[quote]countingbeans wrote:
It just simply is.
[/quote]
But isn’t that the point of this whole discussion, determining whence it came?
If you’re going to say, “It just simply is” then that is no more valid than me saying, “No, it simply is not.”
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
by that analogy, it has ALWAYS been cloudy.[/quote]
Yup. And the founders understood this (at least in theory, not always in practice.)
Correct again.
Based on what you said here, this is contradictory.
Just because something isn’t respected, followed or believed by mankind doesn’t make it not there.
Generations of Native Americans had zero clue the Europeans were across the pond. Doesn’t mean they weren’t there. You can’t use man’s fallibility to explain the presence or refute the presence of something man didn’t create.
The concept of innate is that something is there whether other men want to abide by it or not.
Now you’re starting to get it.
No. And neither is protection from the rain or clouds. The blue sky is the right.
(Umbrella = government BTW.)
[/quote]
It is EXACTLY man’s fallibility that is my argument. In nature, animals INSTINCTIVELY know how to feed their young, hide from predators, fly or swim… Because it is INNATE. They were born with this knowledge/tendency/instinct - it’s part of their DNA… Humans are NOT born with anything resembling morality. We are empty vessels that are filled with what our environment gives us.
Look at us on this forum: we are logical, empathetic, moral human beings arguing civilly about an abstract idea. We were raised in an environment that taught us these things. Some of us subscribe to the existence of a creator, some of us don’t. Despite our differences on such a fundamental issue, none of want to KILL anyone over our differences. That’s what we were filled up with.
Now let’s look at an Islamic extremist: Not logical, not empathetic, his morality is twisted with hate and revenge. He was raised in an environment that taught him those things. He subscribes to the existence of a creator and wants to kill or convert ANYONE who disagrees with him. He wants to disenfranchise and mutilate women because that’s what he was taught. When his “enemy” is killed or maimed, it makes him happy. That’s what HE was filled up with.
Both of these individuals exist in this world at this time in large numbers. I personally would not bat and eye or lose a minute of sleep by KILLING one or more of the Islamic extremists. I would “violate his innate right” to life right now if one of those crazy assholes were standing in front of me. Why? Because I CAN. I am the arbiter of justice according to MY CODE. Just as that crazy muther fucker would blow up a bus filled with women and children if someone put the switch in his hand.
The “right” to life/freedom from harm simply depends on which tribe you subscribe to. That’s it! Either you are strong enough to defend you and yours, or you will get killed/beaten by those stronger than you. There are no “rights”…
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
It just simply is.
[/quote]
But isn’t that the point of this whole discussion, determining whence it came?
If you’re going to say, “It just simply is” then that is no more valid than me saying, “No, it simply is not.”
[/quote]
EXACTLY!
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Does the right exist, well yes it does. What is it, two people of equal ‘value’ have no right to harm each other.[/quote]
This is not the existence of a right, it is the absence of one. What is at issue is whether or not a natural right exists. If you say that it does, then you must evidence its existence.
[/quote]
Well that would be the ‘negative’ right. The right of a person to be unharmed by another
[quote]
[quote]
If no such right exists, then all of what people are capable of is just another thing. No better, no worse than anything else. Saving an orphan is as raping and killing a baby. No rights, then no wrongs. Utter chaos.[/quote]
Could be so, but this is an argumentum ad consequentium–i.e., illegitimate–if is intended to assail the “no natural rights” position.[/quote]
hmm, well is not the whole point of preserving the ‘do no harm’ with regards to another equal human a matter of consequence? If no consequence for an action exists then no harm is done. So the root of the ‘right’ or value is in the consequence.
The problem with these types of discussions is that they can only be exemplified by example, but cause the metaethical problems are undefinable. We have an understanding by example, but we have no explicit way to express.
So let’s put this another way, the way to understand this is to internalize.
If you have no natural right to life or freedom from harm, what’s to stop me from hurting you and what business is it of yours to complain if I do?
If you have no natural right, then for me to strike you, say with a bat, is of no greater consequence than a rock dropping on your head.
