Hacker News Reader

Comment by pfortuny | Hacker News Reader

Well, I do not object to your decision.

However, I really do think one has a moral obligation to put oneself at personal risk to expose something you don't morally support, provided there is a reasonable gravity.

That means: it depends on your (conscience) valuation of both risk & moral gravity. Schneier is stating his view: the defense of the Rule of Law in this case is grave enough to put yourself (and even your family) at risk.

There are many people who have done this (and in the States there are quite a few).

But as with moral decisions, I shall not judge you.

However, I also am with Bruce in this. The Rule of Law is more important than you & your family.

When you think of the USSR, you may get to shocking conclusions.

View on HN

I disagree with the thought that one has a moral obligation to do something about something you find immoral. What argument would you put forth to defend such a statement?

You were very selective and general in your question while the OP was a tad more specific on what he meant. He isn't saying you have a moral obligation to do something about EVERYTHING you find immoral. That would be incredibly hard to work out in your day to day life. If you come across something that affects millions of people that you find morally repugnant, you start weighing whether you actively do something or walk away. Both of those are "doing something".

I wasn't selective, intentionally. I'm asking what argument he would supply for ever acting, not merely in certain circumstances.

Why does the commenter believe there is ever a point at which a person becomes morally responsible for the acts of others?

You miss the point, it's not about being morally responsible for the acts of others. It is about the act of self sacrifice to bring to light the immorality of others. This is a "duty" only to the extent that you believe in democracy and the duty of a citizen in it.

As for arguments about why you would ever act, it really depends on the person. Most people are far more pragmatic about what it constitutes for their family to be safe and happy whereas others believe (along with their families) that "It is better to die free than to live in shackles."

I've noticed the latter especially among immigrants from regions with a history of totalitarian regimes. For example, the majority of Russians who immigrated here after the USSR collapsed remember all too well what it's like to live in an oppressive state. For them, they see history repeating itself and know first hand how arguments like "who cares if you've got nothing to hide" end in people disappearing in the night and neighbors ratting each other out for petty reasons. It is very alarmist but when you're born without the cultural trust for government in America, you see things very differently.

What part of democracy requires I defend a minority? Isn't democracy by its very definition harmful to the minority? You invoke the term like it's supposed to flip a switch in my brain, but I guess I'm not being flipped. What is your actual argument? Specifically, what argument would you give to demonstrate a person who believes in a democracy has a duty to, at a loss, expose the wrongdoing of others?

Sorry my statement was very poorly phrased. What I meant was, self sacrifice is not a duty imposed (or even encouraged) on you implicitly or explicitly in a democracy (like voting is, for example). It's only a duty if you believe it is. Yes, this is a tautology, but you seem to be asking for a specific answer to a question that inherently depends on each person and each situation. The majority-minority dynamic further complicates it (i.e., if you are in a minority of Americans who cares about what the NSA is doing, do you have a right to sabotage or expose what they are doing, despite being against the majority?).

As for harmful to a minority, you're thinking of winner-take-all electoral processes. Democracy is usually meant to describe the overarching idea of self-rule with checks and balances. I can't think of a single democracy in the developed world that doesn't have a minority-friendly self correcting feature (whether or not the checks and balances are working properly is a different matter).

To me it comes down to, do you "believe" in democracy or do you actually BELIEVE in democracy? The former means that you don't actually give a shit about the type of government you are ruled by until it infringes on you and yours. The latter means that to you, living in a democracy and being free (from oppression, surveillance, an over-zealous majority, etc.; whatever freedom is for you) is as important an aspect of your identity as your job or your family.

The moral 'value', which asserts 'obligations': "musts and must nots".

Notice that I have insisted on the balance (there may be times when you do not have to do something or simply you cannot do anything reasonable: f.ex. 'give all the money I earn to fight poverty' or 'give all my time to the needy', these may be or may not be done, it depends).

In the end, the people who make these kind of decisions are mostly called heroes.

I cannot explain it better: morality is all about this: what must/must not and what can/cannot be done. Otherwise, there is no 'morality', just 'feelings'.

I'm not talking about balance, I'm talking about existence. I am asking why you think there is ever a moral obligation to act. What argument would you give that a person ever has a moral obligation to act?

Well, when they start shipping off your Jewish neighbors to ghettos, then it might be time to make your voice heard. I just don't think "they're spying on you!!" is a good cause to martyr myself. Because we already knew they were spying on us.

What argument would you put forth to defend your assertion that every person has a moral duty to protect others?

Because what can be done to you, can be done to me.

So http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Fallacy then?

I'd have to see the causal link between some abstract thing happening to me and another (similar but different) abstract thing happening to you, but until someone shows this causal link, it's a fallacy.

Let's say you witnessed your boss's wife killed a man in a brutal murder.

Are you going to call the police or pretend nothing happened so you can reduce the risk you would lose your job?

What are your morals?

What argument would you present which would be intended to persuade me to tell someone?

I just wanted to see what you would do, there's no persuading.

I put forth no such assertion.

You did, even if you didn't mean to, with your Nazi reference.

Sorry I just understood your question.

This is the point where I assert the existence of morality as an axiom. I have no more argument than "it fits better with my understanding of the world. Actually, its opposite does not fit at all."

However, I guess this is shared by many many others.

And because of both, like with Peano's, I am willing to accept it and (because of the nature of what I am accepting), hold it even to my death (or so I hope).

This underlies one of the core questions of philosophical ethics: "what should you do?" There are many moral frameworks* but the way I've always understood it, underlying each of them is that morals are defined by the obligatory feeling they give rise to. (Those feelings may arise regardless of who or what created a particular circumstance.) So for someone to find a situation immoral but not to act is to be immoral himself (or to lead him to rationalize the moral dissonance by revising his moral framework so he perceives that situation as moral).

* E.g. dominant frameworks are: morals are that which is necessary as a matter of integrity and self-respect, morals are that which you would prefer all people strictly adhere to, morals are that which provide the greatest good to the greatest number, morals are that which promote the state (or increase compassion, or knowledge).

How do you go from "morals are defined by the obligatory feeling they give rise to" to "for someone to not act to prevent an immoral situation is immoral itself"?

By that definition everyone is acting immorally at all times when they're not attempting to remedy the most immoral thing they are aware of occurring at any given time. Such a definition fails the "usefulness" test.

I don't understand what the difficulty is. You either act, or you don't actually perceive immorality.

People are not acting immorally at all times when they're not attempting to remedy the most immoral thing, as long as their moral framework indicates not acting (or continuing an ongoing action) is more moral. Should I donate all my money to charity? No, so long as, for example, I am concerting my efforts to use that money toward a greater moral goal.

I found the book, _The_Sociopath_Next_Door_[1], to be an interesting read. The premise of that text is that 4% of the population has no conscience. Moral obligations probably can't be explained unless you go to the meta-level and talk about neuro-chemistry and evolved behavior of social animals. Kind of like trying to explain romantic pair-bonding, or parent-child love, or religious devotion. Unless you have those experiences, you really are at a loss to explain how or what it is. I suppose it is similar to trying to explain the concept of "red" to a person who was blind from birth. You can talk about wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, but it just doesn't seem to capture the gut-level feel for what "red" is. Sociopaths probably don't get the same bursts of endorphins that the rest of the population gets from performing socially important acts.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/07...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com