Created/Born Equal [Archive] - Discussion World Forum

Greendruid

Jul 28th 2009, 10:11 PM

Lily

Jul 29th 2009, 07:52 AM

I saw this clip just recently. Someone put it up next to a recent clip of Sarah Palin and asked the audience to tell them apart.

Wait. Here it is. Hahaha! It was the Huffington Post.

PalinVcrazywoman (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/27/sarah-palin-vs-that-crazy_n_245779.html)

dilettante

Jul 29th 2009, 10:11 AM

All people are not born/created equal. Not even if you believe in a God or several gods' eyes is this true. I enter into evidence exhibit A:

The Stupidest Person Ever (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/24/is-this-the-stupidest-per_n_244440.html)

This is just ... frightening. She seems so sincere too. Where can the conversation go from here?

Well, people are certainly not the same. But 'equal' generally doesn't mean 'identical' but merely 'of equivilent value', and the criteria for determining value are always selective.

e.g. '2+2' is not the same as '(5-6+9)/2'; one expression is more direct, more popular, and more symmetric than the other. Nonetheless, 2+2=(5-6+9)/2 because, by the evaluative rules of mathematics, directness, popularity and symmetry are irrelevant to the essential value of the expression.

If we can assert 'all people are created equal' then we must be appealing to some evaluative system in which our dissimilarities are irrelevant to our value as people.

Michael

Jul 29th 2009, 10:55 AM

All people are not born/created equal. Not even if you believe in a God or several gods' eyes is this true. I enter into evidence exhibit A:

The Stupidest Person Ever (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/24/is-this-the-stupidest-per_n_244440.html)

This is just ... frightening. She seems so sincere too. Where can the conversation go from here?

There is no appeal for conversation or discussion at all. That's the point.

There is only a demand there. No surprise - ignorant people are always the most demanding. Our modern society appears to foster both the ignorance and the sense of entitlement that underpins the demands.

I also don't think the woman is all that exceptional. She seems quite average to me. I encounter people with completely jackass and ignorant opinions all the time. And they are usually quite emphatic that they do know what they are talking about.

Btw, you should hear some of the 'explanations' I've heard thrown around for the banking crisis. :eek:

The Drunk Girl

Jul 29th 2009, 11:53 AM

I, umm..., have to agree that ignorant people, you know, are the most demanding and just look at the, umm..., majority of television that is swamped with reality t.v. shows. because its uh free and stuff.

The old saying, "ignorance is bliss" continues to stay true.

wphelan

Jul 29th 2009, 12:46 PM

It sounds like she's been smoking the dope.

Lily

Jul 30th 2009, 08:40 AM

In the words of Josiah Bartlett, "Please, tell me these people don't vote."

Michael

Jul 30th 2009, 10:15 AM

In the words of Josiah Bartlett, "Please, tell me these people don't vote."

Of course they vote. How the heck do you think George W. Bush not only got elected President, but re-elected?

Who puts people like Lieberman, McConnell, Tom Delay, Tancredo, etc., into Congress?

Lily

Jul 30th 2009, 11:10 AM

Yeah. It was a fictional TV show...

Non Sequitur

Jul 30th 2009, 03:25 PM

Michael

Jul 30th 2009, 05:45 PM

born with equal abilities, no. Born equally loved by the creator, yes.
I'll settle for "equal before the law". ;)

Non Sequitur

Jul 30th 2009, 08:26 PM

I'll settle for "equal before the law". ;)

:lol: in the secular realm, so will I.

Donkey

Jul 30th 2009, 09:08 PM

I'll settle for "equal before the law". ;)
Indeed. And that is the crux of the issue.

Sure, by any given standard, one person might be better than someone else, but what is important is that they have equal rights. I use rights broadly, including probably what a lot of people would call privileges.

Daktoria

Jul 31st 2009, 12:22 AM

But what are "rights"? o.O

Not what "rights" are acceptable, but what is the essence of these rights you speak of and how can they be administered without coercion of those with abundance and talents?

I mean why should I aspire to fulfill my potential when it means I'm going to be exploited by a community dedicated towards popular utility? Might as well hide my talents, be lazy, or be irresponsibly self-destructive so the next guy has to work for me instead, no?

Why should anyone participate in a culture that celebrates entertainment from mediocrity with little respect for innovation unless it advances an ulterior motive, hidden agenda, or special interest group? Are we supposed to encourage cliquey and cosmopolitan political correctness for the sake of these "rights" especially when they're proposed for the sake of the people?

Michael

Jul 31st 2009, 05:42 PM

Indeed. And that is the crux of the issue.

Sure, by any given standard, one person might be better than someone else, but what is important is that they have equal rights. I use rights broadly, including probably what a lot of people would call privileges.

Yes, the term "rights" tends to get stretched quite a bit these days. I'd say stretched to the point of non-functionality. ;)

But what are "rights"?

This is one of my favorite topics! :D

I think a bit of history can address the context of that question very well. ;)

For all intents and purposes, prior to the year 1215 AD, the only people who any rights at all, were only Kings and the Church. That's pretty much it. In the year 1215, on the field of Runnymede, some two dozen heavily armed Anglo-Norman (i.e. English) Barons forced King John to recognize that they too had some rights. King John reluctantly agreed.

For the next (almost) eight centuries, the 'history of rights' consists of the process by which these same rights, originally recognized as belonging to a couple dozen English Barons alone, were gradually recognized as belonging to other classes of people as well. This process occured in some, but not all countries. Some nations moved faster than others, while some nations moved much slower (or not at all) in this process of applying rights to larger numbers of citizens.

Nowadays, differentiations in rights are not primarily between men and women, rich and poor, but between nations. People in the west have rights. People in third world countries apparently do not.

It would appear that only nations can recognize and enforce rights. If a right is not recognized and enforced within any given nation-state, it cannot be said to exist.

Daktoria

Jul 31st 2009, 05:58 PM

If a right demands enforcement though to exist, how is it a right and not a privilege then?

Michael

Jul 31st 2009, 06:46 PM

If a right demands enforcement though to exist, how is it a right and not a privilege then?

Damn good question! :D

I guess I would have to reply that rights clearly are nothing more than privileges then. That would be entirely consistent with my understanding of the term. :)

Rights just don't really exist in themselves. They are entirely artifice - invented, established and maintained by a considerable collective effort.

dilettante

Jul 31st 2009, 08:10 PM

But what are "rights"? o.O

A 'right' something to which one has a legitimate moral or legal claim (depending on the usage/context). Rights are thus moral imperatives and/or legal declarations.

If a right demands enforcement though to exist, how is it a right and not a privilege then?

Rights do not require enforcement in order to exist any more than other moral imperatives or legal declarations do. Hence the very concept of having one's rights violated or being denied one's rights. One can certainly have a legitimate claim on something which one is unable to lay hold of.

One must be wary of equating what one has a right to do/possess with what one is capable of doing/possessing. Doing so robs the terminology of "rights" of any useful meaning and makes most of what people say and have said about "rights" meaningless or absurd.

wphelan

Jul 31st 2009, 10:22 PM

I think what most people call 'rights' would more accurately referred to as 'shoulds.'

Americano

Jul 31st 2009, 10:33 PM

Of course they vote. How the heck do you think George W. Bush not only got elected President, but re-elected?

Who puts people like Lieberman, McConnell, Tom Delay, Tancredo, etc., into Congress?

Many Americans (and citizens of most other countries) firmly believe what they're told by their political representation. Who can question a political partisan's opinion? On that note, today I read one in every 57 'work at home and make money' ads (all media) is legitimate and most all the advertisers enjoy handsome profits. Same audience.

Daktoria

Aug 1st 2009, 11:35 AM

A 'right' something to which one has a legitimate moral or legal claim (depending on the usage/context). Rights are thus moral imperatives and/or legal declarations.

Rights do not require enforcement in order to exist any more than other moral imperatives or legal declarations do. Hence the very concept of having one's rights violated or being denied one's rights. One can certainly have a legitimate claim on something which one is unable to lay hold of.

One must be wary of equating what one has a right to do/possess with what one is capable of doing/possessing. Doing so robs the terminology of "rights" of any useful meaning and makes most of what people say and have said about "rights" meaningless or absurd.

I agree with what you're saying about moral imperatives. Legal declarations though are just an extension of enforcement, something which I agree is not what rights are dependent upon (but I was responding to Mike's claim that rights are dependent upon enforcement).

However, we still haven't touched upon what makes up a "legitimate" claim which is the core of the identity of rights.

Daktoria

Aug 1st 2009, 11:39 AM

Damn good question! :D

I guess I would have to reply that rights clearly are nothing more than privileges then. That would be entirely consistent with my understanding of the term. :)

Rights just don't really exist in themselves. They are entirely artifice - invented, established and maintained by a considerable collective effort.

So the mob's might makes right, and liberalism's a sham to manipulate romantic sheep? :)

dilettante

Aug 1st 2009, 12:46 PM

I agree with what you're saying about moral imperatives. Legal declarations though are just an extension of enforcement, something which I agree is not what rights are dependent upon (but I was responding to Mike's claim that rights are dependent upon enforcement).

I don't see legal declarations as being necessarily linked to enforcement. One can have the legal right to some action (e.g. voting) but still be denied that right, at times even by governmental authority (e.g. voting rights violations).

Enforcement is essentially descriptive; what one is, in fact, able to do/possess.
Rights are essentially imperative; what one (morally or legally) should be able to do/possess.

I agree with wphelan that rights are (a subset of) 'shoulds'.

However, we still haven't touched upon what makes up a "legitimate" claim which is the core of the identity of rights.

Oh, the legitimacy of a law or moral imperative is a bigger topic.

Michael

Aug 1st 2009, 12:50 PM

So the mob's might makes right, and liberalism's a sham to manipulate romantic sheep? :)

Not at all. You are playing a semantic game here with the word "right".

Yes the mob can and does establish 'rights' (as privileges), but that doesn't mean that what the mob can and does is 'right' according to justice. They are two different things.

As for liberalism, that is the idea that rights ought to be granted to all based on human dignity alone. I don't see how this is conflicted by what I've said. Liberalism has worked long and hard to establish and enshrine various rights in law and to expand the group to whom they belong to. That's liberalism by definition. The principle is human dignity - the mechanism is the law and society. The two don't always match up, but that's not the fault of the progressive liberal principle.

Donkey

Aug 1st 2009, 12:50 PM

To the extent that one is willing to create/fabricate "universal" rights is the marker for what those rights are.

But if they are rights, then they by definition apply to everyone, regardless of their "worth."

Michael

Aug 1st 2009, 12:56 PM

To the extent that one is willing to create/fabricate "universal" rights is the marker for what those rights are.
Sure, but that doesn't actually say anything. ;)

No existing law that defines any actual right states that it is universal beyond the jurisdiction of that sovereign. It cannot be by definition.

Fanciful UN declarations have no actual standing in soveriegn law and cannot be legally enforced. Ergo, they are not real 'rights'. The UN declaration is nothing more than aspirational.

But if they are rights, then they by definition apply to everyone, regardless of their "worth."
That's true by most western laws, but limited entirely by national boundries.

Its not true for the other 80% of the planet.

Daktoria

Aug 1st 2009, 01:15 PM

I don't see legal declarations as being necessarily linked to enforcement. One can have the legal right to some action (e.g. voting) but still be denied that right, at times even by governmental authority (e.g. voting rights violations).

Enforcement is essentially descriptive; what one is, in fact, able to do/possess.
Rights are essentially imperative; what one (morally or legally) should be able to do/possess.

I agree with wphelan that rights are (a subset of) 'shoulds'.

Oh, the legitimacy of a law or moral imperative is a bigger topic.

Well what good is the law if it's not going to be enforced (properly) and where does the benchmark for appropriate and inappropriate laws come from? For example, slavery used to be legal at one point, but that contradicts the moral imperative of not coercing individual autonomy (not to mention that there were plenty of northern abolitionists who disregarded laws about returning slaves to their "rightful" southern owners).

Donkey

Aug 1st 2009, 01:22 PM

Sure, but that doesn't actually say anything. ;)

No existing law that defines any actual right states that it is universal beyond the jurisdiction of that sovereign. It cannot be by definition.

Fanciful UN declarations have no actual standing in soveriegn law and cannot be legally enforced. Ergo, they are not real 'rights'. The UN declaration is nothing more than aspirational.

That's true by most western laws, but limited entirely by national boundries.

Its not true for the other 80% of the planet.
Imho, anything can be dragged down into meaninglessness, morals, rights, whatever. To a certain extent all of our societal concepts are constructed and arbitrary. It's just a matter of how much deconstruction is necessary to show that a given thing means jack diddly. :)

Forgive if my posts make less sense than they ought. I just rolled out of a very comfortable bed.

Daktoria

Aug 1st 2009, 01:24 PM

Not at all. You are playing a semantic game here with the word "right".

Yes the mob can and does establish 'rights' (as privileges), but that doesn't mean that what the mob can and does is 'right' according to justice. They are two different things.

As for liberalism, that is the idea that rights ought to be granted to all based on human dignity alone. I don't see how this is conflicted by what I've said. Liberalism has worked long and hard to establish and enshrine various rights in law and to expand the group to whom they belong to. That's liberalism by definition. The principle is human dignity - the mechanism is the law and society. The two don't always match up, but that's not the fault of the progressive liberal principle.

Heh, wasn't thinking about the word game there. Probably should have said something like "the mob's power forges moral authority" instead.

The problem with basing rights upon human dignity is that different views on common sense (something coming from the mob anyway :rolleyes: ) lead to different views on how human dignity should be defined. For example, why is it dignified to force individuals with abundance to provide for those without? Individuals pursue abundance in order to beat out the rat race and pursue free discovery as we see fit, so if we force the successful to support those still behind, it undermines the original premise of ambition. Furthermore, unless the lines are blurred through corruption, peer pressure, and/or naivete (such that information costs are INCREASED, increase that is completely contradictory to progressive principles), ambitious individuals will refuse to be productive because they know in advance that they will be exploited.

dilettante

Aug 1st 2009, 02:03 PM

Well what good is the law if it's not going to be enforced (properly) and where does the benchmark for appropriate and inappropriate laws come from?

Well, without touching on the term 'good', I'd argue that a law which is not being enforced can have a tremendous impact.
A given restriction or compulsion may upset people, but it will upset them far more if they know it to be contrary to the law. And few things will stir people to commit weighty and even violent deeds more than the knowledge the "the law is on our side".

While it is certainly true that physical power is required to enforce the law, it is also true that the declared law tends to shape how people deploy their powers.

For example, slavery used to be legal at one point, but that contradicts the moral imperative of not coercing individual autonomy (not to mention that there were plenty of northern abolitionists who disregarded laws about returning slaves to their "rightful" southern owners).

Indeed, an excellent example of where a 'legal right' flatly contradicted a 'moral right', and where the latter was of tremendous significance despite the fact that it was, in many cases, utterly violated and entirely unenforced.

In this case, it was belief in validity of the moral right (regardless of whether anyone was enforcing it) that eventually forced a change in the law and, in time, led to the enforcement which had been so lacking before.

Daktoria

Aug 1st 2009, 02:50 PM

Well, without touching on the term 'good', I'd argue that a law which is not being enforced can have a tremendous impact.
A given restriction or compulsion may upset people, but it will upset them far more if they know it to be contrary to the law. And few things will stir people to commit weighty and even violent deeds more than the knowledge the "the law is on our side".

While it is certainly true that physical power is required to enforce the law, it is also true that the declared law tends to shape how people deploy their powers.

Indeed, an excellent example of where a 'legal right' flatly contradicted a 'moral right', and where the latter was of tremendous significance despite the fact that it was, in many cases, utterly violated and entirely unenforced.

In this case, it was belief in validity of the moral right (regardless of whether anyone was enforcing it) that eventually forced a change in the law and, in time, led to the enforcement which had been so lacking before.

Sounds like it's not the matter of a legal "right" being established that matters, but how compulsive misconceptions about the law influence behavior. How could there be any influence in the first place if it was recognized that the law won't be enforced? Kind of like the 10 commandments you know. Why would anyone respect them if it's understood that the church's power isn't deemed effective? Some people follow the church because they recognize the church as an effective and honest charitable institution. Others ignore it because they dismiss the church as a selfish and conceited manipulative institution.

Regarding legality and morality, I don't see how legality is equivalent to morality (both within and beyond definition of rights) if we're going to agree that might doesn't make right (such that there's something to justice beyond utility in order to show that "justice" is not a manipulative technique of the naive). Actually, I don't see how morality can exist at all if it isn't superior to legality with respect to justice.

dilettante

Aug 1st 2009, 03:50 PM

Sounds like it's not the matter of a legal "right" being established that matters, but how compulsive misconceptions about the law influence behavior.

Well, suffice it to say that when people believe (accurately or inaccurately) that the law declares they have a 'right' to something, that influences their perception and behavior, generally making them less tolerant of anything that denies them that something.

How could there be any influence in the first place if it was recognized that the law won't be enforced? Kind of like the 10 commandments you know. Why would anyone respect them if it's understood that the church's power isn't deemed effective? Some people follow the church because they recognize the church as an effective and honest charitable institution. Others ignore it because they dismiss the church as a selfish and conceited manipulative institution.

The 10 Commandments make a poor example here, as they're decidedly not about granting rights. If anything, they explicitly declare a list of rights people do not have.

But as I said above, when people perceive that they possess a legal right and that right is being trampled they tend to become hostile and angry. And, crucially, that hostility is greatly increased by the belief that it is legitimated because they are only standing up for their rights.

Regarding legality and morality, I don't see how legality is equivalent to morality (both within and beyond definition of rights) if we're going to agree that might doesn't make right (such that there's something to justice beyond utility in order to show that "justice" is not a manipulative technique of the naive). Actually, I don't see how morality can exist at all if it isn't superior to legality with respect to justice.

I agree that legality and morality are decidedly not the same thing, however they do behavior in similar ways in that they declare how things should be rather than how they are. And of course the two, while distinct, tend to be related since (1) laws almost always have some moral base, and (2) many cultures hold that, unless some higher moral principle is at stake, it is immoral to violate the law.

And I agree that, with respect to justice, morality trumps law.

Daktoria

Aug 1st 2009, 04:14 PM

The 10 Commandments make a poor example here, as they're decidedly not about granting rights. If anything, they explicitly declare a list of rights people do not have.

But as I said above, when people perceive that they possess a legal right and that right is being trampled they tend to become hostile and angry. And, crucially, that hostility is greatly increased by the belief that it is legitimated because they are only standing up for their rights.

Agreed, but perceptions still need to be verified as accurate portrayals of legality since a perception guided solely by naivete, instinct, hormones, etc. isn't a perception that can appreciated as (even partially) unbiased. Without such neutrality, the claim of upholding a "right" would have no support from justice.

I agree that legality and morality are decidedly not the same thing, however they do behavior in similar ways in that they declare how things should be rather than how they are. And of course the two, while distinct, tend to be related since (1) laws almost always have some moral base, and (2) many cultures hold that, unless some higher moral principle is at stake, it is immoral to violate the law.

And I agree that, with respect to justice, morality trumps law.Ergo, you agree that legality in itself is not a valid benchmark for defining legitimate rights (such that illegitimate "rights" are frauds) since all justified laws must be grounded in morality?

Michael

Aug 2nd 2009, 10:34 AM

The problem with basing rights upon human dignity is that different views on common sense (something coming from the mob anyway :rolleyes: ) lead to different views on how human dignity should be defined.

I don't see any problem with this. There are different views on how human dignity should be defined. Indeed, there probably are as many different views on that as there are human beings.

For example, why is it dignified to force individuals with abundance to provide for those without? Individuals pursue abundance in order to beat out the rat race and pursue free discovery as we see fit, so if we force the successful to support those still behind, it undermines the original premise of ambition. Furthermore, unless the lines are blurred through corruption, peer pressure, and/or naivete (such that information costs are INCREASED, increase that is completely contradictory to progressive principles), ambitious individuals will refuse to be productive because they know in advance that they will be exploited.
First of all, the "Going Galt" movement is an absurd abstraction. It just isn't real. Ambitious people NEVER refuse to be productive - they can't do that or they aren't ambitious people in the first place. That's always the same the flaw in that argument.

As I noted above, human dignity can be weighed in various different ways. I doubt if any one method is proper or correct. It is human politics that decides which version of human dignity can/will be applied in any given situation.

Daktoria

Aug 2nd 2009, 12:50 PM

I don't see any problem with this. There are different views on how human dignity should be defined. Indeed, there probably are as many different views on that as there are human beings.

So how are people supposed to come to common understandings and appreciations of dignity then? Right now, this sounds like you're proposing a system of implicit contracts where culturally exclusive cliques opportunistically punish outcasts.

First of all, the "Going Galt" movement is an absurd abstraction. It just isn't real. Ambitious people NEVER refuse to be productive - they can't do that or they aren't ambitious people in the first place. That's always the same the flaw in that argument.

As I noted above, human dignity can be weighed in various different ways. I doubt if any one method is proper or correct. It is human politics that decides which version of human dignity can/will be applied in any given situation.You don't recognize a priori synthesis as a legitimate method, so if I was going to contest this, it would be negligent of me to not ask for evidence here. Had you said that there's always a more naive person ready to replace the discouraged though, I would agree, but that'd still be a strawman to what I'm talking about here as well.

What I'm asking about here is what is permissible, not what is possible, so by claiming that refusal to produce is absurd, you're approving of the coercion of the ambitious through the violation of their individual autonomy for the supposed greater good of the masses.