Is it right for me to strike you with a bat, should that action be unwarrented for any reason? And if not, then why not?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
People have the right to not be harmed by other people. People do not have an intrinsic right to live. It’s a compartmentalized right.[/quote]
This is the axiomatic claim: People have a natural right not to be harmed by other people. Implicit in this claim is the claim that this natural right literally “exists.”
But for everything that we can correctly say “this exists,” we can provide evidence of its existence.
On what evidence do you affirm the literal existence of the natural right in question?
[Aside: There is no need to enumerate stipulations to allow for things like “just” war and killing in self defense. Those are implied.][/quote]
Ah, thus lies the problem with ethics, we cannot explicitly describe ‘it’ because linguistically we don’t have the tools.
Does the right exist, well yes it does. What is it, two people of equal ‘value’ have no right to harm each other. It’s contingent on value. If we say, then, that people do not have an implicit right to not be harmed by another person, then we place a value on the aggressor vs. the victim. The aggressors implicit ‘value’ is higher than his victim. Because if a person does not have a right not to be harmed willfully by another person, then that person’s value must be less.
Three things are in play, freewill, value and harm.
The equality of man determines the right of that man to not be harmed by another willfully. If no such right exists, then all of what people are capable of is just another thing. No better, no worse than anything else. Saving an orphan is as raping and killing a baby. No rights, then no wrongs. Utter chaos.[/quote]
But history and present day disagrees with you. Here are two excerpts from Human Rape: Revising Evolutionary Perspectives by Melissa Emery Thompson
“Evolution is recognized by biologists to occur without moral bias. Animals exhibit all mannerof atrocities in the outcome of natural selection from the killing of infants and siblings to the consuming of a mother by her newborn young for nutritional advantage. Biologists who explain why the propensity for such behaviors has evolved see no moral lessons emerging from their analyses. Nor do the theorists behind the evolutionary hypotheses for rape propose that a biological explanation for the origin of rape reduces its weight as a crime.”
“… In other cases, such as among the YanomamÃ?¶ tribes-men of South America, the acquisition of wives is considered to be one desired side effect of a successful raid (Chagnon 1997). Such raiding, as well as forcible theft of brides from within the community, is reported from ethnographic populations on every major continent and from both polygynous and monogamous cultures (Ayres 1974). This behavior even extends to ritualized â??mockâ?? bride theft, in which the man is expected to abduct his new wife while she or her parents feign resistance until a suitable bride price or other settlement can be made (Ayres 1974). Such displays suggest that the forcible abduction of wives may have been more widespread during human history.”
Now, I think we can all agree that RAPE IS BAD. But rape has been used as a viable mating strategy since the dawn of humanity. If people have the “natural right” not to be harmed by other people, by virtue of being “HUMAN”, as you claim in your previous post, when did this right evolve? When SOCIETY declared it to be against the law! It is not “innate”, or else we (humans) wouldn’t DO it…
There are currently governments and societies that are sanctioning genital mutilation… Doubts grow over Isis 'FGM edict' in Iraq - BBC News I’d say that’s pretty hurtful. But millions of people IN THAT SOCIETY are fine with it.
This is happening RIGHT NOW. If there are “natural rights”, how do you defend entire swaths of humans ignoring these so called “natural rights” and instead embracing what their CULTURE and GOVERNMENT impose/allow?
[/quote]
Oh, I agree history disagrees. Some people were considered more valuable than others, hence their actions on the lesser were of no consequence, or there was a cheapness to it.
The question is 1) just because it happened, was it right? 2) Was the value of the ‘victims’ truly less than the perpetrators? 3) Is there a choice to do otherwise?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
People have the right to not be harmed by other people. People do not have an intrinsic right to live. It’s a compartmentalized right.[/quote]
This is the axiomatic claim: People have a natural right not to be harmed by other people. Implicit in this claim is the claim that this natural right literally “exists.”
But for everything that we can correctly say “this exists,” we can provide evidence of its existence.
On what evidence do you affirm the literal existence of the natural right in question?
[Aside: There is no need to enumerate stipulations to allow for things like “just” war and killing in self defense. Those are implied.][/quote]
Ah, thus lies the problem with ethics, we cannot explicitly describe ‘it’ because linguistically we don’t have the tools.
