The 3 Laws

1. A human being cannot injure a human being or, through inaction
Allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A human being need not obey the orders of another human being
except where such would conflict with the first law.

3. A human being may protect its own existance beyond the reqirements
of the first and second laws. Unless one wishes to sacrifice life for the continued existance of another.
As condoned by the inaction section of law #1

Occam

 

dr asimov, i presume?



heh...

 

what a wonderful world it would be if we all lived by those laws, too...

 

Why are humans exclusive in this ethical circle?

What choice is one left with if another does not obey such laws and must defend oneself?

 

Just a play on the three laws from asimovs books...
Revamped in a mediocre fashion in the new movie.

What happens if another does not follow the rules.?
Then you defend yourself...

There are no 'human' morals and ethics outside of human heads.
Just like fairness, beauty and love.
We agree on a code... [but many do not]

The core or rational morality is the old favourite..
"Do unto others as you would have then do unto you."
All else..including religious morality..are amendments to this.

Occam

 

And it harm none, do what you will.


Live and let live.

Do not do unto others that which you would not want done unto you.

 

your freedom ends where the freedom of somebody else starts.



(where the hell did i get that from heh )

 

That is a VERY good quote, CT. I have never seen that one before, but I've always believed in the idea that human being have inherent rights (whether they are God-given or not depends on what you believe in =P), such as the right to live. The limit of one's freedom occurs when that person tries to extend it in such a way that it infringes on the rights (inherent or otherwise) of another person. Unfortunately, people do this all the time, unchecked, and there is no way to fix it if the victim of the situation can't do anything about it.

Regardless, great quote.

 

Yep, I love it... I wish I could take credit for it, but I read it somewhere else in a book I think...
It applies to so much, from harming to hindering to irritating people, etc etc.

 

Occam, what about the 'insane' or sadists or masochists?

How does this moral code apply to actions that do not directly affect others?
The Golden Rule is incapable of covering these and many other situations.

Hikaru, How can rights be inherent if there is no God to make them such (assuming nihilistic reality)

 

'And it harm none, do what you will.'

I take this to mean self included.

The insane, s and m ers, etc. are exceptions. Every rule has some, it seems.

 

Simple logic, my friend.

If we did not have the right to exist, we would not have been born into this world to begin with. All of us, by having the virtue of sentience, and by the virtue of having a physical body, have life. And by having life, we have the right to keep that life; whether it is a gift from above (or below), or whether it just sort of happened that way. Furthermore, we have the inherent right to freedom: That is, we have the inherent right to do anything that does not conflict with the freedom of others. Now, this right is often broken (slavery, etc.) just as the first one is (murder), but if you are purposefully limiting someone else from doing what they want (unless it's in the defense of your own inherent rights, or the inherent rights of others), then that is where your freedom ends; you are not free to take the lives of others, or to limit the freedom of another person.

Now, if you're nihilistic, you just don't care. The rights you or others have, be they inherent or otherwise, mean nothing to you. The rights definately still exist (and basic morality in all cultures is derived from them), you just don't care whether they exist or not.

If there is no God to give life, then life still just appeared on its own. Regardless of how life sprung up, it still did just that, and that inherently gives you the right to life.

 

I still fail to see why rights can be inherent. You say being alive gives you the right to live. What do you form this assertion upon? I assume you form them on your personal ethics. What makes those ethics righteous? If morality and ethics are a product of thought, they do not exist inherently. You must derive them from experience and observations.

That is not my meaning of nihilism. Lack of absolutes in the area ethics was operative concept in my reference.

Now I agree all life has the right to live. But it is not inherent, for it would need some sort of objective source. The 'right' must be created and sustained by society and the individuals within it.

 

Thumontico

Sadists and masochists tendencies are resolved by
a: masochists hurt themselves...That is their right.
b: Sadists either have permission from a victim..
A thing entrenched in our society but not oft spoken about..
Or they do not.
If they do not then they violate the inherent rights of others.
And those others may wield any power they wish to prevent
that violation.

Do you mean how the code may 'indirectly' effect others?
Like a child left fatherless because dad tried to gratuitously take
anothers life and was killed in the event?

That.. Is firstly the responsibillity of 'dad'
And secondly, the society that dad committed a tresspass against.
It should not have allowed the situation to reach that point.

There is NO golden rule...
Just the rule that works best..
That results in least loss of our inherent rights.

As to the insane

They, and the SO many that are borderline by social definition.
And that includes genius.
Are the variables in the system called the human race.
We do not even know what consciousness is.
So our definition of insanity is a house of cards built on sand..

Occam

 

Thumontico

You ask what is a right?
You say it needs an objective source?

Well WE exist objectively.
Or we could not say we do.

As objectve beings..We agree what is a LAW and through action of our physical beings...
We make phenomena that result in an objective reality we wish.

Our minds...A thing of objective reality...Bends reality to the will of the mind.
We are the objective source...
[of what we do]

Occam

 

I disagree only in the hypocrisy of the value of human lives over other animals in your code. Because we are humans does not infer relation to only other humans. Unnecessary destruction of life is very apparent and accepted in this society, and that disturbs me.

Perhaps we are objective. But ethics are relative. It must be made known that an ACTUAL agreement must be made. Contract.

There is no objective source, for there would have to be a 'perfect' being from which they were thought. Such a being does not exist in reality. Absolute morals, however, do exist within a contractual society. But only within THAT society, verily.

 

Maybe we need a Frank Herbert-type gom jabbar test to see who qualifies as a human being.

There seem to be plenty of homo sapients out there desguised as "Human Beings"!

 

Thumontico

Verily indeed

And thus we move up the ladder.
Societies.

Social morality.. pyongyang moraility is not geneva morality.

Are humans so stupid?

Occam

 

Pyongyang morality

Is why occam drags this thread to the fore

Occam

 

man i seen that shit on "i robot"