Right to Life

[Sweetie]

Do I have the right to life? Does the state have the obligation to grant me the right to life? Can the state refuse me the right to life? Can the state modify it's definition of what constitutes a person? ie: if consciousness constitutes personhood, if I am comatose may the state take my life?

Can you establish the right to live using your philosophy?

Can you tell me what you think a person is?

Can you show me a valid link between moral relativism and the right to existence?

Can you establish the right to live and hold your philosohpy true without contradicting yourself?

If it is the best interest of the majority of society that I die, should my life be then forfeit?

Who determines what is in the best interests of society? Who could make the decision that my life, and others is forfeit?

[maddog]

In the U.S., the right to life is considered one of the fundamental rights of all persons, which is protected by the Constitution.(((see fn. below.))) I believe that each state constitution also has parallel provisions. The kinds of things which "count" as "fundamental" rights are theoretically basic to the concept of humanity: life, liberty, property, the right to travel (perhaps an aspect of "liberty"), the right to procreate, the right to keep one's papers private from the power of the state, and so forth. Now, the attribution of "fundamental" rights to each person is sort of the "default" position -- you are presumed to have them fully intact. They are not ABSOLUTE rights, however; they do have limits. Almost all societies at all times in all places have recognized that there are some situations in which the rights to which a human being is normally entitled may be either restricted or limited, or taken away altogether. You keep them UNLESS they should be taken away for some reason, but there has to be a justifiable reason. The constitutional formula is that your fundamental rights cannot be taken away "without due process of law."

Suppose someone has accused you of committing a crime; virtually all societies recognize that criminals must be segregated from the rest of the people; thus, the criminal will lose his or her liberty, at least to some extent. In criminal cases, in which the accused stands likely to lose liberty, the hallmarks of "due process" include: the right to know what you are accused of, the right to know who is doing the accusing, a public trial, trial by a jury of one's peers, trial before a fair and unbiased magistrate, representation by competent counsel, the ability to confront your accusers and to question them about the accusation, the right to come to trial in a reasonable time (you can't be left languishing forever waiting to come to trial), and a number of other rights. Because the interest at stake is so important (fundamental), and because the power of the state is being wielded against the individual, the fairness aspect of "due process" requires that, before your liberty can be taken away, the jury must agree unanimously, and they must all be convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you are guilty of the crime. These "due process" rules have evolved over time to do the best that human institutions can do to ensure that rights cannot be impaired unfairly. It's got to be done fairly.

Is that the sort of thing you mean?

(((fn.: This statement is contrary to something livius drusus said elsewhere: (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=34121&postcount=37) : There is no "foundational right to life" enshrined in the governing documents of this country. Obviously. Or they'd have had a hard time justifying slavery and the death penalty. . . ." I think that livius has misunderstood the constitutional doctrine and viewed those two problems through the lens of modern eyes and sensibilities. It is absolutely at the legal core of the U.S. Constitution that the right to life is fundamental, that it is intended to have the protection of the most basic, most powerful, most authoritative law of the land.

The problem for the founders was not whether life was a fundamental right belonging to all persons -- the constitutional theory establishes unequivocally that it is. The problem concerning the slaves and Indians was not the fundamental nature of the RIGHT to life as belonging to "all persons," but the nature of Blacks and Indians as PERSONS. THAT was what the founders failed to recognize. That failure was recognized and rectified (in theory) after the Civil War and the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