Does the right exist, well yes it does. What is it, two people of equal ‘value’ have no right to harm each other. It’s contingent on value. If we say, then, that people do not have an implicit right to not be harmed by another person, then we place a value on the aggressor vs. the victim. The aggressors implicit ‘value’ is higher than his victim. Because if a person does not have a right not to be harmed willfully by another person, then that person’s value must be less.
Three things are in play, freewill, value and harm.
The equality of man determines the right of that man to not be harmed by another willfully. If no such right exists, then all of what people are capable of is just another thing. No better, no worse than anything else. Saving an orphan is as raping and killing a baby. No rights, then no wrongs. Utter chaos.[/quote]
So if we constantly put unequal values on people then this natural right is kind of meaningless?[/quote]
Quite the opposite. If we place value on humans then the ‘rights’ of the greater supercede those of the ‘lesser’
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
There is no “innate, natural right” to a sunny day…
[/quote]
Sure. There is nothing about an innate right that says anyone else has to respect it. They can choose not to, and we, to this day, do it all the time. We, mankind, are the clouds.
The right is just “there”. The sky is blue. Nothing more, nothing less. We do not make it, destroy it, we don’t have to recognize it, but it doesn’t change that it is there.
It just simply is.
Whether you enjoy it, earn it, fight for it, are given it, or have it protected, is dependent upon you and the environment around you.
[/quote]
What I hear you saying is that you were raised in a relatively “safe” society with laws set by a tribute taking state that protected you and your family (for the most part) from the “baser” elements of said society. Therefore, given your privileged (judged against the standard of all humans in human history) upbringing, you “feel” that ALL people “should” have the same opportunity of peace and tranquility that YOU were fortunate enough to have been born into. Whether you feel that way because of religious conviction (my guess) or because of some liberal fantasy (not insulting you, just giving the logical alternative lol), that FEELING cannot be proven any more than the existence of GOD can be proven.
FTR, I agree that it is VERY productive for societies to have laws that protect their citizens. But I don’t kid myself by assuming it as a “right”. It is in place because men before you and I fought and died for a GOVERNMENT that established those rights - they are NOT innate.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Does the right exist, well yes it does. What is it, two people of equal ‘value’ have no right to harm each other.[/quote]
This is not the existence of a right, it is the absence of one. What is at issue is whether or not a natural right exists. If you say that it does, then you must evidence its existence.
[/quote]
I believe the absence of a right is what’s being discussed. I think I clarified my position a page or two ago, and I believe pat joined in after that point.[/quote]
Am I understanding your position correctly? I am not one to go back to far. 3-4 pages is my limit. 
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Again, terms need to be uniform consistent.
[/quote]
This is something I wish to always be done. It’s refreshing to hear somebody else ring that bell. It’s agony to argue with different understandings of terms.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Does the right exist, well yes it does. What is it, two people of equal ‘value’ have no right to harm each other.[/quote]
This is not the existence of a right, it is the absence of one. What is at issue is whether or not a natural right exists. If you say that it does, then you must evidence its existence.
[/quote]
Well that would be the ‘negative’ right. The right of a person to be unharmed by another
[quote]
[quote]
If no such right exists, then all of what people are capable of is just another thing. No better, no worse than anything else. Saving an orphan is as raping and killing a baby. No rights, then no wrongs. Utter chaos.[/quote]
Could be so, but this is an argumentum ad consequentium–i.e., illegitimate–if is intended to assail the “no natural rights” position.[/quote]
hmm, well is not the whole point of preserving the ‘do no harm’ with regards to another equal human a matter of consequence? If no consequence for an action exists then no harm is done. So the root of the ‘right’ or value is in the consequence.
The problem with these types of discussions is that they can only be exemplified by example, but cause the metaethical problems are undefinable. We have an understanding by example, but we have no explicit way to express.
So let’s put this another way, the way to understand this is to internalize.
If you have no natural right to life or freedom from harm, what’s to stop me from hurting you and what business is it of yours to complain if I do?
If you have no natural right, then for me to strike you, say with a bat, is of no greater consequence than a rock dropping on your head.
Is it right for me to strike you with a bat, should that action be unwarrented for any reason? And if not, then why not?[/quote]
Has this not been answered already in the last page?
