never seen a rational defense of Christian (or any other religion-based) ethics. Can you cite one that does not depend upon supernatural premises?

Myths, including supernatural myths, are poetic narratives. Myths are aids to assist people to hold to a code of belief or practice.The supernatural myth of Christianity is an aid for people to hold to the Christian moral code.

Historically important myths such as is the myth of Christ are enshrined by a powerful priest caste or estate.

[GE Morton]

Ah so. So currently (multiple hundreds of generations later) most of what is valuable has little to nothing to do with first anything and everything to do with chains.

Er, those chains are anchored in first possession, and thus have everything to do with it. And your premise is false --- most of what is valuable was produced in the last 2 or 3 generations. Everything of value was first possessed (discovered or produced) at some time or other.

Or to put it another way, the rich pass along riches and the poor start the 100 yard dash 70 yards behind.

Yes indeed. A major incentive and reward for being ambitious, creative, productive is to enable you to give your kids a head start.

I suppose you find inheritance taxes as immoral.

Of course. They are motivated by a futile and morally indefensible ideal of achieving material equality. And, of course, they violate the "get what you pay for, pay for what you get" principle for apportioning taxes. I.e., taxes should be apportioned in proportion to the benefits each taxpayer receives from the government services they pay for.

[GE Morton]

Christians ethics are also secular ethics in a post-Christian culture of belief. Humanism is the foremost example of secular ethics that stem from a synthesis of scientific enlightenment and Reformation Christianity.

Well, there is very little science involved in Humanism. It is largely a version of Christian ethics in which the supernatural underpinnings are downplayed. That doesn't mean it has no rationally defensible elements, but the arguments for them are either missing or circular.

The Western monotheisms (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) are all products of civilization, and are forlorn attempts to resurrect the ethos of the long-lost tribal social structures their founders idealized --- to regain the unity, sense of brotherhood, and intimacy they imagined characterized those societies. But those goals are unattainable in civilized societies, whose members have no natural bonds, no shared personal histories, and no common interests. Civilized societies are not "big happy families;" they are societies of strangers.

Of course there is. A bird who builds a nest is the first possessor of that nest. Moralities, however, are not natural --- they are human constructs --- and they only address the behaviors of moral agents, not the rest of the natural world.

No, the bird who builds her nest is the possessor by force of her power to build a nest. She cannot build unless she eats other organisms and drives off contenders for the nesting site.

I'm not sure what you're arguing there. Are you claiming that if animal (or human) eats, it cannot be a first possessor of something? That is a pretty startling non sequitur.

Moral codes of belief and practice are man-made as are all codes of belief and practice.

I agree. That's what I said above.

No, rights and duties constrain everyone under the law, including the owner and all others. This is judicial impartiality.

Oh, I agree. But the question was, What duties upon the holder do rights entail? What are the arguments for them?

The more powerful the individual the more she has a duty towards herself and others to care. Thus this hypothetical farmer who employs labourers who have no choice but to work her land owes her labourers a duty of care, more so than she owes to her powerful peers. Duty of care includes intelligent and efficient use of the land or other natural resources and also intelligent and efficient use of the labour force. It is neither intelligent nor efficient to regard labourers as machine components.

Well, you're just repeating dogmas there, Belindi. You need some arguments for those alleged duties.

[LuckyR]

Ah so. So currently (multiple hundreds of generations later) most of what is valuable has little to nothing to do with first anything and everything to do with chains.

Er, those chains are anchored in first possession, and thus have everything to do with it. And your premise is false --- most of what is valuable was produced in the last 2 or 3 generations. Everything of value was first possessed (discovered or produced) at some time or other.

Or to put it another way, the rich pass along riches and the poor start the 100 yard dash 70 yards behind.

Yes indeed. A major incentive and reward for being ambitious, creative, productive is to enable you to give your kids a head start.

I suppose you find inheritance taxes as immoral.