As to the death penalty: (1) the hitch is not whether the right to life is "fundamental" and protected expressly in the Constitution; it is. But a "fundamental" right is not necessarily the same thing as an "absolute" right. (2) the existence of the death penalty in almost all societies known to the founders up to the time of the Revolution was perceived as a fact and perhaps as a necessity (cf. sociology and animal behavior). That existence was sufficient to show to the founders that the "fundamental" right to life was not necessarily "absolute." There might be some cases in which the right to life must be taken away. The thing that was significantly different, in establishing the right to life as "fundamental," was the placement of restrictions on the power of the state to take the person's life. (ergo, "due process" as described above. The power of the state to take life is hedged about with numerous protections for the individual, designed to ensure that the right to life, which is fundamental, is not taken away without extremely strong, extremely certain justification.) In the political understandings of the time, populated largely with examples of the "divine right of kings," the individual was subordinate to the state, and the state could take the person's life on a whim. The genius of the U.S. Constitution was that it was the first effort to place the individual before the state. Yes, there might be SOME things deserving of death, such that the state ultimately could exact that penalty, BUT . . . LIMITATIONS were placed on the state's ability to do so. That was the first time that had been built into the theory of a state. The STATE isn't sovereign, the PEOPLE are. (3) The U.S. Constitution also contains a prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment." A strong argument can be made, and some jurists have held to the notion, that the death penalty is, by definition, "cruel and unusual." IIRC, Hugo Black and William O. Douglas were of this view. OTOH, because the existence of the death penalty has been so pervasive throughout human history, it obviously was not always regarded as cruel and unusual. In fact, it was historically seen as necessary and usual. It was both common and possibly even humane (compared to some things) , at the time the Constitution was written. Modern constitutional jurisprudence has generated debates about the cruelty aspect of "cruel and unusual punishment," such that some METHODS of executing capital punishment must be discarded in favor of something more humane (that's why lethal injection is now often employed instead of electrocution or gas chamber). As societies evolve, it may come to pass that capital punishment will be seen as "unusual," in addition to "cruel," either in terms of a specific method, or in general. This is an evolving and as-yet-unresolved debate. /end fn.)))
#187

[Sweetie]

Thanks for the time, maddog. Yes, that is what I see in the case as well, the right to life is taken as axiomatic, slavery does not contradict this fundamental right as a right.

I don't support the death penalty unless it is a necessity which it is not in this day and age. Necessity in that case would be insufficient facilities to contain dangerous and murderous criminals who would most likely kill again, it's a threat to the right to live of those of the community, if the problem cannot be contained sufficiently then I would consider the death penalty a necessity pre-emptive act of self-defense.

But as it stands, there is too much room for human error, rehabilitation is possible, we have sufficient facilities therefore I don't think the death penalty should exist in North America. We don't have the death penalty in Canada.

[Sweetie]

In the U.S., the right to life is considered one of the fundamental rights of all persons, which is protected by the Constitution.(((see fn. below.))) I believe that each state constitution also has parallel provisions. The kinds of things which "count" as "fundamental" rights are theoretically basic to the concept of humanity: life, liberty, property, the right to travel (perhaps an aspect of "liberty"), the right to procreate, the right to keep one's papers private from the power of the state, and so forth. Now, the attribution of "fundamental" rights to each person is sort of the "default" position -- you are presumed to have them fully intact. They are not ABSOLUTE rights, however; they do have limits.

From trying to set down the case as I see it, I don't think an act of self-defense even in cases of the death penalty if defined as a pre-emptive act of self-defense and thus, possibly necessary contradicts the fundamental right to life. An act of self-defense protects and proves the fundamental right to life. As well, any established right sets down at one and the same time a limitation. There is no possible case where freedom can mean that each individual is free to do what they want. Can you do what you want if you aren't first granted the freedom to live? If you have the freedom to live, do you also have the freedom to kill even yourself? I mean, freedom itself is paradoxical, it's an interesting thing. Freedom never can mean able to act unrestrained, it's an impossibility.

[Sweetie]

I'm doing some research on St. Cardinal Bellermine, I think it's spelled who lived in the sixteenth Century, and Suez the Spaniard, supposedly those who set down the principles of democracy as we know them today. I just ran into those names awhile ago, I never had heard of these men before.

[David Gould]

I do not understand rights language. How can a right be conditional? If a right is conditional, isn't it a privilege? Or is the language just a bit wrong? Should it be:

'All people who are not convicted criminals have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'

Or are convicted criminals not considered people? In which case, it is perfectly reasonable to state, 'All people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'

Anyway, with regard to the opening post, my moral system - I will call it that, although morality does not actually exist in it - in no way gives me the right to live.

[maddog]

I am more familiar with the Enlightenment roots of American constitutional theory: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Voltaire, Hobbes, Locke, etc.