As such, I have to ask you three very blunt questions:

One, "Is coercion unjustifiable or is it not?"

Two, "If it is (however sad that might be) under certain circumstances, what are those circumstances and how are those circumstances distinguished from might makes right (no pun intended)?"

Three, "How are the coercers of the ambitious promised not to become coerced themselves, and if there is no promise, why would they agree to such a system unless they were in some mad frenzy (such as how the Aztecs and Egyptians willingly made mass human sacrifices to appease their gods)?"

dilettante

Aug 2nd 2009, 01:20 PM

Ergo, you agree that legality in itself is not a valid benchmark for defining legitimate rights (such that illegitimate "rights" are frauds) since all justified laws must be grounded in morality?

Well, I'll agree that legal rights should not conflict with moral ones. However, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that all legal rights (or all laws more generally) must be directly in accord with some moral rights in order to be valid; they simply should not violate them.

E.g.
The state may declare that every citizen has the 'right' to 1 ice cream cone paid for by federal tax dollars. I'd say that that suffices to create a legal right, despite the fact that there is no moral right to ice cream, and that people may justly claim that their legal rights are being violated if their ice cream is withheld.

Perhaps legal rights which are not backed by moral rights are therefore privileges as-well-as/rather-than rights, per se'?

Daktoria

Aug 2nd 2009, 01:54 PM

If it were possible to grant positive rights without requisitioning resources from taxpayers, I'd agree that the requirement for legal rights could be relaxed. The problem of course being here that in order for the government to promise provisions, it has to forcibly demand support from its constituents (through tax collection).

The one possible exception I see here is if the government was run like a business such that it issued bonds to fund programs, but then we have to determine appropriate social dividends and why such programs wouldn't be operated by private ventures in the first place.

It just seems to me that the only appropriate rights are property rights under the premise of self-ownership. Some say that self-ownership doesn't make sense because one can't own oneself, so unless we acknowledge that there's something more to human existence than the physical body, it wouldn't make sense to make a claim over one's own body. However, if we believe that human existence is limited to physical existence, then it would be impossible to dismiss predeterminism or acknowledge free will, both actions of which are required for humanity to be respected in the first place.

Extended from this, negative rights are the only rights that can be legally legitimate such that marginal coercion is the benchmark for what is and is not justifiable. However, if coercion is extrapolated beyond the margin, then more talented individuals become enslaved since they become obligated to provide for the less talented, enslavement which is hypocritical of the original coercion benchmark. On the flip side, if coercion is not used as a benchmark, then justice becomes a political mirage where the most powerful entities and factions define at a whim what is and is not permissible. Such would result in common understanding only being a matter of auspicious appearances of opinions luckily coming together.

SMadsen

Aug 4th 2009, 12:10 PM

LOL I especially like the comparison between the blonde (who isn't actually blonde) and Sarah Palin. What the heck are they both talking about?
".. and then in the summertime, such extreme summertime, about a 150 degrees hotter than just some months ago, than just some months from now" Ehrrr, what, Mrs. Palin??! :D

Damn good question! :D

I guess I would have to reply that rights clearly are nothing more than privileges then. That would be entirely consistent with my understanding of the term. :)

Rights just don't really exist in themselves. They are entirely artifice - invented, established and maintained by a considerable collective effort.
In my understanding a right does not exist without three criteria being fulfilled. The first criteria has little to no practical value: There has to be more than one person. The second criteria is that it must be granted, or, according to the semantics that Americans are raised to believe in, be recognized by the state. There is no enforcement needed other than ensuring that the state is committed to what it has granted its citizens. But that doesn't affect the right, - it only affects the duties of the state.

I agree, though, that if actions of others are needed to ensure the existence of the right and not merely to ensure the state's duty, and if that's the kind of enforcement you and Dakota are referring to, then it is not a right but a privilege. And that would be the third criteria. A right can't exist if has potentials to conflict with the rights of others.

Michael

Aug 4th 2009, 04:35 PM

Michael

Aug 4th 2009, 04:39 PM

[SIZE=2][SIZE=2]In my understanding a right does not exist without three criteria being fulfilled. The first criteria has little to no practical value: There has to be more than one person. The second criteria is that it must be granted, or, according to the semantics that Americans are raised to believe in, be recognized by the state. There is no enforcement needed other than ensuring that the state is committed to what it has granted its citizens. But that doesn't affect the right, - it only affects the duties of the state.
I think the historical example of civil rights for blacks in the USA is quite indicative of the issue here.

For example, the famous movement for civil rights in the 60s was not about creating/granting civil rights to black people. It was about actually recognizing those civil rights that had been granted long ago and tacitly ignored by everyone.

So, did blacks have civil rights before the 1960s in the USA? On paper, the answer is "yes". In reality, the answer was clearly "no".

Ergo, I say that without an actual enforcement mechanism, a granted right isn't worth the paper it is written on.

No enforcement = no right at all.

Even to this day, I think black people have 'less' actual rights than 'white' people in the USA, even though their civil rights are legally identical on paper.

Non Sequitur

Aug 4th 2009, 07:30 PM

dilettante

Aug 4th 2009, 09:31 PM

I think the historical example of civil rights for blacks in the USA is quite indicative of the issue here.

For example, the famous movement for civil rights in the 60s was not about creating/granting civil rights to black people. It was about actually recognizing those civil rights that had been granted long ago and tacitly ignored by everyone.

So, did blacks have civil rights before the 1960s in the USA? On paper, the answer is "yes". In reality, the answer was clearly "no".

Ergo, I say that without an actual enforcement mechanism, a granted right isn't worth the paper it is written on.

But surely that those writes had been written was of tremendous worth to the civil rights movement. The fact that they could call upon declared law and even quote the nation's founding documents in support of their cause tremendously strengthened their position and gave them something to rally around and to beat the opposition over the head with.

Declaring that people have rights, and believing that people have rights, is a very powerful things, regardless of whether those rights are being enforced or not.

Americano

Aug 4th 2009, 10:35 PM

SMadsen

Aug 6th 2009, 06:40 AM

Just for the sake of discussion, we should also consider that rights are more than just a human political issue. The Declaration says that "all people are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." I'm not trying to say the Declaration is authoritative all such cases, or that the document is right (i am not totally convinced), but some very smart men wrote that.
Indeed. Smart men.

However, a right is not more than just a human political issue. It is brought forth as more but that has a very good reason. In all its simplicity, a right must not only be protected by the state, it must also be protected from the state. Rights aren't worth anything if they can be altered or repealed by the wims of any sitting government or judicial body. Therefore they must be granted by something conceived to be above the state. Thus, the state is only left to recognize the rights.

In some countries, such as mine, this maneuvre succeeds by simply referring to the constitution as the superior instrument (rights are inviolable through the constitution only). I don't know why USA chose a different maneuvre and referred to another conception such as a creator (if I had to guess, I'd say that independence of the British crown had something to do with the cronology of things) but it's probably an even smarter move to have an instrument conceived to be above even the constitution through which to grant rights. It's a double protection of sorts. It doesn't mean, though, that rights are actually granted by anything else than the state (as in nation and not as in government).

Non Sequitur

Aug 7th 2009, 11:14 PM

Indeed. Smart men.

However, a right is not more than just a human political issue. It is brought forth as more but that has a very good reason. In all its simplicity, a right must not only be protected by the state, it must also be protected from the state. Rights aren't worth anything if they can be altered or repealed by the wims of any sitting government or judicial body. Therefore they must be granted by something conceived to be above the state. Thus, the state is only left to recognize the rights.

In some countries, such as mine, this maneuvre succeeds by simply referring to the constitution as the superior instrument (rights are inviolable through the constitution only). I don't know why USA chose a different maneuvre and referred to another conception such as a creator (if I had to guess, I'd say that independence of the British crown had something to do with the cronology of things) but it's probably an even smarter move to have an instrument conceived to be above even the constitution through which to grant rights. It's a double protection of sorts. It doesn't mean, though, that rights are actually granted by anything else than the state (as in nation and not as in government).

I guess I'm not sure it was a gimmick to give rights in this country a stronger foundation. I think it is right to conclude that if rights are just granted by the government they don't really exist at all. Rights become nothing more than a general policy that we can change at will and violate at will without any moral problems. On the other hand, if rights are something that is inherent to being a human being (whether that be because they are instilled by a Creator, or because it is just part of being a self aware being) rights become something with substance and moral vigor.

Michael

Aug 8th 2009, 11:02 AM

Michael

Aug 8th 2009, 11:12 AM

But surely that those writes had been written was of tremendous worth to the civil rights movement. The fact that they could call upon declared law and even quote the nation's founding documents in support of their cause tremendously strengthened their position and gave them something to rally around and to beat the opposition over the head with.
So you recognize that 'rights' are established by a process that sometimes takes a long time and that steps once taken can be used as building blocks for the next steps?

So you recognize that 'rights' are something that is a matter of politics?

Those are my points here. Those are key characteristics of all liberal reforms. They are human artifice entirely - created, defined and manufactured entirely by human hands and human processes for human purposes.

Declaring that people have rights, and believing that people have rights, is a very powerful things, regardless of whether those rights are being enforced or not.
Yes, that's true. Asserting that people do have rights is a good place to start when seeking to establish a particular right. But that's only prudent strategy, not necessarily something that is 'eternally established by God' or 'implicit in the structure of the universe' or 'genetically encoded into humans' or any other 'a priori' source of rights.

Michael

Aug 8th 2009, 11:25 AM

Those defined rights were not exercised by blacks until organized protest by the oppressed brought nationally publicized killings, beatings and blatant segregation to the legally demanded attention of Federal courts and SCOTUS. There was a price and they're still paying.
Pardon me for quibbling, but I object to the statement "...rights were not exercised by blacks..."

That statement places the locus of 'rights' with the subject or beneficiary of 'rights' and defines 'rights' as something that can be exercised by the subject. This is not correct. The locus of 'rights' is the nation-state which holds a defacto monopoly on the granting of legal recognition of rights, not any given individual human being.

General groups of human beings are thus 'subjects' or 'beneficiaries' of such grants, not the effective operator of them. The nation-state is the primary executor of the action of rights. That is to say, the exercise of the 'right' of free speech rests entirely upon the nation-state apparatus 'withholding' interference from the nation-state apparatus (i.e. government). The speaker doesn't exercise anything but their own voice (and hopes the government will live up to its promise of recognizing the 'right' of free speech).

Michael

Aug 8th 2009, 11:36 AM

Indeed. Smart men.

However, a right is not more than just a human political issue. It is brought forth as more but that has a very good reason. In all its simplicity, a right must not only be protected by the state, it must also be protected from the state. Rights aren't worth anything if they can be altered or repealed by the wims of any sitting government or judicial body. Therefore they must be granted by something conceived to be above the state. Thus, the state is only left to recognize the rights.
Indeed! :thumbsup:

It is to be noted that this is the same process that the Common Law originates and functions. It is asserted that 'natural law' pre-exists its discovery and recognition by the process of law (which is understood to 'reveal' or 'discover' the law in the process of adjudication of the law).

I've always considered this to be a polite fiction as it is not logically sound. ;)

In some countries, such as mine, this maneuvre succeeds by simply referring to the constitution as the superior instrument (rights are inviolable through the constitution only). I don't know why USA chose a different maneuvre and referred to another conception such as a creator (if I had to guess, I'd say that independence of the British crown had something to do with the cronology of things) but it's probably an even smarter move to have an instrument conceived to be above even the constitution through which to grant rights. It's a double protection of sorts. It doesn't mean, though, that rights are actually granted by anything else than the state (as in nation and not as in government).

Six of one and a half dozen of another I'd say. Rights, like laws, are only as good and strong as are the people and processes entrusted with upholding them. That's it, that's all.

I might also add that whatever polite fictions might be useful to help keep this process good and strong are thus morally acceptable. Hence my longstanding general defense of religion as 'useful'. ;)

Morality is such a slippery thing isn't it? :D

Americano

Aug 8th 2009, 11:42 AM

Pardon me for quibbling, but I object to the statement "...rights were not exercised by blacks..."

That statement places the locus of 'rights' with the subject or beneficiary of 'rights' and defines 'rights' as something that can be exercised by the subject. This is not correct. The locus of 'rights' is the nation-state which holds a defacto monopoly on the granting of legal recognition of rights, not any given individual human being.

General groups of human beings are thus 'subjects' or 'beneficiaries' of such grants, not the effective operator of them. The nation-state is the primary executor of the action of rights. That is to say, the exercise of the 'right' of free speech rests entirely upon the nation-state apparatus 'withholding' interference from the nation-state apparatus (i.e. government). The speaker doesn't exercise anything but their own voice (and hopes the government will live up to its promise of recognizing the 'right' of free speech).

To prove your point, try going to a small US town in Alabama or such, standing next to the inevitable pick a war statue with a large sign declaring there is no god, NASCAR sucks and the war in Afghanistan is wrong. You'll get a real taste of hostility, maybe even towed on a chain behind a pickup truck at 35mph, for your right to free speech.

Michael

Aug 8th 2009, 11:51 AM

To prove your point, try going to a small US town in Alabama or such, standing next to the inevitable pick a war statue with a large sign declaring there is no god, NASCAR sucks and the war in Afghanistan is wrong. You'll get a real taste of hostility, maybe even towed on a chain behind a pickup truck at 35mph, for your right to free speech.

That may be true, but that has nothing to do with the "right of free speech".

For example, you have the right of free speech guarenteed by the US Constitution, but that wouldn't protect you from the wrath of that mob. There you need either lots of charisma or lots of ammunition. ;)

The "right of free speech" in reality pertains only to public speech or speech for publication and concerns the government's obligation not to unduly interfere with it. That's it, that's all.

My "right of free speech" doesn't protect me if I choose to scream racial insults at a crowd of black people. No 'right' alone can do that. One needs big support of the state or establishment apparatus to get away with that deed.

Non Sequitur

Aug 8th 2009, 03:50 PM

Yes, some very smart (and ambitious) men wrote that. They were apparently smart enough to know that rights don't mean much if they are entirely dependent upon the mood of any given electorate (as they are) or the whim of a foreign sovereign (as they were). Thus, the assertion of the supernatural origin is nothing more than an attempt to dress up this sow's ear as a silk purse. As such, I believe the assertion was made to serve as a polite fiction or noble lie in order give spiritual and moral force to the simple naked fact. Indeed, quite clever men.

well, as i said to Smadsen, I'm not sure it was just a gimmick to give rights a stronger foundation. I'm pretty sure at least some of them believed it. And again, if rights are just something we (or the state) conjure up, do they really exist at all? Is there any real morality problem with violating rights if we think they are just nice words bestowed by the state?

Michael

Aug 8th 2009, 03:57 PM

well, as i said to Smadsen, I'm not sure it was just a gimmick to give rights a stronger foundation. I'm pretty sure at least some of them believed it. And again, if rights are just something we (or the state) conjure up, do they really exist at all? Is there any real morality problem with violating rights if we think they are just nice words bestowed by the state?

Was there any real morality problem with the USA invading Iraq? Those Iraqis don't look like they had any rights there at all. They just got quashed by will of the US Congress.

My point is that rights have only the meaning we give them. We take our rights seriously here in the western world. We don't take anyone else's rights seriously anywhere else on the planet. Is that a real moral problem?

If people actually believed in the bit about "inviolate rights bestowed by the creator" then Iraqis should have these things just as much as we do. I think the disparity between Iraqi (or African) rights and our Western rights shows exactly what rights are all about - pure politics.

Non Sequitur

Aug 8th 2009, 04:05 PM

Was there any real morality problem with the USA invading Iraq? Those Iraqis don't look like they had any rights there at all. They just got quashed by will of the US Congress.

My point is that rights have only the meaning we give them. We take our rights seriously here in the western world. We don't take anyone else's rights seriously anywhere else on the planet. Is that a real moral problem?

Well of course there was a morality problem with the invasion of Iraq. Just because we ignore/don't discuss the problem doesn't mean there isn't one. Iraqi's then and now do have rights. Those rights are abused and ignored of course, but that doesn't change the fact that, as beings created and loved by the creator, they deserve a certain love and respect. By treating another set of people with anything else than the treatment they deserve as a human being is a serious morality problem.

Michael

Aug 9th 2009, 11:21 AM

Well of course there was a morality problem with the invasion of Iraq. Just because we ignore/don't discuss the problem doesn't mean there isn't one. Iraqi's then and now do have rights. Those rights are abused and ignored of course, but that doesn't change the fact that, as beings created and loved by the creator, they deserve a certain love and respect. By treating another set of people with anything else than the treatment they deserve as a human being is a serious morality problem.

That sounds nice, but I think the bottom line is that Iraqi rights didn't really exist once the USA decided to invade. Congress essentially voted to revoke Iraqi basic rights.

This shows how fluid rights really are. They are not intrinsic to anything. They are created by politics and can be taken away by politics.

White men don't have the 'right' to own black men anymore. Was that 'right' real and endowed by the creator?

Non Sequitur

Aug 9th 2009, 11:43 AM

That sounds nice, but I think the bottom line is that Iraqi rights didn't really exist once the USA decided to invade. Congress essentially voted to revoke Iraqi basic rights.

This shows how fluid rights really are. They are not intrinsic to anything. They are created by politics and can be taken away by politics.

White men don't have the 'right' to own black men anymore. Was that 'right' real and endowed by the creator?

but then if rights can be voted away, they don't really exist. Either rights are something that actually exist and congress can vote and treat people all they like but they still exist, or rights don't really exist at all and we just vote these things into law to make ourselves feel better. Theologically and philosophically i am forced to reject option two. Also, people don't die for option two, they die for option one. I believe there is a baseline of treatment and respect all humans deserve. If that's not a right, what is? Sure politics can take away a lot of things, but that doesn't mean they're right or that they actually take it away. Recently several states have voted that marriage can't be between a homosexual couple, but does that mean I actually think that a homosexual couple is incapable of making a promise of faithfulness before God? No. A state government voted for something, but that doesn't make it true.

and of course owning a black man wan't a right endowed by the creator. It was a horrible mess. It didn't change the fact though that they had the right to freedom. Rights exist even when they are being oppressed.

Michael

Aug 9th 2009, 11:50 AM

but then if rights can be voted away, they don't really exist. Either rights are something that actually exist and congress can vote and treat people all they like but they still exist, or rights don't really exist at all and we just vote these things into law to make ourselves feel better. Theologically and philosophically i am forced to reject option two. Also, people don't die for option two, they die for option one. I believe there is a baseline of treatment and respect all humans deserve. If that's not a right, what is? Sure politics can take away a lot of things, but that doesn't mean they're right or that they actually take it away. Recently several states have voted that marriage can't be between a homosexual couple, but does that mean I actually think that a homosexual couple is incapable of making a promise of faithfulness before God? No. A state government voted for something, but that doesn't make it true.

and of course owning a black man wan't a right endowed by the creator. It was a horrible mess. It didn't change the fact though that they had the right to freedom. Rights exist even when they are being oppressed.

I strongly disagree with this.

At one time, white men had the 'right' to own black men. That right wasn't endowed by the creator. That 'right' was created by politics. Ultimately, politics took that 'right' away.

Indeed, white men used to have the 'right' to own their wives and children too (as chattel). They don't have that 'right' anymore either.

As for the Iraqis, their rights got 'evaporated' by a vote in the US Congress. Iraqi citizens could be killed by US military. The Iraqi citizens lost the right not to be murdered and they lost the right of free association (amongst others) by order of the US Congress.

These facts illustrate that rights ultimately exist only as political expressions in reality and are subject to changes with the winds of politics.

Your rights are only as strong as your government's willingness and ability to enforce them.

Daktoria

Aug 9th 2009, 12:30 PM

I think we're crossing the line between civil rights and international affairs here.

1) I don't see how the Iraqi people have been oppressed by the U.S. The argument against our involvement there is a) that we're wasting our time and resources in nationbuilding that could be afforded without us, and b) that the people were lied to regarding the casus belli for invasion. No oil windfalls have been provided in compensation to America, and development contracts have been awarded to/ accepted by foreign instead of American companies.

2) Positive rights theories would SUPPORT white man's burden imperialism rather than oppose it. As such, the U.S. would not only be OBLIGATED to invade and reform Iraq (to toss out Hussein's regime and encourage secularization) rather than leave it be, but the U.S. would be obligated to invade and reform plenty of other places around the world as well.

3) International affairs is the most macroscopic system with the largest potential to be anarchically modeled possible which means that the rights versus privilege dichotomy is at one of its most climactic points. If rights are not transcendental principles and if they require enforcement to exist, then how can we say that any rights (or obligations in turn) exist at all?

Michael

Aug 9th 2009, 12:37 PM

1) I don't see how the Iraqi people have been oppressed by the U.S.

Innocent Iraqi people walking down the street in Iraq (or in their own homes) were subject to being bombed/shot by US military forces.

That is a clear violation of the 'rights' of innocent Iraqi citizens not to be murdered/shot. That violation was ordered by US Congress.

Arguments about the 'justice' of the US act is irrelevant here. Iraqi rights were violated (just like Vietamese rights of self-determination were violated by order of US Congress previously). That's the point. US Congress routinely votes to voilate rights of other people.

If rights are not transcendental principles and if they require enforcement to exist, then how can we say that any rights (or obligations in turn) exist at all?

Good question. Indeed, I've been asking this one for many years. Rights don't actually exist and I consider it madness when people act like their rights are any more real than a parking law.

Americano

Aug 9th 2009, 01:38 PM

Michael

Aug 9th 2009, 01:53 PM

In the US one's rights are in direct proportion to the quality of one's legal counsel.