SM. “That is evidence that someone doesn’t like something - I don’t like being killed. I don’t like being robbed. Then you can recognise that other people don’t like those things either. You can even recognise that you don’t like doing those things to other people - ie, you have a conscience and feel remorse. But none of that proves the existence of rights.”
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Does the right exist, well yes it does. What is it, two people of equal ‘value’ have no right to harm each other.[/quote]
This is not the existence of a right, it is the absence of one. What is at issue is whether or not a natural right exists. If you say that it does, then you must evidence its existence.
[/quote]
Well that would be the ‘negative’ right. The right of a person to be unharmed by another[/quote]
Adam’s natural right not to be harmed by Eve is not the same as the non-existence of Eve’s natural right to harm Adam.
If we are to affirm that Adam does have a natural right not to be harmed by Eve, then on what evidence do we affirm the existence of this natural right? For everything about which we can justifiably say “this exists,” there is evidence of its existence. What is the evidence in the present case?
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
If no such right exists, then all of what people are capable of is just another thing. No better, no worse than anything else. Saving an orphan is as raping and killing a baby. No rights, then no wrongs. Utter chaos.[/quote]
Could be so, but this is an argumentum ad consequentium–i.e., illegitimate–if is intended to assail the “no natural rights” position.[/quote]
hmm, well is not the whole point of preserving the ‘do no harm’ with regards to another equal human a matter of consequence? [/quote]
Consequence is immaterial to the truth or falsity of the proposition that “natural rights exist.” The questions you asked don’t have any bearing on the truth value of the proposition. They are, obviously, the natural next step along the way. But they can’t tell us whether to mark down T or F.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Again, terms need to be uniform consistent.
[/quote]
This is something I wish to always be done. It’s refreshing to hear somebody else ring that bell. It’s agony to argue with different understandings of terms.[/quote]
One of the big problems with any of these discussions is that, by the time one has hammered out precise meanings for every term, nobody is interested in the discussion anymore.
You can either have a meaningless conversation that is satisfying, or a meaningful conversation that is agonizing.
That’s hyperbole, of course, but there is some truth in it.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
A right is obviously not a physical being, so nothing is going to prove its existence as if it is.
[/quote]
Natural rights do not exist physically, but they do exist?
If you can show this to be true, you’ll have taken down one of the principle ontological schools of contemporary philosophy (physicalism).[/quote]
You may not be able to disprove physicalism but there are signs that suggest it’s not correct.
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement[/quote]
Quantum entanglement does not disprove physicalism, it disproves that it necessarily must be local.
We often don’t even realize that the ‘spaces’ in the quantum world are so tiny that space-time literally does not apply. In other words, just because large spaces separate seemly related events, does not mean that the physical state of a particle very far off from another, has no reason to affect another. It’s at this level, matter of it’s properties, vs. it’s position that allow physical causation to still matter, even at great distances.
One physicist describes this issue in terms that there is a point of smallness where literally space-time shreds and becomes irrelevant. It’s our antiquated notions of locality that prevent us from see this world as it is.
Not sure how that plays into the ethics, but fun stuff nonetheless.
[quote]pat wrote:
Oh, I agree history disagrees. Some people were considered more valuable than others, hence their actions on the lesser were of no consequence, or there was a cheapness to it.
The question is 1) just because it happened, was it right? 2) Was the value of the ‘victims’ truly less than the perpetrators? 3) Is there a choice to do otherwise?[/quote]
-
By the value system I have come to adopt, it was not “right”. But it happened. If I had grown in those times with those values, I may have had no qualms whatsoever about doing things that I would NEVER do now.
-
Value is subjective and determined by strength in those times - “might made right”. Therefor, IN THAT CONTEXT, the value of the victims HAD to be less than the value of the perpetrator.
-
There is ALWAYS a choice.
And I’m gonna open up some fresh wounds here, but even the Founding Fathers owned slaves… We don’t need to revisit the topic, we’ve gone on and on about it in the other thread. Just sayin’… If THEY, the ENLIGHTENED framers of our Constitution, CHOSE TO OWN PEOPLE, how can one logically argue that we have ANY “innate, natural rights”? They were greater men than most of this sorry bunch could EVER hope to meet… And yet what they wrote and what they DID was in conflict. Because that’s how they were raised. Because there are no innate rights, we are a product of what we are TAUGHT.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Humans are NOT born with anything resembling morality.[/quote]
Oh…
Well I was talking about rights, not morality.
