Natural Rights

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Kael

Well then, what's your point, aside from saying "look, the DoI calls them 'inalienable', so they must be, right?"

No, this is what the Declaration of Independence/US Constitution proclaims. I don't recall saying that this made them right. In fact, it isn't all that different than what beyelzu has said, which doesn't provide the basis for anything really (outside of nature), except for the reference to God.

[Angakuk]

Iacchus, do you have an actual point?

The DoI uses the language of "inalienable" rights and I suppose that we may interpret that as being the equivalent of "natural rights". It asserts, but does not guarantee, such rights.

The Constitution does establish and guarantee certain rights. However, to the best of my recollection, it does not use the language of natural rights.

So, both documents talk about rights. What does that have to do with whether or not such natural or inalienable rights actually exist? In other words, what was your purpose in bringing up either the DoI or the Constitution? Is it an appeal to authority?

[Iacchus]

Well, if as it is claimed, that all is "natural," then where else is the appeal (outside of what is natural), except to a "greater authority?" Again, these are not necessarily my words but, what is reflected in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution ... in-as-much-as these rights are defined by God. This appears to what's being said anyway.

[Iacchus]

Hey, isn't it something that I don't have to ask permission from either of you folks in order to post something? Hmm ...

[Angakuk]

Well, yes, that would seem to be the case, at least as regards the DoI. I ask again, so what? Why do you think it matters that the authors of the DoI appealed to a higher authority? Do you think it proves something apart from the fact that it proves they appealed to a higher authority?

[Angakuk]

Nor do we have to ask permission from you. So what?

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Do you think it proves something apart from the fact that it proves they appealed to a higher authority?

Are you saying that it doesn't?

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Nor do we have to ask permission from you. So what?

Indeed.

[Farren]

Originally Posted by yguy

Is there any principle which does not ultimately rest on something which can't be derived? If yes, what is it? If no, what's your point?

I already provided the answer to this on the first page of this thread. There are many principles that are taken as a priori, not derived, because groups of people agree to them. The concept of natural rights, however, is premised on the idea that people don't have to agree to them - they're just "there".

And since an enormous number of people find this concept patently absurd, various moral philosophers have tried to prove, through derivation from premises we do agree on, that they are logically necessary. I assumed you'd make the effort if challenged.

You're certainly welcome to simply assert natural rights, and suspend further dialog on the topic - since that particular response will never convince me.

Sure he does. The endowment of inherent rights is self-evident. Ultimately that's all the answer you can ever have for any verbal inquiry.

No, its not. See above

What I'm getting at as that you can't look at any part of the human anatomy in isolation from the rest and see humanity. Our eyes, lungs, muscles, etc. look pretty much like those of dogs. And AFAIK there's nothing in the human genome that particularly suggests such unique qualities as humans possess.

I got that, but I think my earlier response was inadequate. My point was that none of the qualities we ascribe to things are inherent (for context, I have a Taoist/Buddhist perspective on ultimate "truth"). Things just exist and our descriptions are not the things, nor the qualities we ascribe actual qualities of the things. They are signs pointing at things, but only in experiencing the thing do we know "truth" in the metaphysical sense.

So when I encounter a sign I think actually directs me and others away from a truthful experience of a thing, I think its a stupid sign. "Natural Rights" is one such sign.

So what difference does it make that we don't understand how we perceive something as long as the perception is accurate?

This goes to basic theory of knowledge stuff. There are things there are true (they exist outside of our knowledge of them). There are things we think are true (a conception of them exists in our knowledge, but they may or may not be true). And there are things we can show to be logically necessary, from the premises we share. These last things, which are ideas, we call "logically true".

What you're talking about fall into the second category. Its just stuff you personally think is true. So its not useful to present it as actual evidence to someone who doesn't think so. It is useful, however, to start with what we both think is true then show the thing you think is true to be logically necessary based on that. See first response above.

That's probably why I never made such an analogy.

Because...?

Our experiences precede our theories about those experiences. First we had experience, then we had theories. And what appears to be your theory that we have natural rights makes a whole lot less sense to me than the theory that we feel anger because of (a) a biological self-preservation instinct and (b) various complex behaviours that arise out of a recursive process of Pavlovian conditioning which starts with that instinct, but with each iteration associates further abstractions with it.

