Bodily integrity vs moral responsibility

[Secular Sanity]

The golden rule implies consent, because no matter your personal penchants, you would rather be consulted if there is any doubt.

Really?  I must have missed that in bible school.

Ethically, we have to be able to exert equal force on those unconstrained by ethics. The unethical will use civilians as human shields, and often the civilians are complicit in their lack of resistance. No resistance is tacit acceptance. Non-combatants cannot be attacked, but collateral damage cannot always be avoided.

But how does any of that justify cold-blooded, premeditated murder?

That’s your justification?  You merely assume that innocent civilians aren’t so innocent.  

Most attacks in war are premeditated, and as you can see, "many modern nations' views on the ethics of civilian casualties align with the Just War theory, which advocates a system of proportionality.  This view is a war-adapted version of utilitarianism, the moral system which advocates that the morally correct action is the one that does the most good."  

Spock’s logic:  "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

How is that not cold-blooded, premeditated murder?

[Syne]

The golden rule implies consent, because no matter your personal penchants, you would rather be consulted if there is any doubt.

Really?  I must have missed that in bible school.

And assuming you know anything about bible school, how old were you? The very first question anybody has of the golden rule is how to reconcile what one person would have done to them but another may not. The simplest way to square that is consent. Since people differ, you cannot hope to apply it without consulting consent.

Ethically, we have to be able to exert equal force on those unconstrained by ethics. The unethical will use civilians as human shields, and often the civilians are complicit in their lack of resistance. No resistance is tacit acceptance. Non-combatants cannot be attacked, but collateral damage cannot always be avoided.

But how does any of that justify cold-blooded, premeditated murder?

That’s your justification?  You merely assume that innocent civilians aren’t so innocent.  

Most attacks in war are premeditated, and as you can see, "many modern nations' views on the ethics of civilian casualties align with the Just War theory, which advocates a system of proportionality.  This view is a war-adapted version of utilitarianism, the moral system which advocates that the morally correct action is the one that does the most good."  

Spock’s logic:  "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

How is that not cold-blooded, premeditated murder?

I also said collateral damage. Both cases do occur. How does an individual murderer ethically justify it as a "greater good"? Are you so ethically bankrupt that you can't even see the difference? Or is your thinking no more nuanced than the child in bible school? Is all murder equally and naively bad, regardless of a goal to save lives?

And it's not even as simplistic as the "greatest good". Ethically, it's the greatest good at the least harm. This means that, while it may be the greatest good for the majority of people to live better, it is not justified at the expense of making the minority suffer.

[Secular Sanity]

I also said collateral damage. Both cases do occur. How does an individual murderer ethically justify it as a "greater good"? Are you so ethically bankrupt that you can't even see the difference? Or is your thinking no more nuanced than the child in bible school? Is all murder equally and naively bad, regardless of a goal to save lives?

And it's not even as simplistic as the "greatest good". Ethically, it's the greatest good at the least harm. This means that, while it may be the greatest good for the majority of people to live better, it is not justified at the expense of making the minority suffer.

Does the military advantage to be gained from striking a target outweigh the anticipated incidental civilian loss of life and property if this target is struck?  That’s all that matters, right, Syne?

Weren’t you just arguing in favor of objective morality?  You know, how some things are just wrong, no matter what.  Oh, right, it’s not murder even though you know that when you fire that missile, you’ll be killing innocent civilians.  All you have to do is just change the term from innocent civilians to collateral damage...and badda boom, badda bing. 

Are you so emotionally bankrupt that you can't even see the similarities?  

Collateral Damage

Also during the 1991 Gulf War, Coalition forces used the phrase 'collateral damage' to describe the killing of civilians in attacks on legitimate targets. According to Scottish linguist Deborah Cameron, "the classic Orwellian argument for finding this usage objectionable would be that

• it is jargon, and to the extent that people cannot decode it, it conceals what is actually going on;
  it is a euphemism; abstract, agentless and affectless, so that even if people succeed in associating it with a real act or event they will be insulated from any feeling of repulsion and moral outrage.
  

In 1999, "collateral damage" (German: Kollateralschaden) was named the German Un-Word of the Year by a jury of linguistic scholars. With this choice, it was criticized that the term had been used by NATO forces to describe civilian casualties during the Kosovo War, which the jury considered to be an inhuman euphemism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage

Consequentialist morality states that it is better to act in a way that will benefit the most number of people even if it means causing harm – so killing one person to save five.

Deontological morality focuses on the idea that certain things are wrong - like killing an innocent person - even if it can help more people.

Well-well…whatta you know, a cold calculating consequentialist.  Can’t trust 'em as far as you can throw 'em.  How could you ever trust someone who’d do a cost/benefit analysis on whether or not you should be sacrificed for the greater good? It’s a utilitarian outlook, commonly associated with anti-social traits such as psychopathy—tsk, tsk.

