On Government

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

The non-arbitrariness of rights doesn’t need to be evidenced. Because the very notion of an arbitrary right is self-contradictory.

[/quote]

This depends on our (arbitrary) definition of a “right.” Or are you claiming that there is one correct definition of a “natural right”? What, then, do you say this is?[/quote]

Definition are not arbitrary. They may be conventionnal, but that’s not the same thing.

I do not own a, nor the, definition of right. It’s immanent to the language (game) we both use.

As i said earlier, you only need a dictionary.
Mine said that a “right” is what is conform with or conformable with the rule of justice, law or morality.

And it said that “arbitrary” means “determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle”.

I conclude that right and arbitrariness are mutually exclusive.

[/quote]

Really? I live under laws that are neither necessary nor reasonable. I live next to people whose moralities are as arbitrary as the rules of a drinking game.

362

Then their might violates your rights.
Does not mean you have none.

363

[quote]kamui wrote:

Then their might violates your rights.
Does not mean you have none.

[/quote]

So a right is what conforms with or is conformable with (proper) law or morality.

And (proper) law and morality are, among other things, rules which do not violate my rights.

364

[quote]
So a right is what conforms with or is conformable with (proper) law or morality.[/quote]

Yes… if by “proper law” you means : “a law that can’t be ultimately reduced to whim, chance or impulse”.

If you mean that proper law should not violate your right and that everything that does not violate your right should be legal, then yes.

And before you play the next move :
From that, it does not follow that those two co-dependent concepts are circularly defined.

Both concepts are defined by the a priori structures of the game of “being a civil society”.
[added]
Its “meta-rules”, if you want.
Freedom, equality, reciprocity, etc may be nothing more than meta-rules of a game we are all, by nature, born and bound to play.
But they are certainly nothing less.

That’s what “natural right” means, if it means anything in a post-Jean Bodin context.
And if it doesn’t mean anything at all, then we should give Jill-the-psycho his get-out-of-jail free card. He needs it.

365

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
What I am saying is this: “I have a natural, physical, subjective instinct to survive” does not logically entail that “I have a natural, non-physical, objective right to survive.”

[/quote]

Alright… I’ve found our disconnect.

I would simply fix your post to the following:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
What I am saying is this: “I have a natural, physical, subjective instinct to survive” does logically entail that “I have a natural, non-physical, objective right to attempt to survive.”

[/quote]

Like I said way back in pages long ago to SM, when I first objected to the use of the word “entitled” erroneously. Just because something is your “right” doesn’t mean one doesn’t have to work for it.

We live in a society who’s government generally tends to protect those rights, so the struggle is lessor than other government, particularly those in the past. Which I think affords a luxury that people take for granted. We have a decent umbrella from the clouds and rain.

It isn’t until you start discussing morality, which is separate, that you even factor in whether or not other people should, need to, or otherwise will respect your rights. And I think, and maybe I’m wrong, that is where we disagree.

366

[quote]kamui wrote:
Both concepts are defined by the a priori structures of the game of “being a civil society”.
[added]
Its “meta-rules”, if you want.
Freedom, equality, reciprocity, etc may be nothing more than meta-rules of a game we are all, by nature, born and bound to play.
[/quote]

“Born and bound to play” seems teleological and historically unjustified to me. There are quite a few sexual slaves in less enlightened parts of the world today–or in our purportedly enlightened parts, even–to whom it would come as news that they were born and bound to play a game with rules like freedom and equality.

Similarly, it isn’t much of a stretch to assume that the vast majority of people who have lived on this planet never played that particular game.

Instead, I’d say it’s a game that some of us choose to play. Why? Because we recognize in it a vessel for the protection of our own lives and livelihoods, perhaps.

Which is a far cry from, “here is this non-physical thing you have which represents an objective decree of entitlement to some wonderful beautiful thing everybody wants.” (I know you’re not arguing that.)

367

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
What I am saying is this: “I have a natural, physical, subjective instinct to survive” does not logically entail that “I have a natural, non-physical, objective right to survive.”

[/quote]

Alright… I’ve found our disconnect.

I would simply fix your post to the following:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
What I am saying is this: “I have a natural, physical, subjective instinct to survive” does logically entail that “I have a natural, non-physical, objective right to attempt to survive.”