I like it fine. It's not that my ideas lack parsimony, but that yours are too parsimonious to explain everyday observations.

A theory that posits that I somehow have a quality of obligating you to do or not do things is not only not parsimonious, its just plain incomplete. Without material evidence, the statement of additional parameters and demonstration of logical necessity from those parameters is required

Then by your logic, neither do you have any morals.

No by your logic I don't have any morals.

A ten year old girl doesn't like having to clean her room. She also doesn't like getting raped. According to you, there is no qualitative difference between her anger at the first and her anger at the second.

Have I got that about right?

No, you got it wrong, because its highly likely she will be more angry (and sad) about being raped. Your statement above is a textbook case of a loaded question.

Off topic: Merry Christmas for tomorrow

[Kael]

The problem with getting your morals from a higher authority, or god, is that they are inextricably tied to that belief, and without it the morals become meaningless. They rise and fall with the faith, and must be accepted or rejected on faith alone.

By instead deriving morals from social contracts, from group survival behavior, they gain a solid grounding in provable and demonstratable fact, rather than only faith and belief, and can be accepted or rejected based on rational examination and scrutiny.

The difference can be seen quite clearly in many examples of religiously motivated behavior and events. Like, for example, stoning disrespectful children, or burning suspected witches. According to the faith that supports these actions, they are quite moral, indeed. Remove that faith, remove belief in its absolute authority, and the actions are seen for the brutal, cruel, and wasteful things they are.

[Iacchus]

"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." ~ Matthew 7:20

[Garnet]

Yabbut, even faith-based morals evolved through social contracts, yes? They just got encoded in the religions and those that we consider to be immoral now are just harder to shake off when one believes those morals are handed down in stone from a higher authority.

Look at the whole gay marriage bru-ha-ha now. Marriage is, among other things, a social and legal contract. A lot of folks have no issue with gay people marrying one another. But the ones who are making a stink about it are doing so because of their faith. IOW, this society is evolving in such a way that eventually gay marriage will be legitimized. (At least I hope.) But the God-said-it-so-I-believe it folks are slow to relent.

Meh. I'm having trouble expressing this. First comes social contract, it gets encoded in religion, then social contract changes/evolves over time, then believers in religion are offended and slow to change....

[beyelzu]

Actually, Garnet, I think you did a fine job of elucidating your point.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Kael

The problem with getting your morals from a higher authority, or god, is that they are inextricably tied to that belief, and without it the morals become meaningless. They rise and fall with the faith, and must be accepted or rejected on faith alone.

It didn't stop the founding fathers from drafting the US Constitution, although they would no doubt claim it also to be an appeal to reason. Which is to say, why can't God be reasonable? Do the ten commandments sound unreasonable to you? While there's no doubt (in my mind) that if they hadn't been established, the Israelite people very likely would have perished in the wilderness. Even if the Exodus never occurred, the "moral" of the story or, the demonstration for their need, is still there.

[Farren]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

It didn't stop the founding fathers from drafting the US Constitution, although they would no doubt claim it also to be an appeal to reason. Which is to say, why can't God be reasonable? Do the ten commandments sound unreasonable to you? While there's no doubt (in my mind) that if they hadn't been established, the Israelite people very likely would have perished in the wilderness. Even if the Exodus never occurred, the "moral" of the story or, the demonstration for their need, is still there.

The biblical history you're citing is far from credible and no, the ten commandments are not reasonable if you consider all of them.

[Iacchus]

The ten commandments exist, as does the nation of Israel. Which ones would you say are unreasonable? The ones that pertain to worship (or God) or, the ones that pertain to the neighbor?

[beyelzu]

of the ten commandments only a few of them are worth a shit and as a group they do a really shitty job of describing anything natural rights.

Of course I am a graven image worshiper from way back so I am a little bitter.

[Farren]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

The ten commandments exist, as does the nation of Israel. Which ones would you say are unreasonable? The ones that pertain to worship (or God) or, the ones that pertain to the neighbor?