Of course, even as far back as the Greeks, both the right to life and the limitations on fundamental rights were examined philosophically.

If a human being does not have life, it ceases to be a human being. A human being's life is fundamental, and, it seems to me, logically prior to any other fundamental right, such as "freedom." Freedom means nothing if you have no life with/for/by means of which to act freely.

In real life, human beings live in social groups. So, as a matter of animal behavior, there must be limits on "freedom." One human being's right to liberty has never included absolute liberty to do simply whatever comes into one's head. The survival of the group disallows individual action ("liberty") which would significantly harm the group as a whole. Because living and acting in a social group increases the chances of survival of that group (and every individual who is a member of the group), the desires of an individual are subordinated, to some degree, to the needs of the social group. Paradoxically, this common cooperation gives each individual more scope for personal freedom than would simply doing as one wished from the outset; without some level of social cooperation, the species is likely to die out. "No man is an island," and all that.

Doing something which threatens the cohesion and, therefore, the survival of the group can draw restrictions on otherwise fundamental rights. Killing members of one's own group is almost universally taboo, but not every society imposes the death penalty for that. Sure, SOME restriction on fundamental rights will almost always ensue, but it is by no means compelled to conclude that death is the proper sanction. It might be exile, impisonment, enslavement, retraining, redirection, or any number of other possible penalties/responses.

#194

[Sweetie]

In real life, human beings live in social groups. So, as a matter of animal behavior, there must be limits on "freedom." One human being's right to liberty has never included absolute liberty to do simply whatever comes into one's head.

Is that necessarily because of the animal groupings or from the principle itself? The right to live means that you may not take another's life, doesn't it, because that contradicts their fundamental right to life.

[maddog]

In real life, human beings live in social groups. So, as a matter of animal behavior, there must be limits on "freedom." One human being's right to liberty has never included absolute liberty to do simply whatever comes into one's head.

Is that necessarily because of the animal groupings or from the principle itself? The right to live means that you may not take another's life, doesn't it, because that contradicts their fundamental right to life.
Yes, there's something to be said for reciprocity as marking respect for/existence of the principle. OTOH, that seems to be limited to one's OWN social group. In the modern world, our OWN social group is getting bigger all the time, and might someday include all human beings. So far, though, it hasn't quite gotten to that point. In fact, the resurgence of so much tribalism (e.g., Rwanda, Ireland, the Semitic peoples in the modern Middle East, Yugoslavia, etc., etc.) has caused me quite a bit of consternation and despair. And it doesn't seem to cross species very much. I think that's because nature is DESIGNED (to use a provocative word) so that one animal's life (I include human beings in this definition) ABSOLUTELY DEPENDS upon killing -- taking another life -- in order to gain basic survival. For an awful lot of animals, other animals are their only food. And it isn't just parasitic to certain secretions or products that would let the food animal still live. Nope, it's got to be death -- or you yourself die. So I'm not sure there's any absolute principle favoring life -- except one's own or perhaps one's own "kind."
#198

[FormerFundie2004]

Do I have the right to life?

Yes, you do. But not because I or anyone else says so.

Does the state have the obligation to grant me the right to life?

No, they shouldn't. No institution should have the authority to decide who dies and who lives.

Can the state refuse me the right to life?

Obviously, they could. But they shouldn't be able to. The state of existence is sacred and should not be tampered with by anyone but the self.

Can the state modify it's definition of what constitutes a person? ie: if consciousness constitutes personhood, if I am comatose may the state take my life?

Since the state currently takes it upon itself to determine who dies and who lives, of course they can modify the definitions surrounding these conditions.

Should they? No!

Can you establish the right to live using your philosophy?

Yes. My philosophy is that existence is sacred and should not be tampered with by anyone except the self.

Can you tell me what you think a person is?

Any human being who can sense pain and pleasure.

Can you show me a valid link between moral relativism and the right to existence?

I am not too familiar with moral relativism, so no, I cannot.

Can you establish the right to live and hold your philosohpy true without contradicting yourself?

I don't see any contradictions yet. I just discovered, however, that deep down I don't believe in the death penalty because of my philosophy.

If it is the best interest of the majority of society that I die, should my life be then forfeit?