I'd say that is generally true at all times in all cases. This is one of the fundamental characteristics of the nature of all rights.

Rights don't actually belong to anyone. They are issued or granted (or revoked) only by statutory authority of sovereign nations. Some people thus have the privilege of their rights being respected, and some other people do not.

Daktoria

Aug 9th 2009, 01:59 PM

Innocent Iraqi people walking down the street in Iraq (or in their own homes) were subject to being bombed/shot by US military forces.

That is a clear violation of the 'rights' of innocent Iraqi citizens not to be murdered/shot. That violation was ordered by US Congress.

Arguments about the 'justice' of the US act is irrelevant here. Iraqi rights were violated (just like Vietamese rights of self-determination were violated by order of US Congress previously). That's the point. US Congress routinely votes to voilate rights of other people.

Again, we're crossing the line between civil rights and international affairs. Collateral damage is a given in war, and if what you're saying is right about enforcement, then everyone who is respected through the Geneva Conventions should be grateful about the lack of violence taking place rather than spiteful about oddball incidences.

In any case, there's no part of U.S. military doctrine (which is not the primary focus of intelligence gathering methods) that emphasizes human rights violations in any way. If anything, military personnel are held to high standards regarding the humanitarian treatment of foreign civilians.

Good question. Indeed, I've been asking this one for many years. Rights don't actually exist and I consider it madness when people act like their rights are any more real than a parking law.

Well then neither positive nor negative rights have any merit and life is just a war of all against all where either the most conniving and manipulative or lucky and naive people win. How can justice fit in that picture?

dilettante

Aug 9th 2009, 02:10 PM

US Congress routinely votes to voilate rights of other people.

It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself here.

If "rights ultimately exist only as political expressions in reality and are subject to changes with the winds of politics" and "rights are only as strong as your government's willingness and ability to enforce them," as you said above, then it's absurd non-sense to claim that the US Congress violated the rights of Iraqis (or of anyone else). Clearly they had no rights (since no one enforced them), ergo Congress could not possibly have violated them.

By the same token, all those people yammering about Bush violating their 'right to privacy' with his wiretaps are just spewing nonsense, since the very fact that the wiretaps happened proves that they had no right to privacy. And, it would follow, slaves never had their rights violated by slavery because they had no rights (no one was willing and able to enforced them), and all those people who said otherwise were, by definition, wrong.

In fact, if rights are determined by political expression backed by enforcement, then it follows that the US was only acting in accordance with its rights in invading Iraq. And, since the US was acting within its rights, and it wasn't violating the rights of the Iraqis (since they apparently had none, as seen by the utter lack of enforcement) how can there possibly have been any problem here?

Our ability to logically criticize slavery, wiretaps, or invasions depends on our accepting the legitimacy of moral rights even when (perhaps especially when) they are not being enforced. If we don't at least tacitly accept that people have some sort of immutable right to freedom then it makes no sense for us to say its is wrong to enslave them.

Hence my view that when we talk about 'rights' we're usually talking about moral imperatives. It there is no morality (no rights) outside the political system of power, then it is utterly absurd to ever claim that the system is wrong.

SMadsen

Aug 10th 2009, 06:45 AM

SMadsen

Aug 10th 2009, 07:57 AM

Daktoria

Aug 10th 2009, 11:57 AM

Whether rights are granted within the context of national sovereignty or within the context of international agreement, rights go no further than the political construct they are. Rights are not bestowed by some supreme being as it would be impossible to draw a line between, say, criminal homicide and casualty of war. However, as you point out, such a line can be drawn and is indeed being drawn with each and every armed conflict.

The same way justice fits a parking violation. Parking laws are designed for the very purpose of keeping everyone with a need to park a vehicle from engaging in a war of all against all.

Legality is subordinate to morality. For example, if one country agrees not to invade another in exchange for receiving regular slave shipments, that would be a clear violation of individual autonomy.

Similarly, I don't see why anyone NEEDS a place to park their car. We WANT places to park our cars so we can fit in with certain desired market niches, but there's no imperative for parking places to be provided.

dilettante

Aug 10th 2009, 12:44 PM

I concur. If a right is violated then it must also have been recognized. Which the rights in your examples clearly aren't or weren't.

But today just about all of us can agree that in enslaving and selling humans the planters of seventeenth century Virginia (to select one well recorded example) violated the rights of those they enslaved and sold. In short, we "recognize" that those people had rights, regardless of the fact that no government or legal institution of that time chose to grant, recognize or enforce those rights. If we don't recognize that the slavers were violating the rights of the enslaved, then we have precious little business condemning their actions. And the same holds true wherever we would condemn as wrong, immoral, or unjust the actions of those in power.

That is, IMO, one of the 2 core problems with declaring that rights do not "exist" (or have no meaning) if not enforced: it makes it impossible to condemn the acts of those doing the enforcing, since their actions, by definition, are always in accordance with everyone's rights. From that position one can never speak of a 'violated right' without immediately succumbing to inconsistency. Thus, Michael cannot, without contradiction, simultaneously hold that the US Congress has the power to strip away or grant rights to Iraqis AND that the US Congress has violated the rights of Iraqis.
Un-enforced rights are simply that: unenforced. Much like dis-obeyed laws and un-followed rules.

The other problem with defining rights on the basis of enforcement is simply that it is horribly inconsistent with the way most people use the term "rights". We regularly speak of 'violated rights', 'human rights', 'natural rights', 'inalienable rights', etc. And in many cases when people mention their legal "rights" (to speech, privacy, religion, etc) they also have in mind something beyond the law of the land, holding that it is not only illegal to violate their privacy but also immoral, and that the immorality exists independently of the law. In short, the term 'rights', as it is generally used, implies a moral reality above-and-beyond the edicts and force of those in power. And it is rarely constructive to define words in contradiction with their general use.

Michael

Aug 10th 2009, 06:53 PM

Again, we're crossing the line between civil rights and international affairs. Collateral damage is a given in war, and if what you're saying is right about enforcement, then everyone who is respected through the Geneva Conventions should be grateful about the lack of violence taking place rather than spiteful about oddball incidences.
"Collateral damage is a given in war" is the kind of statement that reveals the true measure here.

I'd say that war is not a given. It occurs because one group seeks to impose its will over another and chooses to do so with extreme violence.

Once you buy as an article of faith that war is good, then collateral damage is of course, a given.

If one doesn't buy the war argument, then collateral damage is just a polite euphemism for the murder of civilians.

In any case, there's no part of U.S. military doctrine (which is not the primary focus of intelligence gathering methods) that emphasizes human rights violations in any way. If anything, military personnel are held to high standards regarding the humanitarian treatment of foreign civilians.

I don't give a crap about how many consultants the Pentagon employs to ensure that all of its military-speak is PR-tested.

Fact is, the application of military force violates human rights. Period.

Killing people violates their rights. I don't see how you can get around that by talking about YOUR rights or US military doctrine. You can't have a right to kill other people. That makes no sense at all.

Well then neither positive nor negative rights have any merit and life is just a war of all against all where either the most conniving and manipulative or lucky and naive people win. How can justice fit in that picture?
I've rejected the nihilist tag every time you've accused me of it. I've not made any nihilist arguments - you are the one who keeps making nihilist arguments, not I.

The world is not a black/white choice between absolute faith in God or nihilism. Insisting that it is, isn't productive of meaningful discussion.

I reject the self-serving circular reasoning of the Hobbesian model. Locke is right and Hobbes was ultimately proven wrong twice. First in the English Civil War and secondly with the US Revolutionary War. The governed most certainly can and will overthrow a tryannical regime and this can be a force of moral good. Hobbes' argument is the argument in favor of the tyrant and I don't accept it as valid. It just isn't true. Society doesn't necessarily fall apart even if a major insurrection overthrows the government. The black/white choice of tyranny vs nihilism/anarchy is a false one (usually used to justify tyranny).

Daktoria

Aug 11th 2009, 04:09 AM

"Collateral damage is a given in war" is the kind of statement that reveals the true measure here.

I'd say that war is not a given. It occurs because one group seeks to impose its will over another and chooses to do so with extreme violence.

Once you buy as an article of faith that war is good, then collateral damage is of course, a given.

If one doesn't buy the war argument, then collateral damage is just a polite euphemism for the murder of civilians.

War is never good, but it is appropriate in preemptive security of national interests. Furthermore, when a state is obliged to honor certain principles agreed upon with its citizens, it has the potential to be obliged to go to war when those principles are challenged by foreign threats. The Iraq War has questionable motives since democratic nationbuilding infringes on the right of states to self-determination, so the only way it could be legitimatized is by linking economic prosperity to national identity, a scary link nonetheless since it reflects the link between civil rights and economic freedom that many anti-libertarians like to take advantage of for political manipulation.

However, if government is predicated on the support of certain cultures which approve of such hypocrisy, then the government is obligated to perform an unjust deed since respecting the autonomy of citizens comes before respecting the autonomy of aliens. After all, without the citizens, the government would not even have the potential to exist legitimately, so all possibility of reform would be discarded.

It also doesn't make sense to claim that war endorses murder (unless we consider acts beyond regular combat such as assassination, torture, duels, etc) since states don't go to war for the sake of killing particular individuals (even though dynasties might). For example, when the U.S. bombed certain buildings in order to kill Saddam Hussein, the bombings occurred for strategic military purposes, not for personal vengeance. For another example, the pursuit of Osama bin Laden is based on punishment for endangering and damaging national security, not based upon a personal vendetta. This is true because even though there are members of the armed forces who suffered from the deaths of relatives who would like to personally kill bin Laden, these individuals did not declare war on him. The United States as a country did.

It's a thin red line, but an able government has to walk it. If it doesn't, then on one side, a replacement government (domestic or foreign) will do a worse job. On the other, the government will undermine its own justified foundation which will lead to the corrosion of general sovereignty over its jurisdiction for anyone to take the reigns over.

I don't give a crap about how many consultants the Pentagon employs to ensure that all of its military-speak is PR-tested.

Fact is, the application of military force violates human rights. Period.

Killing people violates their rights. I don't see how you can get around that by talking about YOUR rights or US military doctrine. You can't have a right to kill other people. That makes no sense at all.Mmmm.

OK. Just to note in advance, what I'm opposing here is libertinism, not nihilism since it's possible for a hedonist to care about something while neglecting justice. Now let's take it one step at a time.

1) It's fair (AKA tolerable) to kill someone out of self-defense who threatens, without provocation, mortal danger (although it is still preferable, but not obligatory, to disable and reform a threatener instead regardless of capacity).

2) Livelihood matters because we control the meaning assigned to it (and we have the ability to cultivate and appreciate meaning through experiments and experience).

3) Enslavement eliminates that control by the violation of individual autonomy.

Ergo, it's worse to be enslaved than to be dead.

Ergo from better to worse, threatening of enslavement is also deserving of similar self defense.

4) In order to appreciate individual autonomy, governments are established in the interest of governors, and legitimate governments are established by respecting the interests of the governed.

5) Interests are defined by our lifestyles AKA our cultures.

6) Due to the physical, finite, and asymmetric "nature" of existence, all cultures will not be the same. Furthermore, it is inevitable that some cultures will be incompatible and possibly even incommensurable.

7) When incompatible (and especially incommensurable) cultures meet, they will not be able to coexist without one being enslaved by another.

8) Governments must follow the policies agreed to upon their establishment and throughout their administration in order to remain justified (or at least remain consistent).

Ergo, it's fair to engage in combat when threatened by an incompatible culture.

Ergo, it's fair for governments to claim accurate representation of their constituencies by declaring war on their "natural" enemies (although disabling and reforming is preferable).

9) Governments will not always be formed by consensus such that minorities (which might be neglected and abused) exist.

10) Civilians, minority belonging and not, for the sake of stability, accede to the government in power.

Ergo, all civilians should be recognized as willing inhabitants (and possibly political participants) within a jurisdiction.

Ergo, when natural enemies meet and minorities are caught in the fray, they are legitimate combatants who must surrender as much as anyone else if engaged or besieged and wishing to avoid violence.

11) International humanitarian laws (AKA rules of war) are only legitimate if they are mutually agreed upon between governments.

12) Guilt requires intent (as well as appropriate fulfillment of duty of care in order to reject sloppy parties from claiming innocence).

Ergo, unintended breaches of IHL are not guilt bearing.

Ergo, when civilians are killed without intent, no violation has occurred once a "natural" enemy has been identified and engaged. This can be demonstrated secondarily by recognizing:
A) All factions in opposing parties of a conflict will not be familiar with each other (based on #6).

B) Organization and identification will be delegated to administrators entrusted with establishing efficient doctrines.

Ergo, if non-administrative factions honestly follow doctrines, then they cannot be held at fault. Similarly, if administrators honestly establish doctrines, then they cannot be held at fault either.
A note here, it's arguments like the one I'm making above which show that innocence is not equal to goodwill since doing the bare minimum of what's tolerable does not show thorough appreciation for justice. As such, say that I'm a government leading my country in a tolerable and victorious war against a primitive society, and you recognize, as another government, that my actions are undermining the tenets of justice. You would then be justified in declaring war on me to reform the situation.

Daktoria

Aug 11th 2009, 04:30 AM

I've rejected the nihilist tag every time you've accused me of it. I've not made any nihilist arguments - you are the one who keeps making nihilist arguments, not I.

The world is not a black/white choice between absolute faith in God or nihilism. Insisting that it is, isn't productive of meaningful discussion.

I reject the self-serving circular reasoning of the Hobbesian model. Locke is right and Hobbes was ultimately proven wrong twice. First in the English Civil War and secondly with the US Revolutionary War. The governed most certainly can and will overthrow a tryannical regime and this can be a force of moral good. Hobbes' argument is the argument in favor of the tyrant and I don't accept it as valid. It just isn't true. Society doesn't necessarily fall apart even if a major insurrection overthrows the government. The black/white choice of tyranny vs nihilism/anarchy is a false one (usually used to justify tyranny).

OK, so what is (the core of) that moral good?

Also, revolutions without purpose just lead to madness and chaos. I agree, tyranny is not valid (although I find your choice of examples odd since Cromwell was a rather brutish dictator and Washington was considered for a coronation) especially if we choose to distinguish justice from strategy. The point though is that political agreements can only be justified if they occur voluntarily out of homesteading or out of rectification from past grievances (upon which distribution of damages again has to be built upon the principles of homesteaded acquisition and voluntary transfer of property). Whether it's a mob or an individual, it's still tyrannical if respect for individual autonomy is not respected as the utmost foundation of justice.

SMadsen

Aug 11th 2009, 07:59 AM

OK, so what is (the core of) that moral good?
The core is human interdependency. And the means are experience.

Michael

Aug 11th 2009, 11:20 AM

It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself here.

If "rights ultimately exist only as political expressions in reality and are subject to changes with the winds of politics" and "rights are only as strong as your government's willingness and ability to enforce them," as you said above, then it's absurd non-sense to claim that the US Congress violated the rights of Iraqis (or of anyone else). Clearly they had no rights (since no one enforced them), ergo Congress could not possibly have violated them.

So Congress is the ONLY legislature that issues rights?

Congress votes to violate rights of Iraqis and uses US military forces to do so. Iraqi rights, granted by the Iraqi government thus have no standing.

I see no contradiction in my position regardless of either inherent rights theory or arbitrary granted rights theory.

Please note that if I use an example of inherent rights theory to critique it, that doesn't mean I'm supporting inherent rights theory.

By the same token, all those people yammering about Bush violating their 'right to privacy' with his wiretaps are just spewing nonsense, since the very fact that the wiretaps happened proves that they had no right to privacy. And, it would follow, slaves never had their rights violated by slavery because they had no rights (no one was willing and able to enforced them), and all those people who said otherwise were, by definition, wrong.
The Roe vs Wade judicial decision defacto asserted a right to privacy for US citizens.

Ergo, Bush Administration violations of same, are not nonsense at all.

Bush Administration was working hard to eliminate the granted right to privacy - or redefine it. Opponents seek to thwart this policy change. That's normal politics and exactly what one would expect if rights are nothing more than arbitrary grants of privilege.

In fact, if rights are determined by political expression backed by enforcement, then it follows that the US was only acting in accordance with its rights in invading Iraq. And, since the US was acting within its rights, and it wasn't violating the rights of the Iraqis (since they apparently had none, as seen by the utter lack of enforcement) how can there possibly have been any problem here?
US military brute force was used specifically to overwhelm any possible Iraqi governmental enforcement of Iraqi rights.

Might doesn't make right.

Elimination of your opponent's ability to enforce their rights doesn't eliminate your opponent's rights - it steamrolls over them. And steamrolling your opponents rights only creates a temporary situation where rights are not enforced - a temporary situation defined by your use of force.

Our ability to logically criticize slavery, wiretaps, or invasions depends on our accepting the legitimacy of moral rights even when (perhaps especially when) they are not being enforced. If we don't at least tacitly accept that people have some sort of immutable right to freedom then it makes no sense for us to say its is wrong to enslave them.
Your argument is specious here.

I reject slavery completely yet I certainly do not believe that any human being has an immutable right to freedom. Indeed, I adamantly oppose that principle that all humans have an immutable right to freedom. I think that's absurd and evidence of madness.

I reject slavery entirely on the grounds that it is harmful to society to predicate property rights upon living creatures. I really don't care about the slaves, only society.

Michael

Aug 11th 2009, 11:25 AM

The same way justice fits a parking violation. Parking laws are designed for the very purpose of keeping everyone with a need to park a vehicle from engaging in a war of all against all.

That explanation of the existence of parking laws is entirely conjecture and does not match up with facts on the ground.

Parking laws were created by retailers who didn't like YOU parking your car in front of their stores all day long.

Parking laws are a function of commerce and serve the interest of merchants.

No merchants = no parking laws.

Now that's the origin of parking laws. Over time, they just become a steady source of revenue for civic authorities and they are justified entirely on that basis now - a source of revenue.

Eliminating parking laws doesn't create any chaos at all. It just annoys local area merchants and it deprives revenue for the local municipality.

Michael

Aug 11th 2009, 11:36 AM

Michael

Aug 11th 2009, 04:41 PM

[SIZE=2]I concur. If a right is violated then it must also have been recognized. Which the rights in your examples clearly aren't or weren't.
No. Rights can be asserted as violated that haven't been legally recognized. Your argument is entirely semantic.

People speak of US government wire-tapping as violating the right to privacy. The right to privacy doesn't actually exist - it is only extrapolated from a singluar judicial ruling - though many people want to believe they have this right.

People are usually quite blase and inaccurate in speech. Whining about their rights being violated does not mean that their rights exist in the first place.

Rights are aspirational by definition. A thousand times as many rights are 'claimed' as actually exist in law.

Merely claiming you have a right and that it is violated does not constitute the existence of that legal right.

If I've expressed a contradiction in argument here, please identify it explicitly.

However, use of the word "violate" is fully justified in the context of "natural rights". If a right is believed to be granted by non-human constructs, such as, for example, supernatural realms above or below, then it can only be violated. I rather think that was Michael's point. At least in his post prior to the one you quoted from.

Again - unequivially NO.

If I have used an example of inherent rights it is only to show the fallacy of my opponent's arguments. I fundamentally reject all assertions of inherent rights (regardless of natural, god-given or mystical origins).

Michael

Aug 11th 2009, 05:12 PM

War is never good, but it is appropriate in preemptive security of national interests.
National interests that serve the elites and not the actual citizenry. That's reality and not very persuasive.

And I certainly don't buy the argument that war is good policy. War is the policy of idiots who have no other options. Or it is the policy of authoritarians seeking to assert authority. That's all war is. There is nothing noble or positive about it. War is always evil.

Sometimes war can be acceptable, but only when the alternative is understood to be worse. That 'bar' is rarely ever reached.

US invasion of Vietnam and the US invasion of Iraq both failed that standard.

Both wars were wars of choice, engaged by the US political elites seeking gain.

Furthermore, when a state is obliged to honor certain principles agreed upon with its citizens, it has the potential to be obliged to go to war when those principles are challenged by foreign threats.
Honor? What the heck is that? And where in the Constitution is it mentioned that war is necessary for "honor"???

There are few things in this world that are truly dishonorable. Warmongering is certainly one of them. Lying about the need for war is another.

There is no honor in war - only death and violence.

If GW Bush himself had of been the first Marine to enter Iraq in full combat gear, then we can talk. But since that didn't happen and never will happen, forget this honor crap. There is no honor in ordering other people to die on your behalf. That's the act of dishonorable cowards.

The Iraq War has questionable motives since democratic nationbuilding infringes on the right of states to self-determination, so the only way it could be legitimatized is by linking economic prosperity to national identity, a scary link nonetheless since it reflects the link between civil rights and economic freedom that many anti-libertarians like to take advantage of for political manipulation.
This is just so far out there, I don't know how to reply.

Are you an Iraqi citizen?

US military conquest cannot be legitmated by appeals to doing it on behalf of the Iraqi people. They didn't ask for it.

US military conquest of Iraq was predicated upon domestic US political and military goals. Period. The Iraqi people were treated like pawns.

However, if government is predicated on the support of certain cultures which approve of such hypocrisy, then the government is obligated to perform an unjust deed since respecting the autonomy of citizens comes before respecting the autonomy of aliens. After all, without the citizens, the government would not even have the potential to exist legitimately, so all possibility of reform would be discarded.
I'll agree that democratically elected governments can and do act in horrific and illegal ways. They often lie, cheat and steal. They create self-serving arguments to justify their rapaciousness.