Well, you did say that emotions just cloud our judgement.  Who needs them when we can just crunch the numbers, right?

Goodnight, Syne.

[Syne]

Does the military advantage to be gained from striking a target outweigh the anticipated incidental civilian loss of life and property if this target is struck?  That’s all that matters, right, Syne?

Weren’t you just arguing in favor of objective morality?  You know, how some things are just wrong, no matter what.  Oh, right, it’s not murder even though you know that when you fire that missile, you’ll be killing innocent civilians.  All you have to do is just change the term from innocent civilians to collateral damage...and badda boom, badda bing. 

Are you so emotionally bankrupt that you can't even see the similarities?  

Better to be emotionally bankrupt than ethically so. The lack of ethics leaves no check for your emotions to justify any action at all. And I assume you're smart enough to know what collateral damage means. It's not a secret.

You're asking the wrong questions. It's not about military advantage, it's about saving lives. And yes, in war, some hard math needs to be done. The same population that may take collateral damage will often suffer much more death, torture, and deprivation if the targets are not taken out. You sound like you'd prefer leaving such people to their fate, you know, just so long as you can continue to feel good about yourself...emotionally.

I am arguing objective ethics, but you still insist on being naive. Murder, being unjustified, has no further ethical considerations but the life of the victim. Military action very often has to balance several ethical considerations. Is inaction against brutality, you are fully capable of stopping, ethical, or does such inaction make you a tacit accomplice? If the latter, is a relatively small sacrifice of innocents in the ending of that brutality justified to save an overwhelmingly greater number? You must weigh at least two different ethical obligations.

• It is wrong to murder.
  
• It is wrong to allow murder, when in your power to prevent it.
  

But I guess you'd prefer sitting back and watching things like genocide, just as long as your lack of involvement lets you justify away your tacit complicity.

Consequentialist morality states that it is better to act in a way that will benefit the most number of people even if it means causing harm – so killing one person to save five.

Deontological morality focuses on the idea that certain things are wrong - like killing an innocent person - even if it can help more people.

Well-well…whatta you know, a cold calculating consequentialist.  Can’t trust 'em as far as you can throw 'em.  How could you ever trust someone who’d do a cost/benefit analysis on whether or not you should be sacrificed for the greater good? It’s a utilitarian outlook, commonly associated with anti-social traits such as psychopathy—tsk, tsk.

Well, you did say that emotions just cloud our judgement.  Who needs them when we can just crunch the numbers, right?

Individual ethical obligations are objective and deontological, but when two or more such ethical obligations come into conflict, it must be resolved employing utilitarianism/consequentialism. And again, the "greater good" is not the sole consideration. Sacrifice to improve the greater good is rarely justified, while sacrifice to limit further suffering may be. Emotion will have you turning a blind eye to suffering because it is uncomfortable, but then some people spend their whole lives as naive children.

[Secular Sanity]

Why is murder universally wrong?

Any five-year-old knows why. I am human...I don't want to be murdered...hence it would be wrong for me to murder others. But adult sociopaths seem to have difficulty understanding the basic universal ethics espoused in the golden rule.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is that it?  Can you see where this golden rule might fail as a moral guide?

The golden rule implies consent, because no matter your personal penchants, you would rather be consulted if there is any doubt.

Individual ethical obligations are objective and deontological, but when two or more such ethical obligations come into conflict, it must be resolved employing utilitarianism/consequentialism. And again, the "greater good" is not the sole consideration. Sacrifice to improve the greater good is rarely justified, while sacrifice to limit further suffering may be. Emotion will have you turning a blind eye to suffering because it is uncomfortable, but then some people spend their whole lives as naive children.

Come now, Syne.  Any five-year-old knows why it’s wrong.  

I am human…I don’t want to be sacrificed…hence it would be wrong for me to sacrifice others. But adult sociopaths seem to have difficulty understanding the basic universal ethics espoused in the golden rule.

The golden rule implies consent, because no matter your personal penchants, you would rather be consulted if there is any doubt.

[Secular Sanity]

Individual ethical obligations are objective and deontological, but when two or more such ethical obligations come into conflict, it must be resolved employing utilitarianism/consequentialism. And again, the "greater good" is not the sole consideration. Sacrifice to improve the greater good is rarely justified, while sacrifice to limit further suffering may be.

Then we agree.  Certainty is not to be had.  We must give up the demand for certainty, become willing to act in a field of probable goods and probable evils.  

A sacrifice to limit further suffering may indeed be justified.

What was your original question again?  

Oh, right, it was about—Gender Dysphoria, Body Integrity Identity Disorder, and Assisted Suicide.

[Syne]

Come now, Syne.  Any five-year-old knows why it’s wrong.  

I am human…I don’t want to be sacrificed…hence it would be wrong for me to sacrifice others. But adult sociopaths seem to have difficulty understanding the basic universal ethics espoused in the golden rule.