[/quote]

Like I said way back in pages long ago to SM, when I first objected to the use of the word “entitled” erroneously. Just because something is your “right” doesn’t mean one doesn’t have to work for it.
[/quote]

But what does it mean then? “I want to survive and I can try to do it”?

This is just a statement of fact, like “I want ice cream and I can try to get my hands on some.”

368

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But what does it mean then? “I want to survive and I can try to do it”?[/quote]

I guess, basically, sure.

Yeah, but that is property rights. :wink:

This isn’t revolutionary stuff to “us” as we’ve lived in a situation respecting these rights for our lifetime. As short as a hundred years ago though, the Democrats sure didn’t understand, respect or defend these rights. (Still don’t unless you’re lucky enough to make it out of the womb.)

369

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But what does it mean then? “I want to survive and I can try to do it”?[/quote]

I guess, basically, sure.

Yeah, but that is property rights. :wink:

This isn’t revolutionary stuff to “us” as we’ve lived in a situation respecting these rights for our lifetime. As short as a hundred years ago though, the Democrats sure didn’t understand, respect or defend these rights. (Still don’t unless you’re lucky enough to make it out of the womb.)
[/quote]

Here is the actual disconnect.

Black slaves, to take the example you’ve just alluded to, wanted to survive and they could try to do it. Similarly, if they wanted to be free, they could try to do it.

Nowhere have we yet added in the dictum that the desire to be free be respected.

Here we come to the non-physical mandate that I keep asking be proved. I don’t deny that, as a statement of fact, people desire things like survival and freedom, and, as a further statement of fact, people can strive for these things.

What I don’t see is any objective, not-man-made, natural decree which says that the wanting and the striving must or should be respected by anybody else. This is what a “natural right” tends to entail, and, without God or something very much like God, it fails.

370

[quote]kamui wrote:

The non-arbitrariness of rights doesn’t need to be evidenced. Because the very notion of an arbitrary right is self-contradictory.
[/quote]

This.

371

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Black slaves, to take the example you’ve just alluded to, wanted to survive and they could try to do it. Similarly, if they wanted to be free, they could try to do it.[/quote]

You’re dumbing down instinct into “want” and “desire”, but okay.

Because that is morality. At least in my mind.

Rights are individual and can only be spread to the collective by way of the individual.

[quote]Here we come to the non-physical mandate that I keep asking be proved. I don’t deny that, as a statement of fact, people desire things like survival and freedom, and, as a further statement of fact, people can strive for these things.
[/quote]

I would, again, switch desire to instinctually, but okay.

Well, then you aren’t arguing rights then, and hence why there has been a lot of talking past each other.

I dont’ think so. I think it is implied due to the environment we live in. And I also think it was described as such to drive the moral stance you speak of here home, that we SHOULD respect it, but I don’t think it is a requirement for existence.

No, and I’m not about to say you’ve danced in this thread with the specific end game of bashing theists, but God or no God has nothing to do with it.

We have instinct. Whether you say it comes from a magic fairy, Joey says it comes from Jesus, I say it comes from God, Tony says it comes from nature, the fact remains it comes.

372

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
What I don’t see is any objective, not-man-made, natural decree which says that the wanting and the striving must or should be respected by anybody else.[/quote]

Well, then you aren’t arguing rights then, and hence why there has been a lot of talking past each other.

[/quote]

I don’t understand your response to this, and it is the crux of the entire argument.

Do you think that there is indeed an “objective, not-man-made, natural decree which says that the [instinctual, if you like] wanting and the striving must or should be respected by others”?

Aside: No, I’m not out to bash theists. I am a theist, at least more than I am an atheist. That said, I can’t tell you I know the answer to the God question (nobody can, and if they ever do, they are a liar, either to you or to themselves [and to you by extension]), and natural rights are absolutely connected to God. Without God or something very Godlike, the objective non-physical existence of a natural right becomes very difficult to argue or accept.

373

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
That’s pretty close :

Si les droits n’existaient pas, il faudrait les inventer.

But indeed, the fact is that we can’t invent them arbitrarily.