So what?

Reform of Iraq is the business of the Iraqis, not something to be decided by US Congress as a ploy for re-election.

It also doesn't make sense to claim that war endorses murder (unless we consider acts beyond regular combat such as assassination, torture, duels, etc) since states don't go to war for the sake of killing particular individuals (even though dynasties might).

US government defines legal war where murder is not murder. So all those people getting killed as a consequence of US government policy are redefined as "not-murdered" for self-serving reasons.

US government has good reasons to play such games - they need to hide their guilt.

What's your reason?

For example, when the U.S. bombed certain buildings in order to kill Saddam Hussein, the bombings occurred for strategic military purposes, not for personal vengeance. For another example, the pursuit of Osama bin Laden is based on punishment for endangering and damaging national security, not based upon a personal vendetta. This is true because even though there are members of the armed forces who suffered from the deaths of relatives who would like to personally kill bin Laden, these individuals did not declare war on him. The United States as a country did.
The US as a country declared war on no one since WW2. If you believe otherwise, please cite.

Btw, US government using Congress to redefine GW Bush's vendetta against the man who shot at his daddy as NOT a personal vendetta is all well and fine for US legal purposes.

It doesn't pass the smell test though.

War is legalized murder. That's what it is. I like to call a spade a spade. I don't have any need to pretend that war-killing isn't murder.

Only warmongers need to do that in order to assuage their guilt. I don't have guilt and thus don't need such self-serving explanations.

It's a thin red line, but an able government has to walk it. If it doesn't, then on one side, a replacement government (domestic or foreign) will do a worse job. On the other, the government will undermine its own justified foundation which will lead to the corrosion of general sovereignty over its jurisdiction for anyone to take the reigns over.
That's circular reasoning - and entirely self-serving.

And it doesn't prove that war isn't murder. Legalized killing is still killing.

OK. Just to note in advance, what I'm opposing here is libertinism, not nihilism since it's possible for a hedonist to care about something while neglecting justice. Now let's take it one step at a time.
Hedonists care only about themselves and their pleasures. Anything that interferes with their pleasure is unjust by definition.

1) It's fair (AKA tolerable) to kill someone out of self-defense who threatens, without provocation, mortal danger (although it is still preferable, but not obligatory, to disable and reform a threatener instead regardless of capacity).
That's a moral choice.

Some say that its fair and just to exterminate that fellow's entire family, friends, kinfolk, racial or ethnic group and/or bomb the nation back to the stone age under these terms.

Some say that self-defense is often just a carefully contrived situation for legal killing.

I see no consensus on this point at all.

You cannot assert your own chosen morality as the yardstick against which all moral choices are measured. Or rather you can do this, but no one else is interested.

2) Livelihood matters because we control the meaning assigned to it (and we have the ability to cultivate and appreciate meaning through experiments and experience).

3) Enslavement eliminates that control by the violation of individual autonomy.

Ergo, it's worse to be enslaved than to be dead.
That's your moral choice. Historically speaking, the vast majority of human beings faced with this choice actually chose the slavery.

Ergo, your reasoning is clearly flawed since it is a very poor predictor of actual human actions.

Ergo from better to worse, threatening of enslavement is also deserving of similar self defense.

4) In order to appreciate individual autonomy, governments are established in the interest of governors, and legitimate governments are established by respecting the interests of the governed.

5) Interests are defined by our lifestyles AKA our cultures.

6) Due to the physical, finite, and asymmetric "nature" of existence, all cultures will not be the same. Furthermore, it is inevitable that some cultures will be incompatible and possibly even incommensurable.

7) When incompatible (and especially incommensurable) cultures meet, they will not be able to coexist without one being enslaved by another.

8) Governments must follow the policies agreed to upon their establishment and throughout their administration in order to remain justified (or at least remain consistent).

Ergo, it's fair to engage in combat when threatened by an incompatible culture.

Ergo, it's fair for governments to claim accurate representation of their constituencies by declaring war on their "natural" enemies (although disabling and reforming is preferable).

9) Governments will not always be formed by consensus such that minorities (which might be neglected and abused) exist.

10) Civilians, minority belonging and not, for the sake of stability, accede to the government in power.

Ergo, all civilians should be recognized as willing inhabitants (and possibly political participants) within a jurisdiction.

Ergo, when natural enemies meet and minorities are caught in the fray, they are legitimate combatants who must surrender as much as anyone else if engaged or besieged and wishing to avoid violence.

11) International humanitarian laws (AKA rules of war) are only legitimate if they are mutually agreed upon between governments.

12) Guilt requires intent (as well as appropriate fulfillment of duty of care in order to reject sloppy parties from claiming innocence).

Ergo, unintended breaches of IHL are not guilt bearing.

Ergo, when civilians are killed without intent, no violation has occurred once a "natural" enemy has been identified and engaged. This can be demonstrated secondarily by recognizing:
A) All factions in opposing parties of a conflict will not be familiar with each other (based on #6).

B) Organization and identification will be delegated to administrators entrusted with establishing efficient doctrines.

Ergo, if non-administrative factions honestly follow doctrines, then they cannot be held at fault. Similarly, if administrators honestly establish doctrines, then they cannot be held at fault either.
A note here, it's arguments like the one I'm making above which show that innocence is not equal to goodwill since doing the bare minimum of what's tolerable does not show thorough appreciation for justice. As such, say that I'm a government leading my country in a tolerable and victorious war against a primitive society, and you recognize, as another government, that my actions are undermining the tenets of justice. You would then be justified in declaring war on me to reform the situation.
All this adds up to the fact that you believe the nation-state ought to kill some people to satisfy your delusions of personal or national honor.

I don't buy that. Neither your honor nor the honor of the nation-state requires anything at all.

That you believe these are good reasons for people to be ordered killed, is your business. I don't accept any of them as valid or justified.

Michael

Aug 11th 2009, 05:24 PM

OK, so what is (the core of) that moral good?
I think SMadsen offered a good answer.

Either way, there is no clear single absolute answer to the question because there is no clear single absolute definition of morality, let alone 'good'.

Moral good is a goal that some people apparently strive for. Doesn't mean the goal exists.

Also, revolutions without purpose just lead to madness and chaos.
Unsubstantiated.

The scientific revolution didn't just lead to madness and chaos (for example).

And who is the decider of "purpose"? Isn't that God's perogative?

I agree, tyranny is not valid (although I find your choice of examples odd since Cromwell was a rather brutish dictator and Washington was considered for a coronation) especially if we choose to distinguish justice from strategy. The point though is that political agreements can only be justified if they occur voluntarily out of homesteading or out of rectification from past grievances (upon which distribution of damages again has to be built upon the principles of homesteaded acquisition and voluntary transfer of property). Whether it's a mob or an individual, it's still tyrannical if respect for individual autonomy is not respected as the utmost foundation of justice.
The examples given were the very best examples available to illustrate the point.

Hobbes said that any insurrection against legally constituted authority is always wrong.

I hold that the Roundheads victory over the Government of King Charles was a fully justified insurrection.

Likewise I hold that the US Declaration of Independence against King George III was also a fully justified insurrection.

Ergo, Hobbes was wrong. And my examples I think were good ones.

Btw, I hold Oliver Cromwell to be one of the greatest and most admirable political leaders of all time. If you have a critique of Cromwell, open a thread and state your case.

Daktoria

Aug 11th 2009, 05:31 PM

With regard to the general point that massive military force can be used to abjure any given right in reality, it is to be noted that these are temporal events.

That is to say, a given right my be temporary abjured by the use of force. This does not defacto eliminate the existence of that right, though it may do so if the temporary force is held to be permanent.

The example of US privacy rights is a good example. Roe vs Wade created that right. Bush Administration wire-tapping abjured that right. Only time will tell whether or not that privacy right still stands. Right now it looks like Americans have lost the right to privacy.

People may of course whine that their right to privacy is being violated, but if the US government defacto decides to abjure the right, the right no longer exists and to speak of a right that doesn't exist being violated may be politically expedient, but it is logically nonsense. They seek to have their right of privacy REINSTATED.

I don't think you're distinguishing between strategy and justice considering the language you're using. "De facto" and "abjure" imply that practice is the only thing that matters when considering the existence of rights (nevermind existence itself), but justice can't exist if practice is the only thing that matters since practice can only be witnessed and take effect in the present. Practice provides no incentive for improvement, development, ambition, progress, or any other course for future change. Nor does practice provide any incentive to reflect, investigate, grieve, or celebrate from the past.

It's like Hume's is-ought problem (not that I'm an empiricist, but it shows common ground). Just because we know what's happening and what exists doesn't mean we know how things should happen and should exist. "Oughts" require intuition in order to determine preferences, and the only way such intuition can be cultivated and activated is if ideals are appreciated for the essence they bear.

Regarding military force, it is never justified to use force for the purpose of abjuring rights, and the ends do not justify the means such that indirect measures are not excusable.

However considering that enslavement is worse than death and that people should do what's right even when they're hated for it, there are times when frustration is permissible (although provocation is not). For example, if an alcoholic is hurting himself and/or others (regardless of whether the alcoholic is depended upon for support), it is preferable that those who care about him and/or his environment help to reform the situation. Yes, it's tolerable to let the alcoholic succumb and corrode, but any negligent victims and bystanders who are subject to externalities of what happens later are not fault free if they had the chance in advance to make a difference. Should the negligent (without a duty of care) be punished? No, but they should not be pitied (and possibly not automatically compensated) either.

Similarly, if a society exists which is naively intent on self-destruction, it should be in an understanding and advanced society's interest to help reform it. Again though, this doesn't mean that the advanced society is obligated to do so, but only that it isn't fault free if something bad happens. Is it guilty? No. Is it innocent? Yes. Is it productive and goodwilling? Certainly not. Justice and strategy are two different concepts, and neither a white man's burden nor fundamentalist jihad is being proscribed here.

Such is where progressivism gets things mixed up. It selectively conflates what's tolerable with what's preferable by allowing the weak and naive (or at least those who appear so politically) to do whatever they want while demanding that the strong and aware adhere to strict code of servitude, and they do this while ignoring how slavery is worse than death under the guise that ignorant relativist tradition is a valid excuse for conflating civil rights with political freedom. Just because individual autonomy is the foundation of justice doesn't mean every citizen is organized, insightful, and honest enough to get actively involved in government, so what happens? Those faithful to the rule of law are forced to play the game of political correctness among socialites in order to preserve principles among those obsessed with practice.

Perhaps it's provocation or perhaps it's just frustration. Either way, the instigators become hypocritical by insisting on active governmental participation. If it's frustration, then the system that they're testing becomes contaminated since the testers become part of the subject. If it's provocation, then not only is it hypocritical already, but some of the provokers will betray others since the agents who infiltrate the government will either target, or be targeted by, those who remain outside of government.

dilettante

Aug 11th 2009, 07:19 PM

Michael, this is the stance I take issue with, and the one I find inconsistent with both the common usage of the term "rights" and any accusation of "violated" or "denied" rights:

No enforcement = no right at all.

So Congress is the ONLY legislature that issues rights?

Congress votes to violate rights of Iraqis and uses US military forces to do so. Iraqi rights, granted by the Iraqi government thus have no standing.

I see no contradiction in my position regardless of either inherent rights theory or arbitrary granted rights theory.

Please note that if I use an example of inherent rights theory to critique it, that doesn't mean I'm supporting inherent rights theory.

So did Congress violate the rights of Iraqis or not?
You said that "No enforcement = no right at all". No one successfully enforced Iraqi rights, ergo they had none, ergo Congress could not possibly have violated them.

US military brute force was used specifically to overwhelm any possible Iraqi governmental enforcement of Iraqi rights.

Might doesn't make right.

Elimination of your opponent's ability to enforce their rights doesn't eliminate your opponent's rights - it steamrolls over them. And steamrolling your opponents rights only creates a temporary situation where rights are not enforced - a temporary situation defined by your use of force.

The above appears to stand in contradiction with your earlier position. If "No enforcement = no right at all" then it certainly follows that "Elimination of your opponent's ability to enforce their rights" DOES "eliminate your opponent's rights". It certainly sounds like your advocating that might makes right[s]. One might ask how might can ever possibly violate rights if rights require enforcement to exist.

I reject slavery entirely on the grounds that it is harmful to society to predicate property rights upon living creatures. I really don't care about the slaves, only society.

On a more or less unrelated note, I find this (especially the last sentence) simply perplexing. What is it that you care about in society if not the people it entails? And surely the slaves are the members of society most hurt by slavery.

dilettante

Aug 11th 2009, 07:20 PM

Daktoria

Aug 11th 2009, 07:45 PM

National interests that serve the elites and not the actual citizenry. That's reality and not very persuasive.

And I certainly don't buy the argument that war is good policy. War is the policy of idiots who have no other options. Or it is the policy of authoritarians seeking to assert authority. That's all war is. There is nothing noble or positive about it. War is always evil.

Sometimes war can be acceptable, but only when the alternative is understood to be worse. That 'bar' is rarely ever reached.

US invasion of Vietnam and the US invasion of Iraq both failed that standard.

Both wars were wars of choice, engaged by the US political elites seeking gain.

Like I said, war isn't good, and what you're saying here presumes a hierarchical class model which isn't what I'm considering. Still, I agree with your bottomline. When manipulative power-elites lead a country to engage in military aggression, such is unjustified coercion. Foreign states have the right the self-determination, and domestic citizens have the right to individual autonomy. Military force is meant to provide security, and security is a defensive tenet.

The security "bar" for determining when war is appropriate though has to be based in goals rather than results though. If worse is defined by "sensible" consequences, then conflicts of interest are going to arise when moderates demand compassion backed by common sense. For example, if there is a country (neighboring or not) that's engaging in populist expropriation of private property and we realize that such behavior will result in domestic civil unrest that encourages similar violations of individual autonomy, then we should take preemptive measures to prevent such coercion. Do we have to? No, but if coercion happens in our future, then it wouldn't make sense to claim that we don't deserve to be blamed for our own corruption.

Such was the policy of containment which lead us to get involved in Vietnam, and while the conflict was a bit of a quagmire, some (including myself) claim that we actually won the war since our general macroscopic objective was achieved - to prevent the far east from turning to communism in accordance with domino theory. Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia all refrained from political conversion, and eventually the communist movement reverted into allowing free market ideologies to permeate throughout far eastern economies.

This is just so far out there, I don't know how to reply.

Are you an Iraqi citizen?

US military conquest cannot be legitmated by appeals to doing it on behalf of the Iraqi people. They didn't ask for it.

US military conquest of Iraq was predicated upon domestic US political and military goals. Period. The Iraqi people were treated like pawns....

...I'll agree that democratically elected governments can and do act in horrific and illegal ways. They often lie, cheat and steal. They create self-serving arguments to justify their rapaciousness.

So what?

Reform of Iraq is the business of the Iraqis, not something to be decided by US Congress as a ploy for re-election.I don't know why you're criticizing me here since I'm criticizing the intentions of the Iraq War. Democratic nationbuilding is comparable to the white man's burden, so even though we toppled an oppressive dictator and threw out the oppressive Baath party, better courses of action probably existed. However, which is better? Having an abundance of geopolitical capital and remaining innocent in the eyes of international opinion, or liberating a country from an oppressive regime? In any case, I don't see how results based common sense can prefer the former over the latter unless it insists on exclusive political correctness bound by secrets, ulterior motives, special interests, hidden agendas, etc.

States are indirect human actors, so we have to compare them with respect to other indirect human actors. Comparing them with respect to individuals wouldn't be parallel. Is Iraq entitled to self-determination? Yes. Should we be nationbuilding there? No. Should domestic politicians be admired primarily for their heroism in foreign affairs? No.

The critique of the Iraq War has to remain consistent. Otherwise, we'll get sidetracked for blaming the U.S. with evidence that points to other underlying problems. Crossed wires just leads to more future problems.

Honor? What the heck is that? And where in the Constitution is it mentioned that war is necessary for "honor"???

There are few things in this world that are truly dishonorable. Warmongering is certainly one of them. Lying about the need for war is another.

There is no honor in war - only death and violence.

If GW Bush himself had of been the first Marine to enter Iraq in full combat gear, then we can talk. But since that didn't happen and never will happen, forget this honor crap. There is no honor in ordering other people to die on your behalf. That's the act of dishonorable cowards....

...US government defines legal war where murder is not murder. So all those people getting killed as a consequence of US government policy are redefined as "not-murdered" for self-serving reasons.

US government has good reasons to play such games - they need to hide their guilt.

What's your reason?...

...The US as a country declared war on no one since WW2. If you believe otherwise, please cite.

Btw, US government using Congress to redefine GW Bush's vendetta against the man who shot at his daddy as NOT a personal vendetta is all well and fine for US legal purposes.

It doesn't pass the smell test though.

War is legalized murder. That's what it is. I like to call a spade a spade. I don't have any need to pretend that war-killing isn't murder.

Only warmongers need to do that in order to assuage their guilt. I don't have guilt and thus don't need such self-serving explanations.Honor is just another word for fulfill. If a state promises to do something, then it has to uphold that promise to remain justified.

Anyway, the Constitution defines authority, not policy. While the Preamble describes the spirit of intended interpretation, it doesn't actually define what the government may or may not, should or should not, do.

Moving on, we're really getting off topic now. I mean c'mon. The thread is about ideals on human rights, not the government's PR on the Iraq War. Maybe some parties are guilty, maybe they're not, but personal vengeance is not intrinsic to the nature of state declared warfare, so neither is murder.

Also, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt on how the "war" in Iraq is an actual war and not just being used for romantic connotation, so if you'd like, we can say that no war is taking place there at all. Regardless, the U.S. authorized force, not a particular individual.

Hedonists care only about themselves and their pleasures. Anything that interferes with their pleasure is unjust by definition.Fine, but libertinism and nihilism aren't the same thing despite some overlap on the dismissal of justice.

That's a moral choice.

Some say that its fair and just to exterminate that fellow's entire family, friends, kinfolk, racial or ethnic group and/or bomb the nation back to the stone age under these terms.

Some say that self-defense is often just a carefully contrived situation for legal killing.

I see no consensus on this point at all.

You cannot assert your own chosen morality as the yardstick against which all moral choices are measured. Or rather you can do this, but no one else is interested....

...That's your moral choice. Historically speaking, the vast majority of human beings faced with this choice actually chose the slavery.

Ergo, your reasoning is clearly flawed since it is a very poor predictor of actual human actions.Normality =/= morality, and killing out of self-defense is based on prevention, not retribution. If you want to discuss the legitimacy of other customs, we should do so elsewhere. Similarly, some prefer slavery because provision of housing, food, tools, etc is not demonstrative of total slavery, and the question becomes a matter of how much less than total slavery is still worse than death.

And if we're not going to acknowledge the existence of a universal moral benchmark, then again, agreements would only be a matter of luck and utility. Civilization would then just be a random coincidence that isn't inherently justified. Could we still be interested in prosperity because it feels good? Sure, but we couldn't honestly claim of doing things in the name of justice because "justice" would be an inefficient aspiration in the pursuit of utility.

I just don't grasp how you can claim morality can exist as a non-universal benchmark. Yeah, different people have different opinions and perspectives, but that doesn't have an impact on the transcendental. Even if you don't believe in God, religion, spirituality, etc, how could you have a sense of morality without having a sense of highest principles (whether they're axioms or virtues)?

Perhaps it would help if you started looking at this discussion as a matter of normative rather than descriptive ethics?

All this adds up to the fact that you believe the nation-state ought to kill some people to satisfy your delusions of personal or national honor.

I don't buy that. Neither your honor nor the honor of the nation-state requires anything at all.

That you believe these are good reasons for people to be ordered killed, is your business. I don't accept any of them as valid or justified.What I believe is that the state exists to provide security, so in the perfect world, the state wouldn't exist. For first degree practicality though, we need to recognize that states are rooted in free autonomy, and it's from those autonomous parts that national interests are defined.

Really, I've said over and over that war isn't good and that killing shouldn't happen. This discussion however is about how to respond to exceptions, that is when violations do occur, so if it seems like I am insistent about killing, it's because that's the subject at hand.

----------

I think SMadsen offered a good answer.

Either way, there is no clear single absolute answer to the question because there is no clear single absolute definition of morality, let alone 'good'.

Moral good is a goal that some people apparently strive for. Doesn't mean the goal exists.

Yes, I agree because it begs the questions about what's really necessary and how cooperation can exist legitimately without willing individual consent.

An aside. To me, the reason it seems unclear in your model is because you're one dimension short. I still don't see how your model deals with change, so while I want to say you believe in static relativism, I'm not confident enough to be sure. Relativism to me though has always seemed to suffer from the cobweb problem of adjusting one mechanism at a time to find moral equilibrium. If you hold everything constant to one variable (the perceiver), you'll never find balance and will be stuck on moderation.

Unsubstantiated.

The scientific revolution didn't just lead to madness and chaos (for example).

And who is the decider of "purpose"? Isn't that God's perogative?

The scientific revolution didn't have a purpose? No, I think fellas like Newton and Galileo definitely had purposes for exploring the natural world (which should show how it's the revolutionaries who define the purpose of their revolution although there are definitely shallower and weaker purposes than others as established by the degrees of consistency therein).

The examples given were the very best examples available to illustrate the point.

Hobbes said that any insurrection against legally constituted authority is always wrong.

I hold that the Roundheads victory over the Government of King Charles was a fully justified insurrection.

Likewise I hold that the US Declaration of Independence against King George III was also a fully justified insurrection.

Ergo, Hobbes was wrong. And my examples I think were good ones.