Of course. They are motivated by a futile and morally indefensible ideal of achieving material equality. And, of course, they violate the "get what you pay for, pay for what you get" principle for apportioning taxes. I.e., taxes should be apportioned in proportion to the benefits each taxpayer receives from the government services they pay for.

Thanks for the explanation, I think I understand completely. I got mine, good luck getting yours.

Personally it suits me just fine, though there is more than just my personal interest.

[Belindi]

Christians ethics are also secular ethics in a post-Christian culture of belief. Humanism is the foremost example of secular ethics that stem from a synthesis of scientific enlightenment and Reformation Christianity.

Well, there is very little science involved in Humanism. It is largely a version of Christian ethics in which the supernatural underpinnings are downplayed. That doesn't mean it has no rationally defensible elements, but the arguments for them are either missing or circular.

The Western monotheisms (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) are all products of civilization, and are forlorn attempts to resurrect the ethos of the long-lost tribal social structures their founders idealized --- to regain the unity, sense of brotherhood, and intimacy they imagined characterized those societies. But those goals are unattainable in civilized societies, whose members have no natural bonds, no shared personal histories, and no common interests. Civilized societies are not "big happy families;" they are societies of strangers.

Of course there is. A bird who builds a nest is the first possessor of that nest. Moralities, however, are not natural --- they are human constructs --- and they only address the behaviors of moral agents, not the rest of the natural world.

I think we can agree that whatever the science interest Humanism arose from reformed western theism and probably mostly Judeo-Christianity.

No, the bird who builds her nest is the possessor by force of her power to build a nest. She cannot build unless she eats other organisms and drives off contenders for the nesting site.

I'm not sure what you're arguing there. Are you claiming that if animal (or human) eats, it cannot be a first possessor of something? That is a pretty startling non sequitur.

My claim follows from the unsentimental belief that nature as nature is based upon power not right or rights of any kind.

Moral codes of belief and practice are man-made as are all codes of belief and practice.

I agree. That's what I said above.

No, rights and duties constrain everyone under the law, including the owner and all others. This is judicial impartiality.

Oh, I agree. But the question was, What duties upon the holder do rights entail? What are the arguments for them?

The more powerful the individual the more she has a duty towards herself and others to care. Thus this hypothetical farmer who employs labourers who have no choice but to work her land owes her labourers a duty of care, more so than she owes to her powerful peers. Duty of care includes intelligent and efficient use of the land or other natural resources and also intelligent and efficient use of the labour force. It is neither intelligent nor efficient to regard labourers as machine components.

Well, you're just repeating dogmas there, Belindi. You need some arguments for those alleged duties.

At the least it is inefficient to use labourers as if they were machines because when labourers are motivated they are most productive. It's the duty of the employer to make useful goods and services as quid pro quo for what she takes for herself from the profits.

[GE Morton]

At the least it is inefficient to use labourers as if they were machines because when labourers are motivated they are most productive.

That's true, and many employers realize that. Hence they pay a little more than the market rate for various types of labor, in order to maintain workforce morale and reduce turnover (and thus training costs).

It's the duty of the employer to make useful goods and services as quid pro quo for what she takes for herself from the profits.

No one has any duty to make any goods, for anyone. Whether to do so is entirely discretionary. But your quid pro quo occurs automatically in a free market --- if customers decide the product offered is not worth the price asked, they don't buy it, and the producer makes no profit.

[Belindi]

GEMorton wrote:

It's the duty of the employer to make useful goods and services as quid pro quo for what she takes for herself from the profits.

No one has any duty to make any goods, for anyone. Whether to do so is entirely discretionary. But your quid pro quo occurs automatically in a free market --- if customers decide the product offered is not worth the price asked, they don't buy it, and the producer makes no profit.

If the great majority of commercial transactions were based on caveat emptor the actual basis of commerce, which is trust, would be destroyed.