So, even if there is no “natural right”, the “invention of right” still has some structural rules.

This is enough to disprove a strictly positivist position.
And it makes the idea of “natural rights” pretty close to the truth in practice, if not exactly/technically/epistemologically true,[/quote]

In practice, without any external force guiding them, people would believe their rights are infinite, they are “allowed” (they would never think of using this term) to do whatever they want, nothing would ever restrict their actions except what is physically impossible.

Then as people interact and form cooperative relationships, conflicts arise. Person A takes an apple from person B. Person B feels “wronged” but doesn’t know what it means, but he still acts on it. Person B takes the apple back from Person A and Person A feels wronged. Now both people feel “wronged” but both have done the same wrong thing. At this point they may come to an agreement : don’t take my apple and i won’t take yours, or they might even form the general rule :no one can take anothers apples etc. realistically this situation would escalate in a revenge cycle until both people are trying to kill each other, and this would repeat over and over until people collectivly agreed not to steal

But the point is, everything seems to be a natural right at first, the only thing that is ever contructed is a restriction of rights[/quote]

I think if you start layering ‘wrongs’ I think you start to confuse the issue. It’s not that it’s not a proper ethical inquiry in itself. What we don’t want to confuse is what a natural right, being argued for and against is.
In this case it’s the right of a person to not be willfully wronged by another person. Does this right exist? [/quote]

I have quoted “wrong” because I have actually taken a step back from the dicotomy in this thought experiment.

I will think of a better way to explain all this. Until then consider this: Do animals wait for permission (a declaration of “rights”) to do what they must to survive? No. They just act.

Humans do the same thing. However, we can use higher logic, and we can recognize others as being just like us. When we come into conflict with each other, even without ANY existing social structure, it is possible for us to recognize a deadlock because of this. A is physically capable of Taking from B and vice versa. They could take the same thing from each other back and forth forever, but eventually reach an agreement: I will not take what is in your hand if you do not take what is in mine. It requires no reference to “rights” or a “social contract” for both parties to see the value in it.

What I’m saying is “rights” if they exist, can only ever be defined negatively, by placing a restriction on what others can do. The “rights” we have are nothing more than leftovers after restrictions have been placed.

[/quote]
I agree mostly. I don’t know that they can only be described negatively it certainly easier to do so. The ‘do no harm’ contingent of natural rights is the easiest way to talk about it.[/quote]

Right, and it is the most reliable way to truthfully speak about it without gray areas. A logical person would not agree to statements of rights such as “you may steal from me and I may steal from you” or “you may kill my family and I may kill your family”. We can accept these propositions without dispute from other rational people.

The positive statements of rights such as “humans have a right to freedom” or humans have a right to privacy" have many gray areas when they are analyzed which is why they are disputed.

Negatively defined “commandments” that basically fall under “do not harm others” can be considered logically necessary and this is satisfactory to most people.

I would not dispute that there are certain rights we should have that are positively defined, but logically demonstrating their necessity is not simple and not likely to be agreed upon.
[/quote]

Correct, so do you believe in the natural right of man to be free deliberate harm caused by another man?[/quote]

essentially yes.

but:

there is the well known dilemma of what if someone else violates this? Now if the right is stated only negatively (you don’t hurt me and I agree not to hurt you) then I may retaliate, I would not need to use lethal force, but I may injure him to stop his attack.

but if we both have this positively stated right to be free of deliberate harm, then I violate his rights in my defense just as much he violates my rights in his initial aggression
[/quote]

Well let’s define what we mean by natural right…
What I want to avoid is the metaethical burden of defining ‘good’ and ‘evil’, even though that is what we are discussing in an essence.
A person has the right to live free from harm from other persons. But who does that apply to? Adults mainly.
A child has a right to live free from harm, but must also be nurtured for the absence of it will lead to it’s doom.
Is this also not a natural right?

374

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

The non-arbitrariness of rights doesn’t need to be evidenced. Because the very notion of an arbitrary right is self-contradictory.
[/quote]

This.[/quote]

On the other hand, that does not mean that these non-arbitrary rights necessarily exists.

It only means that if a right exists, it is non-arbitrary.
This doesn’t rule out the theoretical possibility of the non-existence of rights.