Certainly. Legality is subordinate to morality otherwise Dr. MLK Jr. and Gandhi wouldn't be justified in their endeavors either would they?

Btw, I hold Oliver Cromwell to be one of the greatest and most admirable political leaders of all time. If you have a critique of Cromwell, open a thread and state your case.

Another thread, another headache. :-\

Michael

Aug 11th 2009, 10:34 PM

Like I said, war isn't good, and what you're saying here presumes a hierarchical class model which isn't what I'm considering. Still, I agree with your bottomline. When manipulative power-elites lead a country to engage in military aggression, such is unjustified coercion. Foreign states have the right the self-determination, and domestic citizens have the right to individual autonomy. Military force is meant to provide security, and security is a defensive tenet.
"Ruling elite" and "everyone else" is not a hierarchical class model per se. It is an effective description of our political model. Hierarchical class models are defined and structured by rules. Rule by elite consensus doesn't require any formal definition of hierarchy or structure.

That being said, I'm glad to hear that you are not defending the warmonger morality.

I agree that military force may be necessary for national defense, but I believe the existence of any military force can be as dangerous to the nation (or liberty) as it is too our enemies. The US must take great care to avoid creating a self-perpetuating military monstrosity such as Rome became where every issue of public policy becomes competely circular.

The security "bar" for determining when war is appropriate though has to be based in goals rather than results though. If worse is defined by "sensible" consequences, then conflicts of interest are going to arise when moderates demand compassion backed by common sense. For example, if there is a country (neighboring or not) that's engaging in populist expropriation of private property and we realize that such behavior will result in domestic civil unrest that encourages similar violations of individual autonomy, then we should take preemptive measures to prevent such coercion. Do we have to? No, but if coercion happens in our future, then it wouldn't make sense to claim that we don't deserve to be blamed for our own corruption.

Such was the policy of containment which lead us to get involved in Vietnam, and while the conflict was a bit of a quagmire, some (including myself) claim that we actually won the war since our general macroscopic objective was achieved - to prevent the far east from turning to communism in accordance with domino theory. Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia all refrained from political conversion, and eventually the communist movement reverted into allowing free market ideologies to permeate throughout far eastern economies.
Ten points for having the guts to make the victory argument based on the domino non-action. ;)

Seriously, not many have the guts to make that argument. I'll give you credit for at least being consistent!

I have nothing but contempt for the "domino argument" in the first place. It has the same semantic validity as Cheney's "smoking mushroom cloud" with Iraq. Same game was played in exactly the same way for the same reasons.

Btw, the US government now publicly admits the Gulf of Tomkin "incident" was manufactured...

And I date the 'beginning' of the US invasion of Vietnam from when JFK ordered a coup and mass assassinations of the South Vietnamese government and establishment of a US-puppet regime there. Pretty nasty business. I loathe JFK as President for this act - I consider him a monster.

I don't know why you're criticizing me here since I'm criticizing the intentions of the Iraq War.
My argument is completely beyond the 'petty facts' of the Iraq war.

My point is that citizens of the USA do not have any "right" to make such sovereign decisions about foreign nations or foreign peoples (US citizens just happen to have the "might" to do so).

That principle is one that supposedly defines the USA's creation. When Americans seek to violate it, it makes a mockery of American claims of justice.

Democratic nationbuilding is comparable to the white man's burden, so even though we toppled an oppressive dictator and threw out the oppressive Baath party, better courses of action probably existed. However, which is better? Having an abundance of geopolitical capital and remaining innocent in the eyes of international opinion, or liberating a country from an oppressive regime? In any case, I don't see how results based common sense can prefer the former over the latter unless it insists on exclusive political correctness bound by secrets, ulterior motives, special interests, hidden agendas, etc.
I abhore liberal humanitarianism and democratic nation-building. I consider that policy to be racist and elitist. It presumes that we westerners know what's best for other people. I think that's pure unmitigated bullshit and part of the world's biggest problem.

States are indirect human actors, so we have to compare them with respect to other indirect human actors. Comparing them with respect to individuals wouldn't be parallel. Is Iraq entitled to self-determination? Yes. Should we be nationbuilding there? No. Should domestic politicians be admired primarily for their heroism in foreign affairs? No.

The critique of the Iraq War has to remain consistent. Otherwise, we'll get sidetracked for blaming the U.S. with evidence that points to other underlying problems. Crossed wires just leads to more future problems.

Honor is just another word for fulfill. If a state promises to do something, then it has to uphold that promise to remain justified.

Anyway, the Constitution defines authority, not policy. While the Preamble describes the spirit of intended interpretation, it doesn't actually define what the government may or may not, should or should not, do.

Whether or not the State fulfills its promises is a matter of public policy and electoral expediency. It has nothing to do with honor. Many states break their promises as a matter of routine. If policy requires a flip-flop on last week's promise, that's what happens.

Where is the honor in promising to build a bridge to nowhere? Where is the honor in breaking that promise to build the bridge to nowhere?

There is no honor in politics unless those who fail in office were to commit an honorable suicide. That's honor I can respect. Nothing short of that though.

Only my own honor interests me. Other people's honor is their business. ;)

Moving on, we're really getting off topic now. I mean c'mon. The thread is about ideals on human rights, not the government's PR on the Iraq War. Maybe some parties are guilty, maybe they're not, but personal vengeance is not intrinsic to the nature of state declared warfare, so neither is murder.

Also, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt on how the "war" in Iraq is an actual war and not just being used for romantic connotation, so if you'd like, we can say that no war is taking place there at all. Regardless, the U.S. authorized force, not a particular individual.
I'm okay with pretending that the Iraqi war isn't an actual war. The US never declared war there afterall.

I can even work in terms of UN Resolution 687 (1991) as the legal figleaf that can be construed to assert that the US invasion of Iraq was in fact legal under international law (I've made this argument several times in the past).

I believe the Iraq digression comes about because of the issue of inherent rights. If rights are understood to be "inherent" (as opposed to "granted") then it naturally follows that those poor Iraqi slum-dwellers who got bombed had their 'right to life' violated by an act of the US Congress. Hence, the Iraq War digression. :)

Fine, but libertinism and nihilism aren't the same thing despite some overlap on the dismissal of justice.
They may be different in theoretical definition or classification, but in reality, they are generally found in one and the same persons. One is a convenient and self-serving justification of the other.

Normality =/= morality, and killing out of self-defense is based on prevention, not retribution. If you want to discuss the legitimacy of other customs, we should do so elsewhere. Similarly, some prefer slavery because provision of housing, food, tools, etc is not demonstrative of total slavery, and the question becomes a matter of how much less than total slavery is still worse than death.
The Nazi invasion of Poland on September 1st, 1939 officially cited Polish provocations and claimed self-defense as the justification of their actions.

Yes, some acts of violence in the name of self defense are indeed genuine and reasonable and moral actions. My point is that many "claims" of self defense are quite suspicious and convenient.

As for slavery, historical examples are quite well documented from ancient Greece, Rome and 17th to 19th century USA. I think my point stands well with the historical record. The vast majority of people who are faced with a forced choice of slavery or immediate death choose slavery.

And if we're not going to acknowledge the existence of a universal moral benchmark, then again, agreements would only be a matter of luck and utility. Civilization would then just be a random coincidence that isn't inherently justified. Could we still be interested in prosperity because it feels good? Sure, but we couldn't honestly claim of doing things in the name of justice because "justice" would be an inefficient aspiration in the pursuit of utility.
How does my critique of your proposed absolute moral benchmarks constitute an assertion that civilization is just a random event?

It is always your assertion of an absolute that I critique, not the morality itself.

Eliminating the absolute doesn't eliminate the morality or the benchmark. You seem to respond to every attack on "absolutism" as a rejection of any and all morality itself. That's spurious.

I just don't grasp how you can claim morality can exist as a non-universal benchmark. Yeah, different people have different opinions and perspectives, but that doesn't have an impact on the transcendental. Even if you don't believe in God, religion, spirituality, etc, how could you have a sense of morality without having a sense of highest principles (whether they're axioms or virtues)?
Morality can exist as a non-universal benchmark because no single morality is universal. Universal benchmarks are whatever we want to make them (which is exactly what they are already, but we don't call it that).

Morality seems to come in as many flavors and varieties as there are human beings. But ALL human beings are inherently social creatures. We thus MUST make comprimises for the sake of the group. It is here that the give and play of actual morality can be observed. Humans are crafty creatures. We use politics and the law to adjudicate our manifold interpretations of morality.

The system isn't pretty, well organized or very admirable. It does seem to work fairly well though. :)

Perhaps it would help if you started looking at this discussion as a matter of normative rather than descriptive ethics?
Well of course it would - it would help you if I agree in principle with your model of moral leadership! :lol:

I categorially oppose normative ethical systems on principle. I'm a Nietzschean. I reject the model telling people how they ought to act. That is slave morality expressing the need for a master. I stand on my own morality alone.

Thus, in all such discussions, I'm interested primarily in descriptive ethics.
I'm an observer/analyst by natural disposition, not a preacher. :)

And I will always critique proscriptive or normative ethical systems as 'elite' systems designed to foster/support elite rule.

What I believe is that the state exists to provide security, so in the perfect world, the state wouldn't exist. For first degree practicality though, we need to recognize that states are rooted in free autonomy, and it's from those autonomous parts that national interests are defined.

Really, I've said over and over that war isn't good and that killing shouldn't happen. This discussion however is about how to respond to exceptions, that is when violations do occur, so if it seems like I am insistent about killing, it's because that's the subject at hand.
Citing one justified example where killing may be acceptable (self-defence or national self defense) does not in any way justify any other usage (and in reality, that's exactly what that argument is used for). That's my key point.

There is a very slippery slope from "self-defence is justified" to "military pre-emptive strikes are justified". Because the first so quickly leads to the second in practice when human actions are concerned, I consider skepticism of the first is thus justified as rationally necessary.

Yes, I agree because it begs the questions about what's really necessary and how cooperation can exist legitimately without willing individual consent.

An aside. To me, the reason it seems unclear in your model is because you're one dimension short. I still don't see how your model deals with change, so while I want to say you believe in static relativism, I'm not confident enough to be sure. Relativism to me though has always seemed to suffer from the cobweb problem of adjusting one mechanism at a time to find moral equilibrium. If you hold everything constant to one variable (the perceiver), you'll never find balance and will be stuck on moderation.
The problem here is as you identified above. You approach this topic from a normative or prescriptive disposition and may be 'projecting' that disposition onto me. Yes, I'm a moral relativist. That's not because I think relativism is wonderful or the best moral system in the world. Far from it. Moral relativism is much like Sir Winston Churchill said of democracy - the worst except for all the rest.

However, pure epistemology forces me to acknowledge that all things are relative by definition. All knowledge is subjective human knowledge. There is no such thing as objective anything - it is humanly impossible. Thus, I'm forced to accept relativism as the only thing that is rationally possible.
Thus, I accept moral relativism as a necessity. It is not something I like or admire. It just is.

And given my approach as an observer/analyst, I accept moral relativism as it is.

Bottom line is that moral relativism is totally less than ideal. In purely theoretical terms it is highly problematic and easy to dislike. Unfortunately, it is the only model that stands up to reason while every other model fails (or requires huge amounts of cognitive dissonance to achieve).

The scientific revolution didn't have a purpose? No, I think fellas like Newton and Galileo definitely had purposes for exploring the natural world (which should show how it's the revolutionaries who define the purpose of their revolution although there are definitely shallower and weaker purposes than others as established by the degrees of consistency therein).

Btw, Newton spent far more time and energy studying astrology than anything else. It was in that field that he considered his greatest contributions... I think Newton would consider you a madman if you tried to tell him the historical significance of his mathematical theories. He certainly didn't consider himself a genius.

And a hundred fellows similar to Newton and Galileo had similar interests and similar conclusions long before Newton and Galileo came along. It is all about politics - if the politics were not favorable, you lost your head. If the politics were favorable, you became famous.

Ergo, the Scientific Revolution occured because politics permitted it to occur. And that label was invented hundreds of years later to describe the event that all contemporaries were ignorant of at the time.

Certainly. Legality is subordinate to morality otherwise Dr. MLK Jr. and Gandhi wouldn't be justified in their endeavors either would they?

Actually, I'm willing to explore the idea that legality is codified morality and both examples you give are good ones for that argument.

Btw, Gandhi is a very questionable saint. You should read up on his extreme racist views some time. His political doctrine of non-violence was very clever and effective. He was not saint though - far from it. Very hard to like the fellow the more you know about him.

Another thread, another headache. :-\
:lol:
There can never be enough thread discussions! :D

Daktoria

Aug 12th 2009, 12:46 AM

The core is human interdependency. And the means are experience.

Dependency is contingent upon two things. The first is necessity, so what do you believe people need each other for (rather than what do we want each other for)?

The second is agreement since cooperation can only occur if it is willingly adhered to, so how can interdependence be more important than independence?

SMadsen

Aug 12th 2009, 09:18 AM

Dependency is contingent upon two things. The first is necessity, so what do you believe people need each other for (rather than what do we want each other for)?
That's a vast area. But the bottom line is of course survival.
The second is agreement since cooperation can only occur if it is willingly adhered to, so how can interdependence be more important than independence?
Regardless of whatever kind of dependency one can argue for or against the importance of, in order to even reach a state of independency one must have gone through a period of dependency.

Michael

Aug 12th 2009, 09:52 AM

Dependency is contingent upon two things. The first is necessity, so what do you believe people need each other for (rather than what do we want each other for)?

Please see this thread (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=13516#post13516). I think that thread discussion is highly relevant to this specific point.

The second is agreement since cooperation can only occur if it is willingly adhered to, so how can interdependence be more important than independence?
Actually, cooperation can occur even if it is grudgingly given. One doesn't have to be enthusiastic about cooperation in order to engage in it.

Michael

Aug 12th 2009, 09:58 AM

[SIZE=2]
That's a vast area. But the bottom line is of course survival.
This answer is often given for this question, but I've never liked this particular answer as it implies a very high level of rationality and forethought to human actions.

I just don't think the vast majority of humans are clever or wise enough for this to work with that goal alone.

Regardless of whatever kind of dependency one can argue for or against the importance of, in order to even reach a state of independency one must have gone through a period of dependency.
Actually, most social contract theories predicate human independence as 'a priori' which I consider absurd. I agree with your point that existence of independency must be predicated on an prior period of dependency.

SMadsen

Aug 12th 2009, 10:28 AM

This answer is often given for this question, but I've never liked this particular answer as it implies a very high level of rationality and forethought to human actions.

I just don't think the vast majority of humans are clever or wise enough for this to work with that goal alone.
Well. I didn't, and still don't, feel like writing page up and page down about the benefits of social life. So I'll have to leave it at implication only :)

*edit* yes, Greendruid has it right in the thread you refer to (didn't see your post above b4 now, sorry).
Actually, most social contract theories predicate human independence as 'a priori' which I consider absurd. I agree with your point that existence of independency must be predicated on an prior period of dependency.
It's a, what do you call it in English? - a system where two or more conditions sustain each other. In direct translation we call it a "fluctation system" in Danish.

Individuals of even the most solitare of species are dependent on each other. That may be indirectly such as respecting territories or directly during mating or other, otherwise isolated incidences. All while individual independence can be said to be of utmost importance.

So yes, I consider it absurd as well. In fact, I consider anything assumed 'a priori' about the nature of humans absurd :)

Michael

Aug 12th 2009, 10:36 AM

It's a, what do you call it in English? - a system where two or more conditions sustain each other. In direct translation we call it a "fluctation system" in Danish.
Mutual dependency.

SMadsen

Aug 12th 2009, 10:46 AM

That explanation of the existence of parking laws is entirely conjecture and does not match up with facts on the ground.

Parking laws were created by retailers who didn't like YOU parking your car in front of their stores all day long.

Parking laws are a function of commerce and serve the interest of merchants.

No merchants = no parking laws.

Now that's the origin of parking laws. Over time, they just become a steady source of revenue for civic authorities and they are justified entirely on that basis now - a source of revenue.

Eliminating parking laws doesn't create any chaos at all. It just annoys local area merchants and it deprives revenue for the local municipality.
So the people with a need (or, as Dakota referred to, wish, desire, plan, doesn't matter) to park a car (or camp a tent or have a BBQ in a parking lot, doesn't matter either) engage in a war (or a quarrel, quibble, discussion, deprivation of revenue, annoyment .. or whatever) with the merchants (or whomever) without regulation.

The details are irrelevant. What matters is that parking laws serves a function in society. As do rights. The concepts fit the justice system the same way.

SMadsen

Aug 12th 2009, 10:51 AM

Mutual dependency.
Nah, but thanks. Mutual dependency is implied by interdependence. What I mean is that dependence supports independence and vice versa. It doesn't need to be opposite. Nor does one condition need to be more important than the other.

One might feel inclined to say that we make it on our own by sticking together :)

Michael

Aug 12th 2009, 11:33 AM

Nah, but thanks. Mutual dependency is implied by interdependence. What I mean is that dependence supports independence and vice versa. It doesn't need to be opposite. Nor does one condition need to be more important than the other.

One might feel inclined to say that we make it on our own by sticking together :)

How about symbiotic?

SMadsen

Aug 12th 2009, 11:52 AM

How about symbiotic?
Nah. Although sporadically referred to within same species, and only then by example, symbiosis is a relationship between different species. Even within such a system, dependency and independency (-ce?), is often fluctuating, or oscillating, in terms of benefits.

Btw, what's the difference between dependence and dependency?

Daktoria

Aug 12th 2009, 01:55 PM

That's a vast area. But the bottom line is of course survival.

Why do we need to survive? Yes, survival is required for all other endeavors, but I don't see anything morally justifiable about being a virus.

Regardless of whatever kind of dependency one can argue for or against the importance of, in order to even reach a state of independency one must have gone through a period of dependency.

Automatic (uncontrolled) biological processes don't have moral precepts since they happen regardless of our intentions (such that grounding a moral system in them is equivalent to denying the existence of free will which means neither morality nor justice matter nor exist in the human world).

Daktoria

Aug 12th 2009, 02:35 PM

Please see this thread (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=13516#post13516). I think that thread discussion is highly relevant to this specific point.

Actually, cooperation can occur even if it is grudgingly given. One doesn't have to be enthusiastic about cooperation in order to engage in it.

I read the article you linked, but despite how I disagree with the conclusions on theory of the mind evolution through friendliness, I agree that cooperation is a good thing (just like most other people, heh).

That's not the problem though. The problem is when we associate rational decision making with instinctive compromise and sacrifice. For example, the plank experiment's extended conclusions about evolution claimed that intelligence was jump started from friendliness rather than the other way around. However, how could friendliness arise if the chimps weren't aware of how the plank mechanism worked in the first place? Mawa and Kidogo appeared to have no sense of intuition at all by not realizing that both ropes had to be pulled down at the same time for the mechanism to work. Similarly, Sally and Becky seemed to be patient and insightful (although an asymmetrical system could have tested this more accurately such that cooperation would not be a symptom of mutual mimicking out of comfort to avoid guilt).

Moving on, enthusiasm isn't the priority in defining justice here since it's possible to be willing yet discontent without being coerced. Sometimes, people have to cooperate in order to overcome natural circumstances or rectify the actions of third parties, so even if they don't like to work together, cooperation is still justified if the involved parties willingly do so.

SMadsen

Aug 12th 2009, 06:20 PM

Why do we need to survive? Yes, survival is required for all other endeavors, but I don't see anything morally justifiable about being a virus.
Huh? Survival of any creature, including man and virus, needs no moral justification. It's the other way around. Survival justifies morality. Simply by requiring social ground rules.

Automatic (uncontrolled) biological processes don't have moral precepts since they happen regardless of our intentions (such that grounding a moral system in them is equivalent to denying the existence of free will which means neither morality nor justice matter nor exist in the human world).
We learn and express culture regardless of our intentions. Just like we learn morals regardless of our intentions.

And yes, the nature of free will can be discussed in this context. The range of intent (and free will) is usually confined by a combination of the number of conceivable choices and available possibilities. So if your entire conception consists of your mom and dad, a comforter, a diaper and the kitchen floor then your intentions are properly not all that extravagant.

This doesn't mean that free will doesn't exist. It only means that (most) things work regardless of will. The globe spins just fine without our concernment. Likewise, the subconscious works just fine without consciousness. Well, usually at least.

Daktoria

Aug 12th 2009, 08:17 PM

Huh? Survival of any creature, including man and virus, needs no moral justification. It's the other way around. Survival justifies morality. Simply by requiring social ground rules.

Fine. Then we're not justified in executing serial murderers, curing fatal diseases, or eliminating any other form of life that has the potential to survive just as much as we do despite how its survival is incompatible with our own.

You could say might makes right and that even an infinite amount of provocation is entitled to tolerance (particularly provocation of naive appearances that can hide behind claims of misconception and miscommunication), but that is completely ridiculous in the definition of justice because there's no wiggle room for distinction between utility and justice now. As such, if the definitions of utility and justice are identical, then referring to justice would be inefficient and deserving of no attention at all.

We learn and express culture regardless of our intentions. Just like we learn morals regardless of our intentions.

And yes, the nature of free will can be discussed in this context. The range of intent (and free will) is usually confined by a combination of the number of conceivable choices and available possibilities. So if your entire conception consists of your mom and dad, a comforter, a diaper and the kitchen floor then your intentions are properly not all that extravagant.