[Gertie]

We have a decent, moral foundation in place we agree on then, which we agree is the appropriate justification for oughts. Imo this is crucial, and one of the biggest probs we face philosophically re morality. It doesn't matter if we call it subjective or objective, it's universal and solves the problem of moral relativism. And it gives us a foundation to build Oughts from. Which can be in various forms, such as rights, laws, social norms, institutional good practice, education, etc.

Well, whether those "oughts" (laws, norms, etc.), to the extent they are followed, do or do not further the goal stated in the Axiom is usually empirically verifiable, and thus objective.

So lets get get to thinking how we do that. I've suggested the logical place to start is to establish basic Rights/Entitlements which are so necessary to promoting the welfare of sentient creatures and the ability to persue their interests that no government or authority should over-rule them. I don't claim to have a complete list, but some are obvious. The in principle, where conditions allow, right to life, the right to safe shelter, sustenance, healthcare and education. Justified by our specific moral foundation.

You can't ignore the other postulates of the theory, such as the Equal Agency postulate, the Relativity postulate, and the postulate of Individuality. The Relativity postulate asserts that the components of welfare --- what counts as a "good" or an "evil," and the values (positive or negative) thereof, are subjective and relative to agents. The Individuality postulate asserts that what are counted as goods and evils, and the values attached to them, differ from agent to agent.

The Equal Agency postulate rules out any "ought" that would improve the welfare of one agent by reducing the welfare of another agent. The Relativity postulate rules out assigning a value to any good a priori, and the Individuality postulate rules out assuming that the values assigned to any goods or evils are universal among agents. Hence any "oughts" which depend upon such assignments and assumptions are also ruled out. As with all other goods, the value, and rank in his hierarchy, of shelter, sustenance, etc., to Alfie can only be decided by him, and likely differs from the values assigned to those things by other agents. That holds, BTW, for the value of his own life. We can't place a value on it that overrides the value Alfie himself places on it (which will determine what risks he is willing to take with it). We can sometimes make those decisions for moral subjects --- young children and animals --- but not for other moral agents.

Nor can we assume that Alfie places a high value, or any value, on Bruno's life. He may or may not.

Those postulates also rule out the utilitarian principle ("greatest good for greatest number") which you may be tempted to invoke. Since goods are subjective, what is the "greatest good" can only be determined for each individual, and determining that would be an impossible task in any large society. As Rawls observed in his Theory of Justice, "Utilitarianism does not take seriously the distinction between persons." (Rawls himself does not take it seriously enough).

I'm suggesting we use Rights based on our moral foundation, we don't need to be bound by others in the past who made up rights based on a different foundation or conception of morality. But OK, we don't have to call them Rights, we can call them Foundational Entitlements - or .... something better lol. The point is to establish a means of ensuring that basic welfare needs are met and sentient creatures have the opportunity to flourish. Regardless of the whims and compromises of governments/authorities. It's about establishing a baseline all sentient creatures should in principle be accorded, before the societal trade-offs involved with competing interests is addressed.

There are no universal "basic welfare needs." Needs are generated by and dependent upon wants --- they are means to ends --- and wants are subjective and idiosyncratic. True, humans (and other animals) need food, water, and oxygen --- but only if they want to continue living. The "needs" you identify are those of persons who want lifestyles characteristic of "middle-class" citizens of modern Western societies. But the moral question does not concern what people want, and may consequently need. The moral question concerns who is obligated to meet these diverse wants and needs. Again, you must either take the postulates seriously, or abandon one or more of them. Per what principle would Alfie become obligated to satisfy Brunos' wants, at the cost of satisfying his own?

The usual route followed by utilitarians seeking to avoid this choice is by ranking the various wants people may have, and declaring that some outrank others. But given the lack, as I've mentioned, of any objective means of measuring cardinal utility, any such ranking will be arbitrary. The only ranking of interests which can be objectively verified is the ranking each agent assigns the various interests in his own hierarchy.

Well, there is the rub --- to SHOW how it logically follows, given the Equal Agency postulate (which I assume you accept).