No, absolutely not. Why would it be moral if it served a majority vs a minority, or any number vs any other number?

Who determines what is in the best interests of society?

Society collectively.

Who could make the decision that my life, and others is forfeit?

Only the self can determine if he or she wishes to live.

To restate my philosophy:
I think the right to life is an inherent human quality, whether or not it is recognized by any human institution.

[Token Effort]

Can you show me a valid link between moral relativism and the right to existence?

Can anybody :chin:? I don't quite understand what moral relativism could possibly have to do with this topic?

[Adora]

I know it's futile, but let's face it, it's always fun pointing out the obvious in Sweeties post. Because it's so difficult making sense of the rest of it...

Do I have the right to life?
Depends on your culture, legal system, moral system, etc etc.

Does the state have the obligation to grant me the right to life?
Which state?

Can the state refuse me the right to life?
If it feels like it.

Can the state modify it's definition of what constitutes a person? ie: if consciousness constitutes personhood, if I am comatose may the state take my life?
Of course.

Can you establish the right to live using your philosophy?
Yes, though that doesn't mean it will actually become a legal right.

Can you tell me what you think a person is?
A lump of decaying DNA of the homo sapien variety.

Can you show me a valid link between moral relativism and the right to existence?
If in a certain circumstance the right to existence is relative and relevant to that context, then the right to existence will exist. If it's not, then it won't. It's really not that difficult.

Can you establish the right to live and hold your philosohpy true without contradicting yourself?
"I have the right to live, and you don't, because you have a different eye colour than me."

If it is the best interest of the majority of society that I die, should my life be then forfeit?
If the majority of society judges it so, then yes.

Who determines what is in the best interests of society?
The people with the power. This is sometimes the masses. Sometimes it's the monarchs. Sometimes it's Big Business. Sometimes it's a powerful religious minority. Sometimes it's one gender, sometimes it's the other. Sometimes it's people of one skin colour, othertimes skin colour plays no part.

Who could make the decision that my life, and others is forfeit?
Whoever feels like it. That's why people murder.

[wade-w]

Hypocrisy is such an ugly thing.

[Sweetie]

Hypocrisy is such an ugly thing.

:chin:

Can you make your own case wade-w? If you want to establish hypocrasy you are free to do so. It doesn't have to be this way between you and I and I don't think it's deserved, but hey, I could have stepped on your toes, or been rude or abusive, or it could be obviously demonstrated that I am wrong in my reasonings in some of the arguements I have tried to set down or hypocritical and I just may not know it, you are free to prove it, I'm listening.

I'm just looking into the history of this stuff. The primary establishment is built on the natural law I guess, to Locke and Jefferson at least, the Stoics too but I need more information about them. It's what I build the right to life on at least, the natural law which is reason in that case it is considered reasonable/self-evident.

[Sweetie]

Now, moral relativism belies the concept of the natural law or that there are things that are self-evident which lead to definite moral laws or restrictions which are applicable to all people but the fundamental right to life is based on the natural law. A moral relativist can accept that there are things they should or should not do whether or not it is immoral to them to do, for instance, they may have no personal difficulty with stealing, but recognized in the community stealing could harm the societal structure on which they depend and therefore should not be done. So stealing may not be wrong in that case, it's only wrong in the societal structure because it harms them, however, applied to murder, murder may not be wrong to them, it is only wrong in the societal structure. What happens though, when you are taken out of the societal structure, does the natural law just disappear and where did it appear from in the first place as having first been outside of the societal structure obviously, in order to build that structure?

[maddog]

Different people use the term "natural law" in different ways. Stripping it from its historical context, it can simply be observations about nature. It seems to me that the biological imperative of life (any living thing) is to live. The imperative to live, for biological forms, requires food/some energy source. The structure of nature as observed often requires one kind of life to use another kind as its only food. IOW, the biological imperative of one kind of life (to live) often requires the taking of another life (for food). Out of this, it seems hard to draw any conclusion about "rights." IMO, the concept of "rights" is a human construct, derived from humans' social needs -- a branch of animal behavior.
#204

[Sweetie]

Yes, it has a double-usage in history or so I've encountered so far. Not necessarily an either/or but a both/and type of thing.