This doesn't mean that free will doesn't exist. It only means that (most) things work regardless of will. The globe spins just fine without our concernment. Likewise, the subconscious works just fine without consciousness. Well, usually at least.Normative moral benchmarks have no importance in the actions of nonwilling entities, so your reference to the nonwilling world getting along fine doesn't make sense. Where does your criteria of satisfaction come from?

Again, as I referred to Michael, Hume's is-ought problem is at hand here. Just because things exist doesn't mean we know how things should exist. Furthermore, given that change happens (and that entropy is ever increasing), it would be absurd to rely on survival for a moral benchmark because survival is guaranteed to fail eventually. If we claim that morals are purely human constructs that serve temporary convenience, then we're again stuck in the utility paradox.

For example, let's consider Rawls' original position and that everything in our world is controlled by some willing actor or another (such that all unwilling material has either been destroyed altogether or socially integrated.

Now let's acknowledge that change is a given.

Where is change justified to happen?

No where because everything has to survive in its present form for "morality" to be respected.

Michael

Aug 12th 2009, 09:08 PM

I don't think you're distinguishing between strategy and justice considering the language you're using. "De facto" and "abjure" imply that practice is the only thing that matters when considering the existence of rights (nevermind existence itself), but justice can't exist if practice is the only thing that matters since practice can only be witnessed and take effect in the present. Practice provides no incentive for improvement, development, ambition, progress, or any other course for future change. Nor does practice provide any incentive to reflect, investigate, grieve, or celebrate from the past.
As noted in the other thread, I'm trying to observe what is real here - I'm not trying to design the best moral rule system. I don't subscribe to any particular abstract definition of morality or justice, thus I'm not focused on choosing the best strategy for any given definition of justice here.

I'm just trying to explore the concept of "created vs born" equality and the closely related concept of rights (granted vs inherent).

As for the existence of justice, there is no reason why justice cannot be a dynamic concept. Indeed, if justice is to exist, I conclude that it MUST be dynamic since any conception of a 'static' definition of justice would be a claim of an absolute that I know can't be fully justified. Ergo, if justice exists, it must be dynamic in nature. By "dynamic", I mean specifically mutable, changeable or flexible. Or in other words, subectively relative or relatively subjective. :)

It's like Hume's is-ought problem (not that I'm an empiricist, but it shows common ground). Just because we know what's happening and what exists doesn't mean we know how things should happen and should exist. "Oughts" require intuition in order to determine preferences, and the only way such intuition can be cultivated and activated is if ideals are appreciated for the essence they bear.
I've never denied that ideals (or "oughts") are wonderfully useful things or that there is anything wrong with ideas, ideals and/or idealism.

As Hume implied and you have noted, "oughts" are integral to our human understanding of the world around us. For example, it is part of my understanding of the laws of the physical universe that the sun "ought" to rise again tomorrow. I cannot "know" that it will.

Far be it for me to oppose "oughts", though I must lodge an objection to the little "intuition" wedge you've slipped in there in your last sentence of that paragraph. ;)

Hume and myself are in complete agreement that the sun "ought" to rise again tomorrow. Neither of us assert that intuition plays any part at all in that particular assessment.

Furthermore, that "oughts" are necessary things, does not mean that any given "ought", ought to be accepted. I'm a skeptic by nature - I question everything. Every "ought" must be fully justified or it is just another 'commandment' and there is never any shortage of aspiring tyrants issuing those things.

Regarding military force, it is never justified to use force for the purpose of abjuring rights, and the ends do not justify the means such that indirect measures are not excusable.
Now I'm getting confused over your use of the term "abjure".

If military force is used to 'steamroll over' some rights, those rights aren't really "abjured" are they? Those rights are physically violated.

I should think that rights are more accurately considered "abjured" with the stroke of a pen signing on a dotted line, since the term refers to the 'swearing' of statements of intent. Waving guns around is not 'swearing' a statement of intent - it is defacto issuing one at 'pointblank' range.

That being said, I think our western history is full of examples of states using force to violate rights (according to either the "granted" or the "inherent" doctrine of origin). Though I suppose that one could argue that if the state is the sole grantor of rights, it can grant itself the right to violate rights (and it certainly does this!).

'National security' is often the code-phrase used to give the State the right to violate various rights when convenient. Culture and politics tends to hide this from common sight or public discourse. This topic is best addressed by Chomsky. If one follows the "inherent" rights assertion, then the same applies.

However considering that enslavement is worse than death and that people should do what's right even when they're hated for it, there are times when frustration is permissible (although provocation is not). For example, if an alcoholic is hurting himself and/or others (regardless of whether the alcoholic is depended upon for support), it is preferable that those who care about him and/or his environment help to reform the situation. Yes, it's tolerable to let the alcoholic succumb and corrode, but any negligent victims and bystanders who are subject to externalities of what happens later are not fault free if they had the chance in advance to make a difference. Should the negligent (without a duty of care) be punished? No, but they should not be pitied (and possibly not automatically compensated) either.
A very well stated point about responsibility. :)

Similarly, if a society exists which is naively intent on self-destruction, it should be in an understanding and advanced society's interest to help reform it. Again though, this doesn't mean that the advanced society is obligated to do so, but only that it isn't fault free if something bad happens. Is it guilty? No. Is it innocent? Yes. Is it productive and goodwilling? Certainly not. Justice and strategy are two different concepts, and neither a white man's burden nor fundamentalist jihad is being proscribed here.
I object to the assertion of any "society" having an intent. Only individual persons have those.

Society is a collective of thousands/millions of people, each of them is subjectively autonomous. Yes, societies tend to show aggregate patterns and these can be used to make generalizations about society as a group, but I don't think it is meaningful at all to say that "society... is... intent on...". That's not even hypothetically possible to consider unless you speak of "borg" or some other hive-organism thingie.

As such, I don't think you can 'scale-up' your analogy of 'platonic justice' from the individual drunkard case up to the society-wide level.

Such is where progressivism gets things mixed up. It selectively conflates what's tolerable with what's preferable by allowing the weak and naive (or at least those who appear so politically) to do whatever they want while demanding that the strong and aware adhere to strict code of servitude, and they do this while ignoring how slavery is worse than death under the guise that ignorant relativist tradition is a valid excuse for conflating civil rights with political freedom. Just because individual autonomy is the foundation of justice doesn't mean every citizen is organized, insightful, and honest enough to get actively involved in government, so what happens? Those faithful to the rule of law are forced to play the game of political correctness among socialites in order to preserve principles among those obsessed with practice.
I think that's reasonably accurate, though I might quibble with your hyperbole. ;)

It is a bitch being on the side of good isn't it? Satan's road is always the easy one, though it is usually a shorter one too.

The only honor in doing the right thing is its own satisfaction. That's good enough for me. :)

Perhaps it's provocation or perhaps it's just frustration. Either way, the instigators become hypocritical by insisting on active governmental participation. If it's frustration, then the system that they're testing becomes contaminated since the testers become part of the subject. If it's provocation, then not only is it hypocritical already, but some of the provokers will betray others since the agents who infiltrate the government will either target, or be targeted by, those who remain outside of government.
I think you give far too much focus to possible ideological motivations for potential actions. I'd say that 99% of all human actions are driven by sex, lust, greed and/or envy. Ideological activist-warrior types driven by ideals alone are extremely rare. (Most grow out of it with age soon enough)

Personally, I find human beings far too complex creatures to ever truly believe that they are driven by any one single thing at any time. I find people have a remarkable ability to combine their passions together into particular actions that may serve multiple passions. Humans tend to be very crafty and clever when it comes to their own passions! ;)

SMadsen

Aug 13th 2009, 05:32 AM

Fine. Then we're not justified in executing serial murderers, curing fatal diseases, or eliminating any other form of life that has the potential to survive just as much as we do despite how its survival is incompatible with our own.

You could say might makes right and that even an infinite amount of provocation is entitled to tolerance (particularly provocation of naive appearances that can hide behind claims of misconception and miscommunication), but that is completely ridiculous in the definition of justice because there's no wiggle room for distinction between utility and justice now. As such, if the definitions of utility and justice are identical, then referring to justice would be inefficient and deserving of no attention at all.
If survival needs to be morally justified then you could indeed kill whomever, simply by having morals that would justifiy or not justify the survival of whomever you see fit.

Instead we have values that stem from experience of what is best for survival (yeah, I know it may seem pretty lame to talk about survival in case of man - especially on a world wide communication device as that would seem to indicate that we've put most struggles behind us - but, survival needn't be a struggle (a single mishap can eliminate all efforts), and secondly, well, survival is basically the bottom line).

For example, we have laws that protect society from serial killers. Protection is part of survival. We have sciences that makes life safer to live. Safety is part of survival. And if we have the surplus for it, we have some basic notions of maintaining stability in our surroundings. A stable environment is part of survival.

All those small contingency plans assist with survival, and all of them are expressed through the social ground rules that we call morality. So yes, survival justifies, or, simply put, requires, morality.

SMadsen

Aug 13th 2009, 08:55 AM

Normative moral benchmarks have no importance in the actions of nonwilling entities, so your reference to the nonwilling world getting along fine doesn't make sense. Where does your criteria of satisfaction come from?

Again, as I referred to Michael, Hume's is-ought problem is at hand here. Just because things exist doesn't mean we know how things should exist. Furthermore, given that change happens (and that entropy is ever increasing), it would be absurd to rely on survival for a moral benchmark because survival is guaranteed to fail eventually. If we claim that morals are purely human constructs that serve temporary convenience, then we're again stuck in the utility paradox.

For example, let's consider Rawls' original position and that everything in our world is controlled by some willing actor or another (such that all unwilling material has either been destroyed altogether or socially integrated.

Now let's acknowledge that change is a given.

Where is change justified to happen?

No where because everything has to survive in its present form for "morality" to be respected.
Yes, and the chicken needs to exist before the egg can exist. I'm sorry but that's mental masturbation. Now that things actually exist - according to my perceptive abilities, at least - I'll much rather discern purposes than existences.

The only thing that can be conceived not to eventually fail belongs in the department of divinity. But then morality does indeed become a human construct (in effect, you're saying that morality is not a human construct but that you have to construct a realm in your mind that you can attribute morality to). I don't buy into any such stuff.

Morality is a perfectly natural construct just like hunger, fear, fur and teeth. All is guaranteed to fail with extinction of the organism or organisms possessing the respective trait or traits. Just like human fear or human teeth go extinct along with humans, so does human morality also go extinct along with humans. Why on earth shouldn't it?

Non Sequitur

Aug 13th 2009, 11:03 PM

I think SMadsen offered a good answer.

Either way, there is no clear single absolute answer to the question because there is no clear single absolute definition of morality, let alone 'good'.

Moral good is a goal that some people apparently strive for. Doesn't mean the goal exists.

I know this comment wasn't said to me, but I believe in a clear, single, absolute good. To reverse your statement, just because you don't think there is a clear good, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Michael

Aug 14th 2009, 12:06 PM

I know this comment wasn't said to me, but I believe in a clear, single, absolute good. To reverse your statement, just because you don't think there is a clear good, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
That's true of everything. My ignorance proves nothing. ;)

But if you can't prove something exists, you can't claim it to be true knowledge, other than as an article of faith.

Daktoria

Aug 14th 2009, 04:24 PM

How does my critique of your proposed absolute moral benchmarks constitute an assertion that civilization is just a random event?

It is always your assertion of an absolute that I critique, not the morality itself.

Eliminating the absolute doesn't eliminate the morality or the benchmark. You seem to respond to every attack on "absolutism" as a rejection of any and all morality itself. That's spurious.

No offense, but with school coming up, I can't really focus on the historical arguments you made before this point. History and philosophy tend to corrode my ability to stay focused on economics and finance (for whatever reason), so I'm going to need to dilute this conversation if I'm going to remain active in it.

I treat morality as absolute because I don't recognize it as a human institution. Rather it's a transcendental and universal system of axioms that prevent reality from existing when rejected.

The (paradoxically simultaneous) naturalistic and moralistic fallacies this entails though are some of the reasons I asked you before if we could move beyond relativism and liberalism's deception. My beliefs on justice and goodwill are grounded in giving the benefit of the doubt to justice's and morality's existence. However, if we attempt to prove the existence of justice and morality based on a posteriori evidence alone, then we will inevitably fail; the claim of survival and interdependence being the foundation of morality is an a priori proposition in itself since "survival" and "interdependence" are reflections upon "patterns" we believe to appear. Even if the patterns' parts definitely exist in accordance with their real locations, behaviors, physical forces, etc., that doesn't mean the "systems" they form are actual entities. Rather the systems are only models we use to help organize our senses and understandings of the world (similarly to how we recognize hierarchies to abbreviate complex human interactions).

Such begs the question about the world being alive since the only way human beings could be alive is if the parts which compose of us are alive as well, yet there's no distinct difference between our parts and the parts of the "non-living" world. Ergo, if we're to "recognize" that we are alive (recognition that's only possible if we are, in fact, alive [and willing]), then we should recognize (or at least consider) that the world is alive too. However, if everything is "alive", then the very existence of all that's a posteriori comes into question since systems, as previously described, are only figments of our imaginations used for the sake of efficient organization. Not that there's anything irrational about believing in such mirages since they make our lives a LOT easier, but that doesn't mean mirages don't exist....

...or maybe they don't after all if the imagination is the only thing which exists in the world such that the only things which do "exist" are those things which are believed to exist. :shrug:

An ironic paradox because if this is the case, then relativism is actually correct since multiple models (and entities in effect) could exist simultaneously in the same place.

However, you haven't shown willingness to go beyond relativism in our discussion yet, nor do I believe you would believe (or consider) even half of what I wrote here since it's so radically off the wall, so I really shouldn't praise, or concede to, you ;)...

...which is probably a good thing because in order for imagination(s) to fall victim* to such a paradox, there would have to be dimensions to the world than the imagination is unable to comprehend (either because there are too many for the imagination to encapsulate or because certain dimensions are so advanced that the imagination can't understand them given the imagination's essence both in structure and content).
*Victimization here because total slavery exists in torture, nothing being more torturous than existing in a world where the "laws" of its existence prevent the subject from ever coming about a resolute understanding of existence. Resolute understanding is one of two forms of serenity, the other being histrionic nirvana where understanding is no longer prioritized, but rather stable phenomenological... bliss(?) is.

If bliss is adhered to in a world where trade offs are required, then complete "understanding" is again dependent upon what's written below. However, if bliss is synthesized with understanding through balance to catalyze evolution in the imagination's capacity to comprehend advanced dimensions, then advancement is either a result of luck or a priori intuition.
If such dimensions exist though, then the previous affirmation of relativism wouldn't be definite because it would be unfalsifiable with regard to the incomprehensible dimensions...

...which in effect means that if you believe in relativism, then you do so ultimately on faith and nothing else.

----------

To be honest, I need a break from this not only to adjust for going back to school, but also so my mind can rejuvenate and absorb information more easily (and conventionally, heh). I've become quite mentally exhausted from these discussions, and I need a time out or a sabbatical or something. Not that these discussions have taken it to another level (although they have considering their civility and lack of deconstruction), but I've been engaging in them so long on the net that my mind's just worn out.

Give it a month or so and I'll be back. I just need some time to recover.

Michael

Aug 15th 2009, 12:35 PM

No offense, but with school coming up, I can't really focus on the historical arguments you made before this point. History and philosophy tend to corrode my ability to stay focused on economics and finance (for whatever reason), so I'm going to need to dilute this conversation if I'm going to remain active in it.
No problem - limit any discussion to any point you like. I'm always flexible. :D

I treat morality as absolute because I don't recognize it as a human institution. Rather it's a transcendental and universal system of axioms that prevent reality from existing when rejected.

The problem with this supposition is the question of origin. Who established this transcendental and universal system in the first place? What is the mechanism for this?

I respectfully submit that there is only one viable answer to that question: "God".

The (paradoxically simultaneous) naturalistic and moralistic fallacies this entails though are some of the reasons I asked you before if we could move beyond relativism and liberalism's deception. My beliefs on justice and goodwill are grounded in giving the benefit of the doubt to justice's and morality's existence. However, if we attempt to prove the existence of justice and morality based on a posteriori evidence alone, then we will inevitably fail; the claim of survival and interdependence being the foundation of morality is an a priori proposition in itself since "survival" and "interdependence" are reflections upon "patterns" we believe to appear. Even if the patterns' parts definitely exist in accordance with their real locations, behaviors, physical forces, etc., that doesn't mean the "systems" they form are actual entities. Rather the systems are only models we use to help organize our senses and understandings of the world (similarly to how we recognize hierarchies to abbreviate complex human interactions).

I don't make the claim that morality is based on a posteriori evidence of survivalism or instinctualism. Many 'relativists' do make that argument, but I'm not going to defend it as it isn't necessary (and I happen to disagree with it).

And I respectfully submit that the process of these "models we use to help organize our senses and understandings of the world" are ultimately nothing more than religious/moral systems designed to serve religious/moral purposes.

And since I don't accept the God-argument at all, I am reduced to seeing all these "models" as nothing more than transcendental human authoritarianism.

As far as I'm concerned, all forms of God-origin of morality are the simplest solution to the problem of defining morality and that's its only attraction as a theory.

Such begs the question about the world being alive since the only way human beings could be alive is if the parts which compose of us are alive as well, yet there's no distinct difference between our parts and the parts of the "non-living" world. Ergo, if we're to "recognize" that we are alive (recognition that's only possible if we are, in fact, alive [and willing]), then we should recognize (or at least consider) that the world is alive too. However, if everything is "alive", then the very existence of all that's a posteriori comes into question since systems, as previously described, are only figments of our imaginations used for the sake of efficient organization. Not that there's anything irrational about believing in such mirages since they make our lives a LOT easier, but that doesn't mean mirages don't exist....

If gaia is alive (or real) then there is even less reason for transcendental God-defined morality to be real.

Living organisms can evolve their own ways and rules and don't (necessarily) need a God to define those things for them.

If there is no need, why invent a supernatural cause for it? William of Oakham argues that would be irrational.

...or maybe they don't after all if the imagination is the only thing which exists in the world such that the only things which do "exist" are those things which are believed to exist. :shrug:

That is solipsism. It is always a logical possiblity that cannot be logically refuted. One has to do one's best to work around this thorny intellectual knot.

An ironic paradox because if this is the case, then relativism is actually correct since multiple models (and entities in effect) could exist simultaneously in the same place.
I believe that lots of multiple models can exist. Or rather, I see no reason why they couldn't theoretically exist.

However, you haven't shown willingness to go beyond relativism in our discussion yet, nor do I believe you would believe (or consider) even half of what I wrote here since it's so radically off the wall, so I really shouldn't praise, or concede to, you ;)...
You are entirely correct. I reject the God-model of the origin of morality completely because I reject the concept of Godhood itself. If God doesn't exist, then God-defined morality is just another human artifice.

I'm quite unlikely to ever move off this idea since to do so requires that I reverse my entire process of thought. I like to start at the beginning - with "cogito ergo sum" and work forward from there. I don't like the idea of starting with God or some beautiful idea and work backwards creating rationalizations required to support that result.

I'd say my parents failed to indoctrinate me sufficently into religious superstition as a small child. That apparently is the key. If the seed isn't planted as a small child, the adult is quite unlikely to ever have the kind of faith needed to sustain a belief in God or any transcendental idea in the context of our modern world. It is entirely a cultural concept.

<taking short break to make tea and roll up a fattie>

...which is probably a good thing because in order for imagination(s) to fall victim* to such a paradox, there would have to be dimensions to the world than the imagination is unable to comprehend (either because there are too many for the imagination to encapsulate or because certain dimensions are so advanced that the imagination can't understand them given the imagination's essence both in structure and content).

*Victimization here because total slavery exists in torture, nothing being more torturous than existing in a world where the "laws" of its existence prevent the subject from ever coming about a resolute understanding of existence. Resolute understanding is one of two forms of serenity, the other being histrionic nirvana where understanding is no longer prioritized, but rather stable phenomenological... bliss(?) is.

If bliss is adhered to in a world where trade offs are required, then complete "understanding" is again dependent upon what's written below. However, if bliss is synthesized with understanding through balance to catalyze evolution in the imagination's capacity to comprehend advanced dimensions, then advancement is either a result of luck or a priori intuition.
If such dimensions exist though, then the previous affirmation of relativism wouldn't be definite because it would be unfalsifiable with regard to the incomprehensible dimensions...

...which in effect means that if you believe in relativism, then you do so ultimately on faith and nothing else.

As I have often noted, faith is the defining element of all human claims of knowledge.

No human claim of absolute knowledge can stand because all claims of knowledge are predicated on some measure of human faith. And since the veracity of human faith can never truly be confirmed (at least until after human death), one must conclude that all expressions of faith could potentially be unreliable.

Ergo, it naturally follows that faith ought to be something one ought to keep to a bare minimum in order to reduce the possiblities of error.

Relativism is the only definition of morality that relies on the least amount of faith possible. Ergo, it is the more rational choice.

As for dimensional paradoxes and the challenge for imagination, I find it striking that one always seems to require these kind of elaborate constructions in order to attempt a refutation of the basic conclusions of relativism and human-centered knowledge. These constructions are always built of the same substance as God.

To be honest, I need a break from this not only to adjust for going back to school, but also so my mind can rejuvenate and absorb information more easily (and conventionally, heh). I've become quite mentally exhausted from these discussions, and I need a time out or a sabbatical or something. Not that these discussions have taken it to another level (although they have considering their civility and lack of deconstruction), but I've been engaging in them so long on the net that my mind's just worn out.