You totally and absolutely contradict and destroy your entire argument right here.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
A right is obviously not a physical being, so nothing is going to prove its existence as if it is.
[/quote]
Natural rights do not exist physically, but they do exist?
If you can show this to be true, you’ll have taken down one of the principle ontological schools of contemporary philosophy (physicalism).[/quote]
You may not be able to disprove physicalism but there are signs that suggest it’s not correct.
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement[/quote]
Indeed, it is not my contention that physicalism is proved or even that it is reasonable to subscribe to it over anything else (that’s a whole separate argument). Rather I mean to say that to disprove it would be unprecedented. The implication being that that isn’t going to happen here on PWI, valiant thinkers though we all might be.
And the non-physical existence of a “natural right” would definitely disprove physicalism.[/quote]
The proof of anything metaphysical disproves physicalism, whose modern variant is naturalism. This very discussion is metaphysical in nature, which thus disproves physicalism. Even if the ‘natural right’ is proven not to exist, the discussion of it does and hence disproves physicalism. The metaphysical expressed physically does not make it physical, only it’s expression. All the concepts, for and against are metaphysical, expressed physically. Why? It’s the only way we have to express them.
Physicalism is dead. Even most empiricists concede that laws and theory are not physical, they argue that it proceeds from the physical, but it’s not physical.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
What I hear you saying [/quote]
No offense at all, but you don’t “hear” what I’m saying, not at all.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Does the right exist, well yes it does. What is it, two people of equal ‘value’ have no right to harm each other.[/quote]
This is not the existence of a right, it is the absence of one. What is at issue is whether or not a natural right exists. If you say that it does, then you must evidence its existence.
[/quote]
Well that would be the ‘negative’ right. The right of a person to be unharmed by another
[quote]
[quote]
If no such right exists, then all of what people are capable of is just another thing. No better, no worse than anything else. Saving an orphan is as raping and killing a baby. No rights, then no wrongs. Utter chaos.[/quote]
Could be so, but this is an argumentum ad consequentium–i.e., illegitimate–if is intended to assail the “no natural rights” position.[/quote]
hmm, well is not the whole point of preserving the ‘do no harm’ with regards to another equal human a matter of consequence? If no consequence for an action exists then no harm is done. So the root of the ‘right’ or value is in the consequence.
The problem with these types of discussions is that they can only be exemplified by example, but cause the metaethical problems are undefinable. We have an understanding by example, but we have no explicit way to express.
So let’s put this another way, the way to understand this is to internalize.
If you have no natural right to life or freedom from harm, what’s to stop me from hurting you and what business is it of yours to complain if I do?
If you have no natural right, then for me to strike you, say with a bat, is of no greater consequence than a rock dropping on your head.
Is it right for me to strike you with a bat, should that action be unwarrented for any reason? And if not, then why not?[/quote]
That question goes down to the genetic level. We are “survival/replication machines” for our genes. Our physical bodies evolved to live long enough to fight and to fuck. If you hit me with a bat, then as ANY animal, I will react to defend myself so that I can continue to survive and replicate.
If you want to make the argument that our “right to life/freedom from harm” is an expression of our genetic evolution, then I might buy it - but it is HARDLY a universally expressed option, because we ALL have a selfish interest to live. That “right” would be immediately superseded by the “strongest/smartest” player…
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
But isn’t that the point of this whole discussion, determining whence it came?[/quote]
Sure. But that is purely mental masturbation. There is no point.
What makes the sky blue doesn’t change the fact it is blue.
It came from the same place gravity did, how’s that?
[quote]If you’re going to say, “It just simply is” then that is no more valid than me saying, “No, it simply is not.”
[/quote]
Yeah if you take the quote out of context like you did, sure.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Humans are NOT born with anything resembling morality.[/quote]
Oh…
Well I was talking about rights, not morality.
You totally and absolutely contradict and destroy your entire argument right here.
[/quote]
Maybe it’s just been a long day, but I have NO idea what you are talking about when you say that. Seriously. How have I destroyed my own argument with two true statements…