At this point, the skeptics will use a narrow definition of existence, ask you for proofs and won’t ever be convinced by the kind of proof you’ll have to offer.
And they get their easy pseudo-agnostic win.
It works with anything remotely metaphysics. It’s magic.

One should never let them lead the discussion to this regretable point.

One should simply remember them that, by envisioning the possible inexistence of their own rights, they hereby allow you to savagely rape them.

This method not perfect, because it’s obviously not an objective demonstration of existence.
But it’s still a subjective (but effective) demonstration of irrelevance.

375

But let’s pretend I’m Pat for a minute and that I can decide–without expertise or even bare-bones proficiency–enormous and complex philosophical questions on a whim, because once I misinterpreted a few paragraphs I found on the internet and now I am able to refute the arguments of professional philosophers historical and contemporary alike.

And let’s say I decide that the idealists and the platonists and the theists are wrong. All life is meat and all meat is matter-energy. The universe is a collection of elementary particles and nothing more. Scraps and fields, all of it.

Do natural rights exist?

376

[quote]kamui wrote:

At this point, the skeptics will use a narrow definition of existence, ask you for proofs and won’t ever be convinced by the kind of proof you’ll have to offer.

[/quote]

So Jack believes this thing exists, can’t support his own belief…and yet it is Jill who deserves scorn for having asked Jack to explain why he believes the thing exists. I see.

377

Perhaps Jack should stop saying shit he can’t support.

378

New doesn’t mean false.
One can cheat the civil society game, like any other game. And it’s easier to cheat if you won’t let the other player know the rules.
That’s actually a pretty good, workable definition of alienation.

Being alienated is not being taxed, nor being exploited. It’s being kept powerless in the dark, unable to play the game by its normal rules. Being played and not being able to play.

[quote]
Similarly, it isn’t much of a stretch to assume that the vast majority of people who have lived on this planet never played that particular game.[/quote]

So what ?
I suppose you didn’t live under the illusion that we live in a fair world.
And i suppose that you won’t argue that the existence (or even prevalence) of unfairness doesn’t disprove the existence of fairness. Nor the logical consistency of the concept of fairness.

[quote]
Instead, I’d say it’s a game that some of us choose to play. Why? Because we recognize in it a vessel for the protection of our own lives and livelihoods, perhaps.[/quote]

an homo sapiens baby who is deprived of its basic social needs will never develop itself on its own. And he will never get to the point where he can recognize that it would otherwise have protected his own lives and livelihoods.

We don’t choose to be social beings.

379

[quote]But let’s pretend I’m Pat for a minute and that I can decide–without expertise or even bare-bones proficiency–enormous and complex philosophical questions on a whim, because once I misinterpreted a few paragraphs I found on the internet and now I am able to refute the arguments of professional philosophers historical and contemporary alike.

And let’s say I decide that the idealists and the platonists and the theists are wrong. All life is meat and all meat is matter-energy. The universe is a collection of elementary particles and nothing more. Scraps and fields, all of it.

Do natural rights exist?[/quote]

The existence of rights, natural or not, does not depend of the magnitude of your assholeness.

But for someone without expertise, you did pretty well.

The idealists, the platonists and the theists are indeed wrong.
Life is meat.
Meat is matter-energy.

The last one is a bit more problematic.
The universe is not a collection of elementary particles. The existence of your own subjective experience proves it.
You have ideas, and the subjective phenomenology of ideas can’t be reduced to the objective processes of matter and energy.

So maybe, just maybe, rights exists as not-entirely arbitrary ideas.

380

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I don’t understand your response to this, and it is the crux of the entire argument.[/quote]

Then I’ve completely missed the entire point and have been arguing something different.

Yes. However I haven’t even argued that. I’ve thought the whole time you were saying the thing we’re now referring to as “the [instinctual, if you like] wanting and the striving” wasn’t there.

If you’re asking me if I think morals exist, then my answer is yes. I don’t however, argue with moral relativists, particularly ones as well read as you, lol. (This is mostly due to the conversation quickly gets out of my league, and I’m not partial to the subject to the degree it takes to study what I have faith in.)

But you don’t argue the existence of instinct or abstract thought though correct?