Again you are conflating an individual ethical obligation with the need to balance two conflicting ethical obligations. That is not a valid argument against individual ethical obligations being objective. Sacrifice is only ethical in the service of other ethical obligations, so you've actually muddied the water beyond what a child would be capable of understanding. But in that light, it makes sense why you don't understand.

Individual ethical obligations are objective and deontological, but when two or more such ethical obligations come into conflict, it must be resolved employing utilitarianism/consequentialism. And again, the "greater good" is not the sole consideration. Sacrifice to improve the greater good is rarely justified, while sacrifice to limit further suffering may be.

Then we agree.  Certainty is not to be had.  We must give up the demand for certainty, become willing to act in a field of probable goods and probable evils.  

A sacrifice to limit further suffering may indeed be justified.

What was your original question again?  

Oh, right, it was about—Gender Dysphoria, Body Integrity Identity Disorder, and Assisted Suicide.

Yes, I already said "It's not about certainty or absolutes...neither is achievable" quite early in this thread. So are you intentionally trying to erect a strawman, or just have a poor memory? Is emotional stress adversely effecting your memory?

Probable good can only be estimated if you have objective ethics. If all ethics are subjective, there is no standard on which to build any agreement on probable good. You cannot do math without a consistent number system.

So....are you saying the sacrifice of bodily autonomy (in the form of precautionary prerequisites) is a reasonable sacrifice for the greater good of protecting the potentially mentally ill?

[Secular Sanity]

So....are you saying the sacrifice of bodily autonomy (in the form of precautionary prerequisites) is a reasonable sacrifice for the greater good of protecting the potentially mentally ill?

The golden rule is considered a maxim.  In deontological ethics, maxims are understood as subjective principles of action.  

The categorical imperative provides a test on maxims for determining whether the actions they refer to are right, wrong, or permissible.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

Kant's Categorical Imperative is often confused with the Golden Rule. Kant famously criticized the golden rule for not being sensitive to differences of situations.

"Mr. Bernard Shaw's remark "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may be different" is no doubt a smart saying. But it seems to overlook the fact that "doing as you would be done by" includes taking into account your neighbor's tastes as you would that he should take yours into account. Thus the "golden rule" might still express the essence of a universal morality even if no two men in the world had any needs or tastes in common."—Walter Terence Stace

Kant and Nietzsche both, objected to the golden rule.  "How does one know how others want to be treated?"

The obvious way is to ask them.  

C C was right.  We don’t have any personal accounts from these individuals themselves as to what they want in regards to requirements.

Empathy is an emotion.  It involves, not perceiving another as I perceive myself, but perceiving myself as the other.  I can’t imagine what it’s like to want to be a man.  I can’t imagine what it’s like to want an amputation.  I can’t imagine what it’s like to want to die.  I would have to ask them.  I don’t know anyone presently, who wants to die or have a limb amputated, but I do know of a man, who wants to be a woman.  Go ask him but he’s very guarded and defensive.  You’ll have to change your style of posting.

That’s all I have for you.  It was an interesting topic.  You’re pretty sharp.

See you later, Syne.

[Syne]

Who ever said the golden rule was anything but a maxim? It's a simple rule of thumb, not an individual, objective ethical obligation. That Stace quote seems to agree that the golden rule implies taking into account consent/tastes.

But even Kant's categorical imperative is not a test of ethics. It is expressly a test of motive.

Kant believed in a universal ethic because:
"Consequently, Kant argued, hypothetical moral systems cannot persuade moral action or be regarded as bases for moral judgments against others, because the imperatives on which they are based rely too heavily on subjective considerations." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

The motivations of those seeking GRS would be self-servingly biased, to the exclusion of concern for the mentally ill. If you really wish to apply Kantian ethics, you must ask if allowing GRS without any prerequisites would lead to devastating the lives of those who later regret the choice (without any precautionary counseling). Is it right to sacrifice the mentally ill just to make it easier for others. Does convenience and expedience justify devastated lives? If you focus solely on the subjective wants of the GRS seeker, you'd have to assume it does. But...weren't you just talking about how wrong sacrifice is?

I won't be changing my posting style, deary. Learn to debate...or at least make cogent arguments.

[Syne]

Slightly different question.

Is it reasonable to have ANY prerequisites for such procedures (even as little as a three-day waiting period to contemplate their decision)? Does bodily autonomy alone completely absolve the surgeon from moral responsibility? It certainly doesn't in law, but I'm asking about the ethics here. Or is it the involvement of the surgeon that requires accounting for their moral agency with regard to any regretted/adverse outcome? Or is wanting to hold the surgeon accountable, to any extent, just a way to allow the person seeking the procedure to have a scape goat for a poor outcome (and a way to absolve them of the consequences of their own choices)?