(As I understand it, your Equal Agency Postulate simply states all agents are equally obligated to follow the oughts resulting from our foundation, yes? That makes sense to me in principle ).

See above. It logically follows because it strives to ensure each sentient creature has the necessary and sufficient conditions for well-being/persuing their interests - our moral foundation. What comprises basic necessary and sufficient conditions might be blurry, but it shouldn't be hard to agree on things like food, shelter, education, healthcare.

The Equal Agency postulate entails more than that. It also implies the interests of all agents have the same rank; that all are equally entitled to pursue their interests, whatever they may be. The theory is not concerned with interests; it is only concerned with the actions people take to pursue them, when those actions impinge on others' efforts to pursue their interests. Here is the full statement of that Postulate:

"5. Postulate of Equal Agency: All agents in the moral field are of equal moral status, i.e., all duties and constraints generated by the theory are equally binding on all.
Corollary: Postulate of Neutrality: The theory is neutral as between goods and evils, and the values thereof, as defined by agents."

"Cardinal utility is an attempt to quantify an abstract concept because it assigns a numerical value to utility...
If your approach depends on those trade-offs you mentioned you have set yourself a formidable problem."

I agree! It's the one serious problem I think we have with this moral foundation. But it's a problem inherent to a wellbeing/interests based moral foundation. We're stuck with it. So we either ditch the foundation for something tidier, or do our best.

The problem is not with the foundation, but with deriving obligations from it without paying cognizance to the Postulates.

I think you'd say there is a right not to pay taxes at all unless voluntarily. Because there is a right to freedom or property (eg tax money) which over-rides the right/entitlement to have basic welfare needs met. So what is our touchstone for settling such disputes? Our moral foundation of promoting the well-being/interests of sentient creatures. You need to justify your position in the terms of the foundation.

Not so with respect to taxes. The test of whether a tax is justifiable, and may morally be enforced, is whether the tax pays for services that benefit the taxpayer. They are not justifiable if paying for services which benefit someone else, i.e., if they reduce Alfie's welfare to improve Bruno's. That is a violation of the Equal Agency postulate and the Axiom itself, which commands rules that promote the welfare of all agents, not of some agents at the expense of others.

I should point out that the Duty to Aid commands generosity; it is not limited to commanding aid only in dire emergency situations. One ought to offer aid whenever one can do so without (in Peter Singer's words) "thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance." But only the acting agent himself can do that weighing and thus make that judgment; for others to force their judgment upon him denies his status as an equal moral agent.

Sorry for the delayed response. Reponding to your posts requires more thought, and thus more time, than most.

Apologies for leaving this unanswered GE, life can annoyingly interrupt sometimes, sorry!

Looking back I don't see how my arguments can move you as long as you're welded to the package of postulates you've arrived at, and I don't agree that they have to follow from the foundation which we do agree on. And while individual idiosyncrasies should be allowed for, there are morally significant differences between some needs/desires than others, even if they aren't objectively quantifiable. And imo it's better to imperfectly wrestle with the messiness, than create tidy theoretical lines.

So if we take homelessness, nearly everybody would feel that having a home is more important to their welfare and ability to flourish, than being able to have their favourite flavour of ice cream, as an obvious comparison. Nobody feels a moral obligation to ensure everybody is able to have their fave ice cream based on welfare and flourishing, and nearly everybody feels there is a moral obligation to to sacrifice their shoes to save a drowning child. Nearly everything else is somewhere in between. Being homeless will likely affect your physical and mental health, your ability to find and maintain a decent income, may lead to crime, addiction, sex work, and being preyed upon by criminals. Having your kids taken into care, and/or your kids' life chances being harmed. This seems like an obvious case for moral obligation to me.

And if we're serious about it, leaving it to ad hoc acts of charity/generosity is insufficient, we know that. So the only objection I see to using taxes, is some in principle objection to ever being forcibly obliged to sacrifice to help another. But if our foundation is welfare based, my sacrifice of a bit more in taxes has a minimal effect on my welfare, and a radical effect on homeless people.