Give it a month or so and I'll be back. I just need some time to recover.
No problem at all. To be honest, I've been quite surprised that you've kept going this long. I must say that you have clearly devoted a great deal of considered thought to your ideas and put up a very comprehensive argument. Very impressive and I'm enjoying this immensely. :)

From my perspective, no one has ever withstood this sustained level of critical debate with me on this kind of topic (spanning several threads) without surrendering, turning nasty, going into denial or just running away. The amount of thought I have to put into my replies to you is enormous. To put it simply, I am fucking impressed! :thumbsup:

I may seem a bit arrogant, but I'm not really. I'm just older than you are and I've already been down these roads before. When I was in my late teens and early twenties, I was a hardcore Platonic authoritarian in my political views on all subjects. It took twenty years of life, experience and philosophic study to move me to the position that I presently hold. I suspect that your own views may be subject to such evolution over time. That will come from encounters with people like me. :D

As always, take your time. When you want to continue or restart one of these discussions, the door is always open. If anyone else wants to join in, please feel free! :)

dilettante

Aug 15th 2009, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Daktoria
I treat morality as absolute because I don't recognize it as a human institution. Rather it's a transcendental and universal system of axioms that prevent reality from existing when rejected.

The problem with this supposition is the question of origin. Who established this transcendental and universal system in the first place? What is the mechanism for this?

I respectfully submit that there is only one viable answer to that question: "God".

How does that supposition suffer any more from a "question of origin" than anything else does? Or more than everything else does?
Wouldn't adding "God" just push the "question of origin" back one level anyway?

SMadsen

Aug 16th 2009, 12:05 AM

My beliefs on justice and goodwill are grounded in giving the benefit of the doubt to justice's and morality's existence. However, if we attempt to prove the existence of justice and morality based on a posteriori evidence alone, then we will inevitably fail; the claim of survival and interdependence being the foundation of morality is an a priori proposition in itself since "survival" and "interdependence" are reflections upon "patterns" we believe to appear. Even if the patterns' parts definitely exist in accordance with their real locations, behaviors, physical forces, etc., that doesn't mean the "systems" they form are actual entities. Rather the systems are only models we use to help organize our senses and understandings of the world (similarly to how we recognize hierarchies to abbreviate complex human interactions).
The claim of survival and interdependence being the foundation of morality is and can only be a posteriori. Any such claim is simply falsifiable.

While it does indeed rest on "reflections upon 'patterns'", it is patterns that we show to exist and not merely believe to exist. It does not equate to belief of appearance but to reasons of appearance.

By the logic you present we can only discuss, say, the cardiovascular system by it's component entities, - vessels, blood, organs - but not its functions and purposes. In fact, I'm quite sure it can be argued that the component entities rest on a priori claims, while the functions and purposes are, and can only be, a posteriori claims.

SMadsen

Aug 16th 2009, 12:19 AM

I don't make the claim that morality is based on a posteriori evidence of survivalism or instinctualism. Many 'relativists' do make that argument, but I'm not going to defend it as it isn't necessary (and I happen to disagree with it).
Michael, I hope you're not taking any of the things I've said as if it refers to survivalism. I am talking about biological concepts and not some silly preparation ideology.

If it can be construed as such then I'd rather have all my posts and all references to them (quotes in other posts) in this thread deleted.

Michael

Aug 16th 2009, 09:44 AM

Michael, I hope you're not taking any of the things I've said as if it refers to survivalism. I am talking about biological concepts and not some silly preparation ideology.

If it can be construed as such then I'd rather have all my posts and all references to them (quotes in other posts) in this thread deleted.
Not at all.

My comment about 'survivalism or instinctualism' was a general comment that some atheists do assert that these can be used as a baseline to build a moral system - not that anyone here was doing that.

Michael

Aug 16th 2009, 10:07 AM

How does that supposition suffer any more from a "question of origin" than anything else does? Or more than everything else does?
Wouldn't adding "God" just push the "question of origin" back one level anyway?

That's a darn good question. ;)

But when I speak of 'faith' as necessary to human knowledge, my reference is of course pure epistemology. With "cogito ergo sum", one has only one's self reference - pure subjectivity. One is vulnerable to the solipsism problem.

One way out of this problem is to take a 'leap of faith' that the perceived time-space continuum is both real and rational. One can then use this as a 'yardstick' to measure one's perceptions and thus make rational judgements.

I would argue that this single 'leap of faith' is inherently necessary in order for humans to make any rational sense of anything. I would futher argue that no other leap of faith is desirable as a predicate of human knowledge. One 'leap of faith' is necessary and sufficient. Any additional leap of faith will just reduce the justification of the claim of knowledge (by doubling the potential for error).

A significant alternative would be to make one's 'leap of faith' in God's goodness instead (or in addition to) and use that as one's definition of reality. That is to say, to perceive that the world around us is real because God made it so and isn't playing a silly trick. Humans can perceive truth as manifest in the universe, because God made it so. All knowledge thus flows from God, because God is the ultimate definition of everything.

I respectfully submit that the 'leap of faith' in God the Creator who is Good is thus categorically and materially different in kind from the 'leap of faith' in the rationality of the time-space continuum.

* * *

I would state it thus:

A 'leap of faith' in the time-space continuum is necessary and sufficient for humans to make rational claims of knowledge based on environmental data.

A 'leap of faith' in God is Good may be sufficient, but not necessary, for humans to make rational claims of knowledge based on environmental data.

I follow William of Oakham when it comes to 'necessities & sufficiencies' - the simpler (and less supernatural) solution is the better one.

Michael

Aug 16th 2009, 11:11 AM

Sorry dilettante, I must have overlooked these posts of yours and only found them now while I was looking for a BPOTW! :o

Michael, this is the stance I take issue with, and the one I find inconsistent with both the common usage of the term "rights" and any accusation of "violated" or "denied" rights:

So did Congress violate the rights of Iraqis or not?
You said that "No enforcement = no right at all". No one successfully enforced Iraqi rights, ergo they had none, ergo Congress could not possibly have violated them.
Scenario 1 - rights are inherent

US Congress votes to invade Iraq. Iraqi human rights thus get physically violated by superior US military force. All Iraqi attempts to uphold their rights are overpowered by superior force.

Since rights are "inherent" - Iraqi human rights were violated by being bombed and shot and labeled as 'collateral damage' by US law. Inherent rights cannot be taken away by any act of state - they can only be violated.

Ergo, in this scenario, US Congress voted to violate the human rights of Iraqi people.

Scenario 2 - rights are only granted

US Congress votes to invade Iraq. Iraqi political rights thus get physically violated by superior US military force. All Iraqi attempts to uphold their rights are overpowered by superior force.

Since rights are "granted" - Iraqi human rights were violated by being bombed and shot and labeled as 'collateral damage' by US law. Any Iraqi rights that may have existed, did so by grant of the Iraqi state, and as US Congress unilaterally declared the violation of the Iraqi state to be lawful, they effectively eliminated the existence of Iraqi rights in the process of eliminating the Iraqi state apparatus.

Ergo, in this scenario, US Congress voted to eliminate Iraqi state political rights to the Iraqi citizenry.

*Note: Both scenarios are conditional upon superior US military force and the act of US Congress.

The above appears to stand in contradiction with your earlier position. If "No enforcement = no right at all" then it certainly follows that "Elimination of your opponent's ability to enforce their rights" DOES "eliminate your opponent's rights". It certainly sounds like your advocating that might makes right[s]. One might ask how might can ever possibly violate rights if rights require enforcement to exist.
As I've noted to Daktoria, I'm not advocating that might makes right[s]. I am only rationally observing that the fact appears to be true. :shrug:

And I don't like that at all, but I try not to let my own silly biases get in the way of good rational analysis.

On a more or less unrelated note, I find this (especially the last sentence) simply perplexing. What is it that you care about in society if not the people it entails? And surely the slaves are the members of society most hurt by slavery.
My point is that the individual or subjective circumstances of each individual slave would be entirely outside of my knowledge or political power to address.

On the other hand, I am a citizen, and a student and analyst of public policy. I have a rational material interest in public policy. It is in my political interest that slavery is not permitted at all. I feel more strongly about this principle than compassion for any particular or dire circumstance that may befall any other singular or individual human being.

Michael

Aug 16th 2009, 11:32 AM

Likewise with the post that followed (these are from page 8 of this thread). :o

This strikes me as being intensely problematic. By this reasoning, we can never know whether we have any rights or not, nor what they are, since that is dependent on future events (is the abjuration temporary or permanent).
Yes, this appears to be true. :shrug:

Again, I'm making a rational conclusion here, not expressing my political opinion of what I think ought to be.

Life and knowledge cannot be certain. Both by definition are filled with uncertainty. We humans like to have certainty of knowledge, but that doesn't mean it can or does exist.

It is only what we make of it. And what we make of it, we call culture. ;)

Now this IS consistent with your previous comment that "No enforcement = no right at all". However, by the same token, speaking of the rights of Iraqis, minorities, slaves, or any oppressed group is equally nonsense when they run up against those in power; their rights cease to be supported by any force and hence "no longer exist" and cannot be violated.

Additionally, by this logic, there is no moral backing for the quest get a right reinstated (unless one has some sort of 'right to rights' that doesn't require enforcement in order to be valid).
Yes, this a reasonably correct statement of my position here, though I'd say that the issue of non-enforcement/violation of rights is open to interpretation.

Some violations of granted/recognized rights are just that - violations that do not necessarily eliminate the existence of the granted/recognized right. Some violations are systemic and/or legally supported in the letter of the law, others are singular events or individual cases. I don't think one can make a clear rule to define when any given rights violation entails a blanket elimination of that right or when it is a violation that may be subject to legal punishment or rectification or redress. The process is clearly a big grey area, not black and white.

* * *

I might add that everything I've stated in this thread does appear to be consistent with my long standing assertion that the letter of the law is the primary mechanism for the codification/expression of morality.

Morality can come from many different sources, with conflicting claims of authority. Politics is the name of the game where we sort out the conflicts between them.

SMadsen

Aug 16th 2009, 03:09 PM

Not at all.

My comment about 'survivalism or instinctualism' was a general comment that some atheists do assert that these can be used as a baseline to build a moral system - not that anyone here was doing that.
You do know that survivalism is a term that covers the para-militsia types that build survival bunkers to hide the fear of their shadows in, right? As far as I know, atheism is not exactly the predominant view of the world in those circles :lol:

dilettante

Aug 16th 2009, 04:05 PM

Sorry dilettante, I must have overlooked these posts of yours and only found them now while I was looking for a BPOTW! :o

No worries :)

As I've noted to Daktoria, I'm not advocating that might makes right[s]. I am only rationally observing that the fact appears to be true. :shrug:

And I don't like that at all, but I try not to let my own silly biases get in the way of good rational analysis.

My goal wasn't so much to argue that rights are inherent (though that is a position I personally accept), but to point out that IF rights are not inherent, but merely granted by those in power, THEN it rationally follows that those in power can never be guilty of violating the rights of others.

IF "No enforcement = no right at all" THEN Might makes Right[s].

Michael

Aug 17th 2009, 10:11 AM

My goal wasn't so much to argue that rights are inherent (though that is a position I personally accept), but to point out that IF rights are not inherent, but merely granted by those in power, THEN it rationally follows that those in power can never be guilty of violating the rights of others.

IF "No enforcement = no right at all" THEN Might makes Right[s].
You seem to be overlooking the fact that every nation on earth grants rights.

Ergo, one nation voting to eliminate the rights of others (i.e. US Congress and Iraqis) ignores the concept that Iraqis have their own granted rights that cannot be abjured by the US Congress - they can only be violated by physical force.

Your argument applies only if the US Congress was a unique source of rights - which it is not.

dilettante

Aug 17th 2009, 05:47 PM

You seem to be overlooking the fact that every nation on earth grants rights.

Ergo, one nation voting to eliminate the rights of others (i.e. US Congress and Iraqis) ignores the concept that Iraqis have their own granted rights that cannot be abjured by the US Congress - they can only be violated by physical force.

So rights CAN exist even if no one is enforcing them and they're being trammeled or ignored?

Your argument applies only if the US Congress was a unique source of rights - which it is not.

My understanding of your position was that those with the power of enforcement made the rights and those without the power of enforcement could not (No enforcement = no rights).

So what is a legitimate 'source of rights', if there's no inherent properties to them, and it isn't entirely based on one's power of enforcement (ie might makes right)? Is it something special about national governments?

For example, what if we invade some nation that didn't have an official set of government-defined rights for it's residents (perhaps its been run by an absolute monarch who reserves all 'rights' for himself and his nobles)? Can we murder, rape, and pillage those people (except for the nobles) without worrying about violating anyone's rights?
Or perhaps that same monarch rather likes to murder, rape and pillage his own people without our help. He grants himself that right; no one has granted his citizens rights to life, privacy or property. Is he violating anyone's rights in his various atrocities or not?

Michael

Aug 18th 2009, 07:47 PM

So rights CAN exist even if no one is enforcing them and they're being trammeled or ignored?
As I noted in previous posts, I think there is a grey area where any given (granted) right may be violated, but not entirely extinguished or abjured.

That being said, if any given right is being systematically violated without successful enforcement, I think that right ceases to exist. Formal abjuration (announcement) by the sovereign is an even more effective way to eliminate a right.

In the example that you quoted in your post, I asserted that the Iraqi granted rights ceased to exist at the point of US military force. Iraqi enforcement of Iraqi rights was present, but insufficient to withstand overwhelming US military force (thus, irrelevant). Ergo, US Congress was able to effectively order the elimination of Iraqi rights via the application of military force in Iraq. Existing Iraqi rights virtually disappeared overnight under the US military takeover.

The only rights the Iraqis had after that event were those rights/laws the US Government chose to recognize and enforce.

I certainly don't see how anything I've said here can be construed as giving credence to the existence of any given rights independent of sovereign enforcement.

My understanding of your position was that those with the power of enforcement made the rights and those without the power of enforcement could not (No enforcement = no rights).
Yes and in our modern era, the sovereign nation-state is the level at which rights are systemically granted and enforced.

The history of actual human rights (as opposed to fanciful aspirations thereof) corresponds exactly to the historical development of the representative-democratic model of the western nation-state.

As I've previously asserted, the history of 'rights' (beyond those of Kings, Popes & Warlords) begins in 1215 on the Field of Runnymede. Before this time, the concept did not really exist in actuality.

So what is a legitimate 'source of rights', if there's no inherent properties to them, and it isn't entirely based on one's power of enforcement (ie might makes right)? Is it something special about national governments?
I would speculate that it is the "general will of the commonweal" that is the operative power which serves as the ultimate source or guarantor of rights.

Our modern (western) nation-states generally claim a formal monopoly upon representation of the "general will of the commonweal".

My words there are very carefully chosen in order to evoke Rousseau and Locke here. :)

For example, what if we invade some nation that didn't have an official set of government-defined rights for it's residents (perhaps its been run by an absolute monarch who reserves all 'rights' for himself and his nobles)? Can we murder, rape, and pillage those people (except for the nobles) without worrying about violating anyone's rights?
Technically speaking, yes. The USA is founded upon that general principle in the settlement of American continental territories. ;)

That being said, it is important to remember that "rights", as they do exist in US Law, formally preclude the US Government from engaging in acts of interference or violation of said rights.

While one might make the technical/ammoral argument that no declared rights are violated, one could also assert that the 'letter and spirit' of the US Constitution clearly defines the mechanism for any given right is simply a limitation upon the US Government's liberty of action (aka 'forbearance'), and thus, the US Government is morally, if not legally, required to forbear from violating these specifically recognized rights, even if they are not American citizens.

(how's that for a mega-sentence!!!) :lol:

Or perhaps that same monarch rather likes to murder, rape and pillage his own people without our help. He grants himself that right; no one has granted his citizens rights to life, privacy or property. Is he violating anyone's rights in his various atrocities or not?
Again, technically speaking, no.

The UN Charter does not recognize the right of any nation to use military force to interfere with the domestic politics of any other nation.

The UN Charter requires a transborder act to become actionable (similar in principle to the FBI and State Police in the USA I might add!). And of course, all actions of the UN are subject to the sovereign will of the UNSC, of which, USA, China and Russia have permanent veto-powers over everything.

And that was the precise problem with the UNSC 'vote' on invading Iraq in early 2003 as France, Germany and Canada all formally cited the UN Charter prohibition as the formal reason for opposition to the US plan to invade Iraq. Those are some 'moral heavyweights' in the world opinion markets (outside of USA of course). That pretty much guarenteed failure of the US resolution to invade Iraq as Russia promised a veto (and if Russia didn't, China certainly would have).

Similarly, the failure of the UN to act in the face of the Rwanda tragedy is also driven by the UN Charter forbidding interference in the affairs of any given sovereign nation.

Genocide is not illegal in Rwanda unless Rwandan law says it is, though this is 'weak tea'. Laws against murder are in the Rwandan legal code. Even if some dictator over-rules those laws, the sovereign will of the people may ultimately disavow the dictator and ignore his laws - reinstating the old laws and charging the dictator as treason under the old laws.

Evangeline

Aug 19th 2009, 02:01 AM

We have fruit trees and vegetable trees. That's where fruits and vegetables come from.

HAHAH!!!

What a dunce.

SMadsen

Aug 19th 2009, 09:40 AM

As I've previously asserted, the history of 'rights' (beyond those of Kings, Popes & Warlords) begins in 1215 on the Field of Runnymede. Before this time, the concept did not really exist in actuality.
Well. Not the formalized concept, perhaps, and certainly not in terms of citizen rights. In terms of simple social behavior, though, it's never exactly been a non-existent concept.

Technically speaking, yes. The USA is founded upon that general principle in the settlement of American continental territories. ;)

That being said, it is important to remember that "rights", as they do exist in US Law, formally preclude the US Government from engaging in acts of interference or violation of said rights.

While one might make the technical/ammoral argument that no declared rights are violated, one could also assert that the 'letter and spirit' of the US Constitution clearly defines the mechanism for any given right is simply a limitation upon the US Government's liberty of action (aka 'forbearance'), and thus, the US Government is morally, if not legally, required to forbear from violating these specifically recognized rights, even if they are not American citizens.
Indeed, that seems to be the justification that generally is claimed for the, in America, astoundingly succesfull notion that rights are unalienably bestowed upon the individual by an entity that certainly isn't the state :)

Meaning of course, that if a right is granted then it theoretically (and theologically) is granted to all that qualify as human.

Michael

Aug 19th 2009, 09:53 AM

Well. Not the formalized concept, perhaps, and certainly not in terms of citizen rights. In terms of simple social behavior, though, it's never exactly been a non-existent concept.
Please give an example of "rights" existing or even the idea referenced prior to 1215 that doesn't apply to Kings, Warlords or the Church exclusively.

SMadsen

Aug 19th 2009, 10:21 AM

Please give an example of "rights" existing or even the idea referenced prior to 1215 that doesn't apply to Kings, Warlords or the Church exclusively.
Right to life.

If living organisms did not grant each other a right to live, there would be nothing to stop them from killing each other. Deep, huh? ;)

Michael

Aug 19th 2009, 12:35 PM

Right to life.

If living organisms did not grant each other a right to live, there would be nothing to stop them from killing each other. Deep, huh? ;)

Living organisms have an inherent self-preservation interest in not killing each other willy-nilly.

I don't consider self-interest or self-preservation to be a moral principle.

And 'rights' that are respected only as a convenience don't strike me as 'rights'.

Notwithstanding the fact that I don't see how "living organisms" other than humans can claim any rights at all.

dilettante

Aug 19th 2009, 03:20 PM

As I noted in previous posts, I think there is a grey area where any given (granted) right may be violated, but not entirely extinguished or abjured.

That being said, if any given right is being systematically violated without successful enforcement, I think that right ceases to exist. Formal abjuration (announcement) by the sovereign is an even more effective way to eliminate a right.

In the example that you quoted in your post, I asserted that the Iraqi granted rights ceased to exist at the point of US military force. Iraqi enforcement of Iraqi rights was present, but insufficient to withstand overwhelming US military force (thus, irrelevant). Ergo, US Congress was able to effectively order the elimination of Iraqi rights via the application of military force in Iraq. Existing Iraqi rights virtually disappeared overnight under the US military takeover.

The only rights the Iraqis had after that event were those rights/laws the US Government chose to recognize and enforce.

I certainly don't see how anything I've said here can be construed as giving credence to the existence of any given rights independent of sovereign enforcement.

The only possible inconsistency lies in simultaneously claiming that rights are created by force and that an entity has used force to violate rights. If you accept that the rights of Iraqi's "disappeared overnight" when the US military took over, that's fine (though I naturally disagree), but in that case the military cannot be guilty violating Iraqi rights.

I don't know what to make of your "gray area".

Originally Posted by dilettante
For example, what if we invade some nation that didn't have an official set of government-defined rights for it's residents (perhaps its been run by an absolute monarch who reserves all 'rights' for himself and his nobles)? Can we murder, rape, and pillage those people (except for the nobles) without worrying about violating anyone's rights?
Technically speaking, yes. The USA is founded upon that general principle in the settlement of American continental territories. ;)

...

Originally Posted by dilettante
Or perhaps that same monarch rather likes to murder, rape and pillage his own people without our help. He grants himself that right; no one has granted his citizens rights to life, privacy or property. Is he violating anyone's rights in his various atrocities or not?
Again, technically speaking, no.

Intriguing. This seems fairly consistent with your previous "No enforcement = no rights" stance.
Though surely this makes it somewhat difficult to be critical of "legal" bloody invasions or genocidal rampages, since after all the invading power and/or homicidal dictator is only acting within his rights (or, at the least, not violating anyone else's rights).