I found this an interesting article on the subject:
http://unr.edu/homepage/nickles/wthonors/social-contract.htm

[wade-w]

Hypocrisy is such an ugly thing.

:chin:

Can you make your own case wade-w?

Sorry, Sweetie, that was not meant for you.

[Sweetie]

Sorry, Sweetie, that was not meant for you.

Oh good, I was wondering where that came from, wasn't sure what I would've said to have prompted that.

[seebs]

I would distinguish between a right to life and a right not to be killed.

I currently believe that a right must be something which can only be infringed upon by volitional acts.

In other words... If you and a few other people are traped in a mine after a cave-in, and you die... Obviously, you didn't really have a right to life, because no one infringed on it, but you died anyway.

What you may have a right to is people not taking actions that would end your life.

[Zoot]

Do I have the right to life?

Assuming that you mean "should you be allowed to live?" and "is your life valuable?", my answer is: yes, to some people.


Does the state have the obligation to grant me the right to life?

Assuming that you mean "should allow you to live?" and "is your life valuable to the state?", my answer is: yes, to some states.


Can the state refuse me the right to life?

To some people, to some states.


Can the state modify it's definition of what constitutes a person?

Yes.


Can you establish the right to live using your philosophy?

If by "right" you mean an absolute moral imperative, no, I don't think rights are intelligible. If by "right" you mean a moral imperative, yes, I can.


Can you tell me what you think a person is?

People don't exist any more than borders between countries exist. Which is to say, they do, but only by convention. I can't tell you "what I think a person is", because that implies some fact - "what a person is" - and my hazarding a guess at it. I can only tell you what a person is to me. To me, "person" means "a complex of events of perception generally including events of memory, events of self-identity, events of happiness and events of suffering."


Can you show me a valid link between moral relativism and the right to existence?

If by "right" you mean an absolute moral imperative, of course I can't. If by "right" you mean a moral imperative, of course I can. Your use of the word "valid" implies the former, however, as if there is some measure of correctness involved.


Can you establish the right to live and hold your philosohpy true without contradicting yourself?

If by "right" you mean "absolute moral imperative", I can't get past the first half of that question. If by "right" you mean moral imperative, I can.


If it is the best interest of the majority of society that I die, should my life be then forfeit?

Best interest to whom? Should to whom?


Who determines what is in the best interests of society?

Anyone who feels inclined to do so.


Who could make the decision that my life, and others is forfeit?

Anyone could feel that your life and others are forfeit-to-them.

[David Gould]

Now, moral relativism belies the concept of the natural law or that there are things that are self-evident which lead to definite moral laws or restrictions which are applicable to all people but the fundamental right to life is based on the natural law. A moral relativist can accept that there are things they should or should not do whether or not it is immoral to them to do, for instance, they may have no personal difficulty with stealing, but recognized in the community stealing could harm the societal structure on which they depend and therefore should not be done. So stealing may not be wrong in that case, it's only wrong in the societal structure because it harms them, however, applied to murder, murder may not be wrong to them, it is only wrong in the societal structure. What happens though, when you are taken out of the societal structure, does the natural law just disappear and where did it appear from in the first place as having first been outside of the societal structure obviously, in order to build that structure?


The interactions of individuals create society. The interactions of individuals create the law.

All laws are ultimately derived from the self-interest of individuals. As an example, it is in my self interest not to be killed. It may at times be in my interests to kill but I can count. I am outnumbered by a large number. Thus, it is in my interest to set aside my desire to kill in order to have protection from being killed by others.

The same applies with stealing.

Now, the initial development of law/morality did not take place on quite this level. Rather, it was developed by trial and error through intuition and with a large dose of empathy besides - in other words, in developing a theory of mind we attributed to others the same feelings we had about being killed or being stolen from.

However, you can see from my example that the law wasn't just sitting there waiting to be discovered. Society and the law developed side by side - they are interdependent in that you cannot have society without law and you cannot have law without society. (And by society I really mean any social group).

[Dragar]

Well, Zoot and David have pretty much nailed it from my perspective.