I mean the whole story of the Jews wandering in the desert for forever and a day. Probably a lot of poetic license in there.

And "Thou shalt worship no other god but me" strikes me as pretty unreasonable.

In any event, I didn't want to get into a debate about religion so much as highlight the fact that biblical laws and partial mythology aren't very convincing for the irreligious

Some of the ten commandments are good advice.

[GodPossessed]

The moral philosophy of the early protestant reformers (Calvin and Luther) was that there was enough common moral ground between all people that a workable society could be built upon it. It is immoral and abusive for Christians to "Christianize" anybody by civil power. That imperative which is specifically Christian is not directed to those outside the church and is not anymore binding on them than the Hebrew laws were to the Babylonians.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Farren

Some of the ten commandments are good advice.

But there is a whole lot of even better advice that never appears in the so-called ten commandments.

#2090

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Are you saying that it doesn't?

I can't see anything that it proves. What do you think it proves, and how do you think it proves it?

[Iacchus]

If as it is claimed, the Exodus occurred, the ten commandments were in fact necessary. As far as worshiping graven images are concerned, all we need do is look at the tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church. It doesn't even observe it as the second commandment (i.e., they amended the tenth commandment and adopted a second one from that). So, instead of worshiping God, they say here is this idol, worship this ... and then proceed to do "our bidding." Thus they have effectively removed God, by saying He is not a spirit, and instituted their own. The Roman Catholic Religion in other words, has very little to do with "God."

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Farren

There are many principles that are taken as a priori, not derived, because groups of people agree to them.

If agreement is the only necessary criterion, what can't said principles be lies?

The concept of natural rights, however, is premised on the idea that people don't have to agree to them - they're just "there".
And since an enormous number of people find this concept patently absurd,

they have rejected it in favor of something that is objectively absurd.

various moral philosophers have tried to prove, through derivation from premises we do agree on, that they are logically necessary. I assumed you'd make the effort if challenged.

Not my style. I prefer to illustrate the intellectual bankruptcy of moral subjectivism by making reasonable extrapolations from it.

we feel anger because of (a) a biological self-preservation instinct

And just how do you imagine anger is conducive to self-preservation in humans?

and (b) various complex behaviours that arise out of a recursive process of Pavlovian conditioning which starts with that instinct, but with each iteration associates further abstractions with it.

So is a person who is immune to such conditioning not human?

No by your logic I don't have any morals.

Nope, it's yours that necessitates that conclusion. You say what we call morality only exists because we fear or respect those who dispense it, who were called gods in the OT, and who in this age are called legislators, jurists, psychologists, journalists, movie stars, and so on. If you respect no such people, by your own definition of morality, you have none.

No, you got it wrong, because its highly likely she will be more angry (and sad) about being raped.

Then you see no qualitative difference between the two?

And if the only difference is the reading on the "angry meter", doesn't that mean that a parent's insistence on the child cleaning her room is immoral, even if less so than rape - or that neither is immoral?

Your statement above is a textbook case of a loaded question.

I don't see a problem with loaded questions if they expose hidden premises.

Off topic: Merry Christmas for tomorrow

Back atcha, ya Godless reprobate.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Kael

The problem with getting your morals from a higher authority, or god, is that they are inextricably tied to that belief, and without it the morals become meaningless. They rise and fall with the faith, and must be accepted or rejected on faith alone.

By instead deriving morals from social contracts, from group survival behavior, they gain a solid grounding in provable and demonstratable fact, rather than only faith and belief, and can be accepted or rejected based on rational examination and scrutiny.

The obvious problem with this in a societal context is that less than 1% of the facts WRT any issue are available to any individual first hand, wherefore we end up electing authority figures to gather and interpret them for us. So there is no way of removing faith from the equation. The only question is what kind of person you put your faith in; and that will always be a reflection of the transcendent reality (or anti-reality as the case may be) that you incline towards.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by seebs

I can't see anything that it proves. What do you think it proves, and how do you think it proves it?

I'm not saying that it does or it doesn't. What I'm asking, however, is what do we gain by saying all is an appeal to what is natural? If we agree that there is nothing to be gained, then where is the appeal? ... i.e., if not to a higher authority?