I'm not quite sure what to make of your remarks about the 'moral requirements' of the Constitution as opposed to the legal ones, unless your suggesting someone (say, the Native Americans murdered and driven from their homeland) could have moral rights that are not legally recognized. If so, I agree with you, but that seems counter to your previous statements, so I suspect you had something else in mind.

However, I'm still a bit uncertain as to where you see legitimate rights coming from: from the declared law, from the national government, from those with the power of enforcement, or from "general will of the commonweal"?
It seems that the government could easily be recognizing/denying rights contrary to the will of the commonweal, or that the government, the law and/or the people's will could lack the power of enforcement, or that enforcement could be used contrary to the declared law. Since any two of these potential sources could contradict one another, which one can grant legitimate rights?

dilettante

Aug 19th 2009, 03:23 PM

Please give an example of "rights" existing or even the idea referenced prior to 1215 that doesn't apply to Kings, Warlords or the Church exclusively.

IIRC, Roman citizenship carried the equivalent of certain rights regarding how one could be punished and what avenues of judicial appeal were available, amongst other things.
And I believe some of the cities of Ancient Greece recognized certain civic rights for their citizenry.

Michael

Aug 19th 2009, 04:14 PM

IIRC, Roman citizenship carried the equivalent of certain rights regarding how one could be punished and what avenues of judicial appeal were available, amongst other things.

Privileges actually. And these were customs, not granted or delimited rights.

A right has to be granted to exist and there is no record of any grant here.

And I believe some of the cities of Ancient Greece recognized certain civic rights for their citizenry.

As we've been discussing, "rights" are limitations upon a state, not privileges of individuals. Nothing could ever place a limit upon the actions of an ancient Greek city-state - it was sovereign and supreme in its own right (and they were proud of this fact).

Michael

Aug 19th 2009, 04:31 PM

The only possible inconsistency lies in simultaneously claiming that rights are created by force and that an entity has used force to violate rights. If you accept that the rights of Iraqi's "disappeared overnight" when the US military took over, that's fine (though I naturally disagree), but in that case the military cannot be guilty violating Iraqi rights.
I never said the US military violated any rights. I said the US military was the instrument the US Congress used to violate Iraqi rights.

I don't know what to make of your "gray area".
It's not "my" grey area. I'm just observing it, not designing it.

It doesn't trouble me because such "grey areas" are common to most human enterprises. Nothing is ever black and white where human societies are involved. Human social culture can be rather messy.

Intriguing. This seems fairly consistent with your previous "No enforcement = no rights" stance.
Though surely this makes it somewhat difficult to be critical of "legal" bloody invasions or genocidal rampages, since after all the invading power and/or homicidal dictator is only acting within his rights (or, at the least, not violating anyone else's rights).
Not at all. It is only problematic if you hold "a priori" that rights are sacrosanct. I certainly don't.

I see nothing wrong with violating or abjuring the rights of tyrannts.

I'm not quite sure what to make of your remarks about the 'moral requirements' of the Constitution as opposed to the legal ones, unless your suggesting someone (say, the Native Americans murdered and driven from their homeland) could have moral rights that are not legally recognized. If so, I agree with you, but that seems counter to your previous statements, so I suspect you had something else in mind.
I'm drawing a distinction between the "spirit of the law" and the "letter of the law".

The spirit of the US Constitution is to limit the Government's ability to interfere in the liberty of individuals. The letter of the law defines a geographic limitation for such laws. The spirit of the law requires and involves no such limitation. Limits on the US Government are defined as limits on the US Government - non-US victims is a loophole.

However, I'm still a bit uncertain as to where you see legitimate rights coming from: from the declared law, from the national government, from those with the power of enforcement, or from "general will of the commonweal"?
None and all of the above.

I don't accept that "rights" are legitimate, necessary or real. They are only useful.

It seems that the government could easily be recognizing/denying rights contrary to the will of the commonweal, or that the government, the law and/or the people's will could lack the power of enforcement, or that enforcement could be used contrary to the declared law. Since any two of these potential sources could contradict one another, which one can grant legitimate rights?

The one with the most power obviously! :D

However, I don't accept the term "legitimate" here. Any right that is legally granted would be legally legitimate.

As always, my argument here is descriptive of how rights actually exist, not a suggestion of how I think they ought to be dealt with.

dilettante

Aug 19th 2009, 05:06 PM

Privileges actually. And these were customs, not granted or delimited rights.

A right has to be granted to exist and there is no record of any grant here.

As we've been discussing, "rights" are limitations upon a state, not privileges of individuals. Nothing could ever place a limit upon the actions of an ancient Greek city-state - it was sovereign and supreme in its own right (and they were proud of this fact).

I find your definition of "rights" to be peculiarly narrow.

What of our 'right to privacy' and 'right to life'? These "rights" function to offer protections not only from the state but from other individuals and institutions as well.

Common usage would support a definition like that quoted earlier from Webster ["something to which one has a just claim" or "something that one may properly claim as due"] or perhaps this from the OED:

9. a. A legal, equitable, or moral title or claim to the possession of property or authority, the enjoyment of privileges or immunities, etc.
Freq. with qualifying word, as civil, natural, real rights: see the various adjs.

dilettante

Aug 19th 2009, 05:28 PM

Not at all. It is only problematic if you hold "a priori" that rights are sacrosanct. I certainly don't.

I see nothing wrong with violating or abjuring the rights of tyrannts.

I see. I was under the impression you stood for the brand of Liberalism that promoted general freedom so long as one didn't violate the rights of others.
If, as we've established, the tyrants in question aren't violating the rights of others, what justifies violating their rights?

Originally Posted by dilettante http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/images/buttons/green/viewpost.gif (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=13790#post13790)
However, I'm still a bit uncertain as to where you see legitimate rights coming from: from the declared law, from the national government, from those with the power of enforcement, or from "general will of the commonweal"?
None and all of the above.

I don't accept that "rights" are legitimate, necessary or real. They are only useful.

But you seem recognize that some of them 'exist' and others do not (or that some exist more than others?). For example, if they can 'disappear overnight' or be 'abjured' then it implies some variable level of legitimacy or reality.

Since any two of these potential sources could contradict one another, which one can grant legitimate rights?The one with the most power obviously! :D

But this seems to run counter to what you just said about "None and all of the above," since it implies that all that really matters is who has the most power. We're back to "Might makes right[s]" again!

However, I don't accept the term "legitimate" here. Any right that is legally granted would be legally legitimate.

Same difference. This just displaces the legitimacy of the right to the legitimacy of the granter. What does "legally granted" mean if not some form of legitimacy or validity?
And anyway, I thought your position was that the 'legal" nature of a right was irrelevant in the absence of enforcement; no enforcement = no rights at all.

Michael

Aug 19th 2009, 08:44 PM

I see. I was under the impression you stood for the brand of Liberalism that promoted general freedom so long as one didn't violate the rights of others.
If, as we've established, the tyrants in question aren't violating the rights of others, what justifies violating their rights?
Rights don't grant permissions or create entitlements - they only limit the action of the sovereign who grants those rights.

Ergo, the tyrant cannot claim to "have" rights in the modern sense of the term. The tyrant has only "rights" in the sense of possessing power or force.

One cannot claim to have a "right" to kill innocent people. That's nonsense.

The only rights a tyrant has are those he is capable of enforcing with force. As such, power is always subject to the whim of other powers that may be greater.

Btw, I oppose the US invasion of Iraq (or Iran) as well as any interference in Rwanda on the basis of the UN Charter forbidding the interference with any sovereign nation. I don't believe that the existence of any given tyrannical regime or even genocide within the territorial integrity of a recognized nation-state is "legally" actionable by any foreign army. That can only be termed, aggressive or illegal war. This is consistent with the UN Charter as it stands.

But you seem recognize that some of them 'exist' and others do not (or that some exist more than others?). For example, if they can 'disappear overnight' or be 'abjured' then it implies some variable level of legitimacy or reality.
Yes, certainly. Lots of variables in legitimacy and reality here. Military force can be used to extinguish rights. Legislatures, politicians and elections can all change the status of rights. Sometimes legislatures, politicians and elections have less 'legitimacy' than others. For example, the present Iranian government appears to be suffering a legitimacy problem right now due to their recent election.

I'm also being consistent and honest in my observations of the historical record. Rights are granted only by sovereign nation-states and may be abjured or revoked at the will of those same sovereign nation-states. As the political winds change over time, so do rights (and laws). Military force and/or human agency may cause new rights to be granted or existing rights to be violated, revoked or extinguished - at any time.

I'd say that "rights" are generally granted and recognized because it is politically useful to do so. When rights are no longer politically useful, they tend to be abjured, ignored, revoked or outright quashed (such as the "right" to own human slaves shall not be interfered with).

But this seems to run counter to what you just said about "None and all of the above," since it implies that all that really matters is who has the most power. We're back to "Might makes right[s]" again!

I don't believe that I've ever said otherwise. Might does tend to make right[s]. I don't believe this must be a hard and fast rule, but it tends to be one in practice.

In my view, rights are rather similar to laws and morals in respect of issues of origin and/or legitimacy. :D

They are all created by human artifice and expediency. As such, they are always temporal, sometimes ephemeral and usually adaptable (and often confusing!).

Same difference. This just displaces the legitimacy of the right to the legitimacy of the granter. What does "legally granted" mean if not some form of legitimacy or validity?
I'm defending against a 'word-sliding' argument.

"Legally granted" means "legally legitimate", if it is in accordance with the process defined by law (statutory law to be precise).

Legally legitimate doesn't necessarily mean morally legitimate. ;)

That's the kind of 'word-slide' I was preparing a defence against there.

And I will certainly agree that the legitimacy of any right (or law or moral command) is very much limited by the legitimacy of the grantor. As I've often stated, rights themselves don't have much substance.

And anyway, I thought your position was that the 'legal" nature of a right was irrelevant in the absence of enforcement; no enforcement = no rights at all.
I object to this characterization of my position here. I have at every step of this discussion qualified my terms and attempted to limit my statements from any claim of absolute black and white.

I have certainly stated that legal rights that are not enforced and are routinely violated are not really rights at all. I have also pointed specifically to the 'grey area' that surrounds this issue.

Rights, like laws and moral precepts are all very similar in this respect. They all draw upon multiple sources of inspiration, multiple sources of support and multiple sources of claims of legitimacy. None are inherently superior to any other (according to the principle of moral relativism, which I also consistently hold to).

All rights, like laws, can rise and fall over time. They can be created, modified, expanded, retracted or revoked - or just forgotten about and ignored. Most nations have many actual laws on the books that are completely and routinely ignored and never enforced. Are they still laws? The answer depends on your perspective.

SMadsen

Aug 20th 2009, 09:41 AM

Living organisms have an inherent self-preservation interest in not killing each other willy-nilly.

I don't consider self-interest or self-preservation to be a moral principle.
I know. However, I consider ALL morality to stem from self-interest. Without exception. A view that isn't all that interesting in philosophical contexts, though.

And 'rights' that are respected only as a convenience don't strike me as 'rights'.

Notwithstanding the fact that I don't see how "living organisms" other than humans can claim any rights at all.
It's not really a matter of claiming rights. It's a matter of granting social spaces. But that, too, I'm not all that eager to discuss in a philosophical context.

Michael

Aug 20th 2009, 10:17 AM

I know. However, I consider ALL morality to stem from self-interest. Without exception. A view that isn't all that interesting in philosophical contexts, though.
How can you say that this isn't interesting in a philosophical context??? :eek:

If you are asserting that all morality is driven by self-interest, that's an extremely philosophic statement - and a contentious one at that.

SMadsen

Aug 20th 2009, 11:45 AM

How can you say that this isn't interesting in a philosophical context??? :eek:

If you are asserting that all morality is driven by self-interest, that's an extremely philosophic statement - and a contentious one at that.
Exactly. Like evolution is contentious in, well, certain religious contexts, any assertion that selfishness induces morality may not have much of a relevance in a philosophical context :)

Lasher

Sep 24th 2009, 06:47 PM

Well, people are certainly not the same. But 'equal' generally doesn't mean 'identical' but merely 'of equivilent value', and the criteria for determining value are always selective.

e.g. '2+2' is not the same as '(5-6+9)/2'; one expression is more direct, more popular, and more symmetric than the other. Nonetheless, 2+2=(5-6+9)/2 because, by the evaluative rules of mathematics, directness, popularity and symmetry are irrelevant to the essential value of the expression.

If we can assert 'all people are created equal' then we must be appealing to some evaluative system in which our dissimilarities are irrelevant to our value as people.
Golly, dilletante, you sure are a smart person!!

Lasher

Sep 24th 2009, 06:50 PM

born with equal abilities, no. Born equally loved by the creator, yes.
Well now, that's an entirely different take on it!

Lasher

Sep 24th 2009, 06:52 PM

Lasher

Sep 24th 2009, 06:56 PM

Yes, the term "rights" tends to get stretched quite a bit these days. I'd say stretched to the point of non-functionality. ;)

This is one of my favorite topics! :D

I think a bit of history can address the context of that question very well. ;)

For all intents and purposes, prior to the year 1215 AD, the only people who any rights at all, were only Kings and the Church. That's pretty much it. In the year 1215, on the field of Runnymede, some two dozen heavily armed Anglo-Norman (i.e. English) Barons forced King John to recognize that they too had some rights. King John reluctantly agreed.

For the next (almost) eight centuries, the 'history of rights' consists of the process by which these same rights, originally recognized as belonging to a couple dozen English Barons alone, were gradually recognized as belonging to other classes of people as well. This process occured in some, but not all countries. Some nations moved faster than others, while some nations moved much slower (or not at all) in this process of applying rights to larger numbers of citizens.

Nowadays, differentiations in rights are not primarily between men and women, rich and poor, but between nations. People in the west have rights. People in third world countries apparently do not.

It would appear that only nations can recognize and enforce rights. If a right is not recognized and enforced within any given nation-state, it cannot be said to exist.
What about the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Lasher

Sep 24th 2009, 07:01 PM

A 'right' something to which one has a legitimate moral or legal claim (depending on the usage/context). Rights are thus moral imperatives and/or legal declarations.

Rights do not require enforcement in order to exist any more than other moral imperatives or legal declarations do. Hence the very concept of having one's rights violated or being denied one's rights. One can certainly have a legitimate claim on something which one is unable to lay hold of.

One must be wary of equating what one has a right to do/possess with what one is capable of doing/possessing. Doing so robs the terminology of "rights" of any useful meaning and makes most of what people say and have said about "rights" meaningless or absurd.
Dilly - do you mind the familiarity? You are confusing legal rights and natural rights.

Lasher

Sep 24th 2009, 07:05 PM

Michael

Sep 24th 2009, 07:22 PM

What about the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
What about them?

Some dudes claimed to hold that these rights were "self-evident".

That and a buck might buy you a cup of coffee.

Lasher

Sep 24th 2009, 11:10 PM

What about them?

Some dudes claimed to hold that these rights were "self-evident".

That and a buck might buy you a cup of coffee.
They are natural rights that all men have, and are not given to them by some "government." They are rights that are non-negotiable - rights that no power has a right to deny. Sounds weird, doesn't it?

Michael

Sep 24th 2009, 11:44 PM

They are natural rights that all men have, and are not given to them by some "government." They are rights that are non-negotiable - rights that no power has a right to deny. Sounds weird, doesn't it?
Weird? No. But it does sound rather supernatural.

Btw, if these "natural rights" weren't given to them by some government, where did they come from?

Non Sequitur

Sep 25th 2009, 01:09 AM

Btw, if these "natural rights" weren't given to them by some government, where did they come from?

you know my answer ;)

Zarquon

Sep 25th 2009, 05:17 AM

Rights are a human artifice, just like morality, only more artificial, and certainly don't have any biological origin, but a sociological one.

Michael

Sep 25th 2009, 07:55 AM

you know my answer ;)
Yes, and it is a consistent one. If one believes in God, then it is perfectly reasonable to believe that God is the source of such "natural rights".

But I'm asking the question of Lasher.

Lasher

Sep 25th 2009, 01:12 PM

Weird? No. But it does sound rather supernatural.

Btw, if these "natural rights" weren't given to them by some government, where did they come from?
Good question, my man. It's a pity there are so few answers to these deep questions, isn't it?

Lasher

Sep 25th 2009, 01:13 PM

you know my answer ;)
Of course.

Michael

Sep 25th 2009, 01:50 PM

Good question, my man. It's a pity there are so few answers to these deep questions, isn't it?
There really are only one or two possible answers to the question...

I suspect you see the point of my question now. Natural rights theory is dependent upon belief in God.

Atheism and natural rights theory are essentially incompatible - but you apparently don't want to acknowledge that. :shrug:

Lasher

Sep 25th 2009, 03:51 PM

There really are only one or two possible answers to the question...

I suspect you see the point of my question now. Natural rights theory is dependent upon belief in God.

Atheism and natural rights theory are essentially incompatible - but you apparently don't want to acknowledge that. :shrug:
Why do you believe that natural rights are dependent on a god?

drgoodtrips

Sep 25th 2009, 04:10 PM

Why do you believe that natural rights are dependent on a god?

Because without some Divine, omnipotent arbiter, "right" is equivalent to "I want to and I have the means to" and "natural" is just window dressing to make "I want to" sound more important than it actually is.

Lasher

Sep 25th 2009, 04:22 PM

Because without some Divine, omnipotent arbiter, "right" is equivalent to "I want to and I have the means to" and "natural" is just window dressing to make "I want to" sound more important than it actually is.
And do you have some sort of source, or reference, for this information, or is it just another opinion?

drgoodtrips

Sep 25th 2009, 04:25 PM

And do you have some sort of source, or reference, for this information, or is it just another opinion?

That's rather ironic. You're the one asserting that there is such a thing as "natural rights" and you back up your assertion by asking me for a "source" stating that there isn't? In your book, absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

Tell you what - we'll come back to your logical fallacy later. I'll bite, and agree with you that there are natural rights until someone proves there aren't.

In that vein, I have a natural right to collect welfare without working. Do you agree? If not, I demand a proof to the contrary.

Lasher

Sep 26th 2009, 01:39 PM

That's rather ironic. You're the one asserting that there is such a thing as "natural rights" and you back up your assertion by asking me for a "source" stating that there isn't? In your book, absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

Tell you what - we'll come back to your logical fallacy later. I'll bite, and agree with you that there are natural rights until someone proves there aren't.

In that vein, I have a natural right to collect welfare without working. Do you agree? If not, I demand a proof to the contrary.
Lasher does not agree. There is no such right, natural or not, as one to steal, in fact the 10 Commandments forbid it, for those of you who care.

No one "demands" that Lasher do anything, my friend, and if you can't see the logic in the fact that theft is wrong, you haven't the proper "equipment" to engage Lasher in your foolishness.

Donkey

Sep 26th 2009, 01:59 PM

Lasher does not agree. There is no such right, natural or not, as one to steal, in fact the 10 Commandments forbid it, for those of you who care.
Upon what evidence?

Lasher

Sep 26th 2009, 03:11 PM

Upon what evidence?
What in the world does that refer to?

Donkey

Sep 26th 2009, 03:12 PM

What in the world does that refer to?
How does lasher determine what is and what is not a natural right?

Lasher

Sep 26th 2009, 03:56 PM

How does lasher determine what is and what is not a natural right?
With his brilliant, omniscient, overwhelming intellect, my friend. Next question!

Donkey

Sep 26th 2009, 03:58 PM

With his brilliant, omniscient, overwhelming intellect, my friend. Next question!
I'm feeling underwhelmed. Care to lay it out for the rest of us?

Lasher

Sep 26th 2009, 05:03 PM

I'm feeling underwhelmed. Care to lay it out for the rest of us?
Not really.

Donkey

Sep 26th 2009, 05:11 PM

Not really.
Then I will assume that you have no basis for your assertion.

Lasher

Sep 26th 2009, 06:01 PM

Then I will assume that you have no basis for your assertion.
Why would you assume that conclusion? There is no logical basis for it. Admit it, Dunkey, you're just sore with Lasher because He is so brilliant, and you are jealous of Him, right? If you ever saw Him in person, you would also be astounded by His gorgeous looks.

Donkey

Sep 26th 2009, 06:30 PM

Why would you assume that conclusion? There is no logical basis for it. Admit it, Dunkey, you're just sore with Lasher because He is so brilliant, and you are jealous of Him, right? If you ever saw Him in person, you would also be astounded by His gorgeous looks.
:rolleyes:

If you make an assertion and refuse to provide evidence, the simplest conclusion is that you have no evidence.

As for your looks, I am consistently surrounded by beautiful people, so I'm used to it.

Lasher

Sep 26th 2009, 06:46 PM

:rolleyes:

If you make an assertion and refuse to provide evidence, the simplest conclusion is that you have no evidence.

As for your looks, I am consistently surrounded by beautiful people, so I'm used to it.
Not necessarily, my friend, it could very well be that Lasher feels no compulsion to answer questions that are formulated to go on and on with no end in sight. You know what Lash means, He's sure.

Oh, by the way, all those Playboy centerfolds don't count as real people.

Michael

Sep 27th 2009, 10:59 AM

How does lasher determine what is and what is not a natural right?

With his brilliant, omniscient, overwhelming intellect, my friend. Next question!

In terms of epistemology, Lasher is asserting that the definition of "natural right" is entirely predicated upon Lasher's own purely subjective and arbitrary whim.