[Belindi]

A dwelling place is an inalienable human right. If it's not a crime against humanity to deprive persons of dwelling places it ought to be.

[chewybrian]

A dwelling place is an inalienable human right. If it's not a crime against humanity to deprive persons of dwelling places it ought to be.

I agree with you, of course, but I don't think the issue is that anyone is going around tearing down the homes of the poor (one relevant exception is that we often destroy tent cities of homeless people, and these are the only homes they have at that moment). Rather, we don't find any incentive in the free market to create proper housing for the poor.

We allow the market to decide what is built, and things get built that best benefit the builders. They build the largest houses that people in the particular market are willing and able to buy, as that is what creates the most profit for them in the particular instance. Add up all those instances, and we end up with a lot of homes that are bigger than they need to be.

As these homes degrade over time, the well-off folks fly away to the next new suburb, leaving less desirable houses that are beyond the capacity of their new inhabitants to maintain. The poor are like the kid whose brother is ten years old, getting hand-me-downs that are too big to work for them.

We should have some incentives to build houses that fit the people that badly need them. I don't know how we could make that happen in our current political environment in the US, where any attempt to make things better by public means is met with accusations of socialism, which is a four letter word here. So, if you think not depriving people of homes actually means providing housing opportunities for them (I do), then it will be a tough sell.

[EricPH]

Everyone who pays rent or who has a mortgage is only ever a few months away from being homeless. It only takes an accident, illness, loss of a job, reduction in working hours, a breakdown in a relation or some other catastrophe. Ex service men who have served their country can often become homeless as their reward.

[GE Morton]

A dwelling place is an inalienable human right.

Well, no, Belindi, it is not. At least, not according to the understanding of "rights" found throughout the classical liberal tradition. No such "right" is to be found in the US Bill of Rights, the English Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of Rights, or anywhere in the common law. The only "right to housing" that anyone has is his right to a house he has built, or acquired via a chain of consent from the builder.

The "right" you assert is a fiat right (a "fright") conjured from thin air by lefty ideologues in the mid-20th century. It is a fiction, without any moral or historical basis, invented to induce those who believe the world owes them a living to confer power, via their votes, on the ideologues.

The term "rights" carries much moral weight, because it denotes those things someone has gained righteously, i.e., without inflicting loss or injury on anyone else. Your frivolous Newspeak definition turns that meaning on its head, purporting to confer "rights" to the services of other people and to the products of their labor. The correct name for that claim is "slavery."

[EricPH]

The only "right to housing" that anyone has is his right to a house he has built, or acquired via a chain of consent from the builder.

in 1066 William invaded Britain, he divided the country between his generals. They took land and property that did not belong to them and taxed the population to fund their lifestyles. Many of the Lords today can trace their ancestry and wealth back to 1066.

Europeans stole land from the native Indians in America through land transfers.

The "right" you assert is a fiat right (a "fright") conjured from thin air by lefty ideologues in the mid-20th century. It is a fiction, without any moral or historical basis,

It is the right people in power gave themselves to take land and property.

[Ecurb]

The correct name for that claim is "slavery."

You are not doing your argument any favors with this comment. Marx claimed capitalism was "slavery" because the owners of the means of production were able to control the products created by the labor of their employees. This was also an exaggeration -- although not as egregious an exaggeration as yours. Taxes (in general) RESEMBLE slavery in some ways. So does limited ownership of the means of production. That doesn't mean that either one IS slavery.

Movies resemble stage plays. Saying, "Movies ARE stage plays" would be just as silly as saying taxing people to provide homes for the homeless IS slavery.

By the way, in "The Dawn of Everything" (which I'm reading now) Graeber and Wengrow point out that the Native Americans thought the Europeans were servile because they obeyed orders from their "superiors" and honored "property rights" of others. They were, of course, right. However, had they said that property ownership WAS a form of slavery they would have overstated their case, just like you have (although not as badly).