I can only add, in continuance of David's point, that notions such as 'moral responsibility' and 'free-will' started appearing to provide a drive to, essentially, harm others in order to influence their future behaviour. Notions of 'revenge' and 'justice' come into play. For many people, this notion of finding it desirable to punish someone who has done something wrong is perfectly natural - and I'm unsure how much of it is cultural, and how much biological. I seem to have got rid of that whole idea, so I think it may well be cultural.

The reason this ideais so prevelent is that it maintains order in a society when empathy fails. Cultures without this notion simply die out. When someone steals, they are locked up. This discourages further actions of that nature amongs the rest of the population, as well as by the individual. It also protects the rest of society from individuals who are dangerous.

One of the biggest illusions is that of free-will, and thus moral responsibility. The curious part is that there are solid reasons for acting in precisely the same way, assuming we care about the rest of the population. It's a short-cut - the behaviour is produced without the reasoning driving it.

[Adora]

Now, moral relativism belies the concept of the natural law or that there are things that are self-evident which lead to definite moral laws or restrictions which are applicable to all people but the fundamental right to life is based on the natural law...
No, it doesn't, since "natural law" is not "moral law". Nor is "natural law" always self-evident, uncorruptable, or mutable. Nor is "the right to life" a constant in natural law.

[viscousmemories]

I can only add, in continuance of David's point, that notions such as 'moral responsibility' and 'free-will' started appearing to provide a drive to, essentially, harm others in order to influence their future behaviour. Notions of 'revenge' and 'justice' come into play. For many people, this notion of finding it desirable to punish someone who has done something wrong is perfectly natural - and I'm unsure how much of it is cultural, and how much biological. I seem to have got rid of that whole idea, so I think it may well be cultural.
Do you guys (you, Zoot, David, etc.) all share a particular moral (or anti-moral, as the case may be) philosophy, or do you just happen to accept a lot of the same fundamental premises? I ask not trying to put you on the spot or anything, I just think it'd save me a lot of time to know what it is y'all believe at the outset of these discussions to avoid having to reinvent the wheel each time.

I've only been 'studying' moral philosophy for a few weeks, but enough to know that "One of the biggest illusions is that of free-will, and thus moral responsibility" is an assertion that requires a lot more support than I've seen from anyone here yet. As I've told Zoot before I'm not really interested in philosophical pissing contests so this isn't a glove-slap or anything, I just have a feeling there's a lot of prerequisite info I'm not aware of...

[Zoot]

viscous,

A (perhaps too) quick rundown of the unintelligibility of free will - http://www.wataki.com/stories.php?story=04/12/30/5261353

I'm sure I could come up with a notion of responsibility that didn't base itself on the mistaken notion of free will. I'm giving it thought.

I don't consider myself anti-moral. I'm unavoidably moral. I just recognise that morality is necessarily finite.

In my experience, David, Dragar, a few others and myself share... um... an appreciation for the human capacity of linguistic self-deception. We are all quite interested in notions which have a feel of intelligibility until examined closely - free will, personal identity, absolute values, memeplexes, etc. Dragar studies quantum physics, which seems to be the physical analogue of the same thing - things seem a way that they are not. David and I (and probably Dragar) are very interested in the social/legal/political implications of some of these things we consider to be misunderstandings.

[Zoot]

In addition, I'm sure that the three of us vary considerably on some moral issues, but we have similar views of the nature of morality itself.

[viscousmemories]

Okay cool, thanks Zoot. I'm not sure why I've developed such a voracious appetite for moral philosophy of late, but I have. I've spent the last few days reading about Alonzo Fyfe's "desire-utilitarianism" (as outlined here (http://www.strongatheism.com/philosophy/desireutil.html)) and that has entailed considerable reading about Hume's is/ought problem from many varied perspectives (Fyfe covers it a lot, and today I was reading Peter Singer's take on it (http://www.petersingerlinks.com/triviality.htm).)

Anyway thanks for answering. I was just wondering if there was a particular text or school of thought that you're all working from that I might be able to read more about, because I also am very interested in the social/legal/political implications re-thinking moral philosophy and in discussing it here.

[Zoot]

We all more or less converged as a result of our own personal studies, as far as I know. My influences with regard to this stuff have been Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Sartre, Husserl, Heidegger's later thought, Gadamer, Julian Young's writings and lectures on Heidegger's later thought, Julian Young in general, and a guy named Ray Bradley, who introduced the notion of unintelligible concepts to me in the first place (he used the adjective "spurious").

If I was to suggest anything that touches on a lot of this, it would be "The Death of God and the Meaning of Life" by Julian Young. That's with regard to the contextual nature of value.

For personal identity stuff, our views are generally in line with Buddhist philosophy. Major influences to me in that regard is Alan Watts' books "The Way of Zen" and "The Book (on the Taboo against Knowing Who You Are)", and, of course, Buddhist sutras themselves - specifically the Visuddhimagga and the Diamond Sutra.

Free will stuff is, for me, entirely the result of my own pondering and my discussions with David, Dragar, and people who completely disagree with me on Christian Forums.

(checking out some of those links you gave, thanks)

[Zoot]

The desire utilitarianism page looks very interesting. I look forward to reading it while not at work :)

[viscousmemories]

The desire utilitarianism page looks very interesting. I look forward to reading it while not at work :)
He defended it in a three-way formal debate (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=103687) at IIDB. I haven't had a chance to read that yet, but I've read a couple of threads there where he has gone into some depth defending it against various subjectivist critiques. I find it really interesting and intuitively sensible (for whatever that's worth). :)

[Zoot]

I'ma start a new thread for this chat, viscous.

[Dragar]

Again, Zoot beat me to answering. As he said, we all seem to have reached the same place via different paths. Free-will has always seemed a dodgy notion to me (especially since I've been a materialist before I even knew what the word meant, and realised at a very young age that deterministic brains means deterministic people). Seeing David put forward very simple arguments at CF against it ("If an event is caused, how is it free? If an event is uncaused, how is it willed?") and later Zoot's more elaborate work has completely ruled out even the possibility of it being true - it's simply an unintelligable concept.

Actually, last time I presented Zoot's argument to someone at CF, I abandoned the debate after they compared me to 'that Greek who proved we couldn't move between two points', and began accusing me of not making sense at the same time.

I think he was confusing me with Zeno, which is interesting - since Zeno's paradox was called a paradox for a great many years, simply because without a knowledge of calculus, the argument looks sound, while the conclusion is obviously false. I can only conclude that this person had decided that the argument was sound, and yet the conclusion (there is no free-will) was 'clearly' false.

For notions of morality, I again realised at a young age I couldn't prove that it was wrong to kill people, and (many years later) after watching various attempts at defining an objective moral system, realised every attempt to do so lost the important part - the influence on behaviour. I watched David Gould dismantle any sort of morality, and then (after arguing with some more people on CF) realised I didn't actually need any notions of morality in order to decide what to do. Zoot's explanation of relative morality refined the notions I was already trying to (poorly) express about what our experiences of 'good' and 'bad' are - and where all the confusion comes from.

Finally, no-self I'd long suspected, especially after taking a first year philosophy module here at university. Split brain experiments, ideas of open and closed systems, Buddhist philosophies (I've always been interested in religion, but only recently looked into Eastern ones) and a long argument with someone on CF, where I tried (and failed) to prove 'I' exist finally forced me to concede I couldn't prove it, and that I had no need of that hypothesis. Considering they were arguing with me in order to demonstrate that I believed things without good reason, the end result may have been slightly ironic.

I rather suspect our individual stances on morality do differ in some areas. I think we each have a different opinion on the war in Iraq, for instance, though there is probably some overlap.

Regarding the notions of linguistic self-decpetion, Zoot is right in that I study qunatum physics (I'm a theoretical physics undergraduate), along with more than a few other areas. I consider that the reason I'm in the same place as Zoot and David. When you've had to jetison absolute space and velocity (Newton), absolute time (Einstein) and deal with particles-that-are-not-particles (quantum) you very quickly start noticing that the obvious, intuitive notions about reality are, to but it bluntly, quite often simply false.

[viscousmemories]

Cool, thanks for the background Dragar. :yup: