Do you believe in HR [Archive]

Shambles

05-06-2005, 11:43

bmolsson

05-06-2005, 11:46

Do you believe there are HUMAN RIGHTS? Does every single individual have rights, given by God before birth which cannot be taken away?

Only if he or she is born in the west. It has clearly been proved in the discussions in this very forum..... ~;)

JAG

05-06-2005, 15:55

ichi

05-06-2005, 16:20

Exactly ^^^^^^^^^

Good work Jag

ichi :bow:

sharrukin

05-06-2005, 17:16

I believe in human rights, but they most definitely do not come from God.

Human rights are merely things which every human possess' and should never be taken away - even though they are able to be taken away. Every human retains human rights regardless of what they have done to breach others human rights, because to simply be part of the human race is to have these rights - such as the right to life.

If human rights are not granted by a spiritual being (God)

And they are not derived from a legal document

And diverse peoples do or do not recognize the existance of such rights

Then where do you believe they come from?

Don Corleone

05-06-2005, 17:50

Human rights are merely things which every human possess' and should never be taken away - even though they are able to be taken away. Every human retains human rights regardless of what they have done to breach others human rights, because to simply be part of the human race is to have these rights - such as the right to life.

I don't think I've ever agreed with you quite so much as on this Jag. Just one quick poke though... :duel:

Is the right to self-defense a human right? ~;)

Redleg

05-06-2005, 18:03

The aspect of the queston is good - Do you believe in Human Rights?

The answer is yes - where they come from can be a matter of debate depending upon one's belief.

Where does the concept of individual rights come from - it does not come from what Jag is alluding to with this statement; Human rights are merely things which every human possess' and should never be taken away because as a human being you can not possess a right.

Here is how the United Nations teaches "Human Rights" to children.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/abc.htm

Then there is a lot of documents on what Human Rights actually are.

http://www.takingitglobal.org/themes/hr/

Think of all the major issues happening in the world today and you are sure to find that they are all linked to Human Rights. But at a time when Human Rights are so important, few people can truly define them. Without a definition though, there are no banks and no river, life is simply a swamp, filled with murky water polluted with sewage. So what exactly are Human Rights? Although the obvious answer would simply be behavioral guidelines in a legal document, they are much more than just a set of statements in a declaration. They are an understanding of how all people should be treated and an acceptance that every person has a responsibility to protect each individual on this earth. They are a constant promotion of equality and respect for every single inhabitant regardless of distinguishing factors or personal preferences. Human Rights are the framework in which we set our actions and base our decisions.
Now that we have defined Human Rights we have formed banks for our river, but they are not very strong and the water is still dirty. There is still a long way to go until we reach that goal of a life flowing with freedom and dignity.

Even here the defination is ambigous (SP) at best. What is a fundmental human right? Is it the right to life? If so then why does the world allow abortions? Why is their a death penelty in many nations? This is where even in the Western world we violate one basic principle of human rights according to Jag's statement. The west practices not only abortion but once again as in the United States we have the death penelty for certain crimes. So the right to life is disregarded by all sides in the dicussion about what are human rights.

Where do rights come from - the answer is really rather complex - individuals within the society determine what rights will be granted to all within that society. Certain concepts will make it throughout all societies - and others will fall flat on their face. International treaties concerning Human Rights are worthless pieces of paper unless their is a power to insure that those rights are protected and honored throughtout all of humanity. (Yea right the UN can force Human RIghts onto all nations.)

If society does not grant the rights to the people through the established form of government for the society - the people can raise up and force the government to establish certain "rights" based upon the people.

Now for me - I believe in the certain rights were endowed by the Creator - just like the Declaration of Independence shows. However that does not prevent me from understanding where secular human rights come from. And because they are secular - those rights require a human agency to enforce and define those rights.

Lazul

05-06-2005, 18:21

The Only human rights we humans can have are the once we create for our selfs. There is no mythical force out there, in the nothingness that gives us any kind of universal rights.

Even if someone points at the bible and says, This book proves we have such rights, and so forth, that stills proves that the human rights in question is created by man.

So, No, we dont have any universal human rights. But we have the rights written down by law in the books made by man. Its all about us humans writing good books ~;)

:bow:

Ironside

05-06-2005, 19:04

I don't think I've ever agreed with you quite so much as on this Jag. Just one quick poke though... :duel:

Is the right to self-defense a human right? ~;)

As long it doesn't include a gun it is. ~;p

Don Corleone

05-06-2005, 19:10

I suppose I should clarify my agreement. I haven't had a sudden anti-conversion and have taken to referring to the Almighty as a 'mythic figure'.

However, what I meant was that human rights are fundamental to the basis of civilization, and with or without a belief in a supreme being, they must be included in any codes of conduct.

Ironside,
So you believe in a right to self-defense, but only a very limited one that guarantees you'll be weaker than an agressor who choses not to respect human rights? Is that really a right to self-defense?

Byzantine Prince

05-06-2005, 19:51

Human rights is a kind of law. If it's not a law then people wouldn't know they were breaching it. People are not all so affluent as to care about how other feel. If we are to create a society where everyone is free to live in peace then human rights are a must. Now what makes these rights is very simply the logical societal ideas. Everyone has to lave the right to life. Everyone has to have the right to speak out his mind. But there should also be restrictions. One cannot say anything anything they wish or else we'd be in a mess. I don't wanna walk around and have someone swear at my mother for example.

Do I believe in human rights per se? No. It's not a matter of believing in it, it's about having it installed to protect citizens. It's not something god given or spiritual or even ideological. It can differ from place to place depending on the predispositions. On whatever from it exists though it's a very positive step forward for all of humanity.

Idomeneas

05-06-2005, 20:28

Redleg

05-06-2005, 20:35

What we call human rights are the distilled values from various codes various civllizations followed through time. I dont believe they come from god or any supreme power. They are based on the first unwritten laws of humans. The very laws that allowed the thing we called society become true.

Nicely stated ~:cheers:

Colovion

05-06-2005, 21:22

Inherently people believe they deserve to be treated, at the least, as equals to those around them.

I agree.

Laridus Konivaich

05-06-2005, 22:17

Yes, I do believe in human rights, and that all people should have THE EXACT SAME rights as everyone else. This is something else, in response to the title, in which I believe:

< HR WIDTH="50%" COLOR="RED" ALIGN="LEFT">

Hurin_Rules

05-06-2005, 22:49

I believe essentially what JAG said.

I do not believe the rights come from God, but I do believe we as human beings can decide to afford all other human beings some basic rights, attempt to prevent others from infringing upon those rights and punish those that do.

As to the question of abortions: I don't want to hijack the thread, but most abortion rights activists would say abortion is not a violation of human rights because a fetus is not a human.

|OCS|Virus

05-06-2005, 23:53

I firmly beleve That all things are equal.
I am no better than you and you are no better than me,
You may be able to do somethings better than i can and at those things you are better than me,
but never the less over all you are no better than i am.
Even if you can do Everything better than me,
i am no better nor worse than you,

for instance i also beleve
I am no better than a tree and should have no more rights than a tree
or prehaps the tree should have all the same rights as i have.

Humans have a lack of respect,
and deem them selfs to be better than animals.
But we are not, so becous of this lack of respect some may say humans are worse than animals, and there for animals are better.

i say were no better than any 1 or any thing els, and neither are we any worse,

Btw,
I am not at all religious,
ShambleS
:bow:

A very interesting and honourable way of thinking. But if you were religous to the christain, catholic, or jewish faith, many would believe that because the bible states very early in the bible {of which I choose to believe but am not trying to force my opinion apon anyone here.} that we were given dominion over all else by god himself. But from a human or more scientific aspect, like ja's, to exclude god, then you become realistic about it, we can do basicly whatever we want in a hierarchy or form of government, which in turn would give ranks to people and advantages and disadvantages over others. I believe that not all are equal, but should be treated as such. I treat all equaly untill they give me a good reason not to. For instance if I hold a door for someone and they kick me you know were, odds are after I'm able to get up, I wont hold the door open for that person again, therefore making him unequal to those around him in the aspect that I am more likely to hold a door open for them than I am to hold one open for him. A poor example, but you get the jist of it.

sharrukin

05-07-2005, 00:50

bmolsson

05-07-2005, 04:39

The utopian question on "the right to live" will of course be when a choice is necessary. As with a mother and a fetus. Who have the "most" right to live?

The reality of today is that the human rights are only available to the people with the proper location of birth and ethnic background. This makes human rights to a privilige given to the fortunate. The lack of will to create a global justice system further entrench this reality. Human rights of today is what is portraited in media...........

PanzerJaeger

05-07-2005, 06:44

No i do not believe in Human Rights.

It is clear throughout history that the individual liberties we enjoy in the modern western world are fragile and fleeting. They must be upheld by strength of will and arms.

All human rights are subject to the powers that be. There is nothing inherent about them.

Just because we have grown accostomed to liberties and occasionally enjoy trying to give them to people less fortunate does not mean they are the right of every person on earth.

If people in, say China, are not willing to fight for their human rights, they niether have nor deserve them.

bmolsson

05-07-2005, 09:12

If people in, say China, are not willing to fight for their human rights, they niether have nor deserve them.

How could the Chinese people fight for their human rights ? Their oppressing regime is financed by the western consumers in such numbers that it's impossible to fight the regime without a new revolution. We in the west don't even give them our support by not purchasing the products produced on their slave labor.....

Byzantine Prince

05-07-2005, 09:16

If people in, say China, are not willing to fight for their human rights, they niether have nor deserve them.
This is a little irrelevent but what human rights exactly are the Chinese being denied?

bmolsson

05-07-2005, 09:30

This is a little irrelevent but what human rights exactly are the Chinese being denied?

The right to not being runned over by tanks ?? ~;)

Ironside

05-07-2005, 11:30

Ironside,
So you believe in a right to self-defense, but only a very limited one that guarantees you'll be weaker than an agressor who choses not to respect human rights? Is that really a right to self-defense?

Well as we in Sweden has successfully avoided to get guns common in society, so the average crook don't have a gun, so it would be stupid to introduce guns for the average citizen as it would most likely give the average criminal a gun too.

So you stay at the same level as the aggressor, but both are using a weaker weapon, thus reducing the amount of killing. Going any further, as in reducing the amount of weaker weapons (like knifes) used is ineffective as it's used regularly, while the only purpose for guns is either protecting yourself, use it for robbery, hunting and practice shooting (for fun or training). Only allowing it for the two last points (with license) gives the least amont of guns.

The very heavy criminals do get hold of guns, but they seem to be using assult weapons and robbing money trucks, or killing other criminals, and shootouts with civilians involved havn't happen here for a while (as long as I can remember that is), so getting a regular gun for that would be stupid, as it would probably only endanger yourself in that case.

For America, first you find out exactly why the Americans on average are much more trigger happy then the population of Switzerland and adapt on thereafter.

To be on topic:
IMO there exist no absolute haman rights, but there exist some rights that it's easiest to build a society on and those rights are good to follow and to apply to all of humanity. So while it might not be absolute, there's some laws that it's best for humanity to follow.

Idomeneas

05-07-2005, 20:44

In few words even if human rights didnt existed-exist we should invent them. Things like that shows that humanity progress. Otherwise we just switched spears for bullets

GoreBag

05-07-2005, 21:16

No.

Big_John

05-07-2005, 22:18

the idea of innate or god-given rights is, to me, romantic and nonsensical. the freedom of interaction between peoples is defined by the societies (laws) they live in/under. if one agrees to be part of a society, they agree to the rules of that society. without a social ordinance, life (nor happiness, liberty, etc.) is no more a right for humans than it is for sheep, spiders, or rose bushes.

let's take a look at 2 hypothetical examples:

- two people live in a field, outside of any external social organization. because person 1 wants more space, he/she kills person 2.

- two bears live in a field, outside of any external social organization. because bear 1 wants more space, it kills bear 2.

what's the difference here? did human 1 commit a crime? did bear 1? did the human have a right to live that the bear did not? if so, why?

without an empowered society, there are no 'rights' to anything. power decides at that point. so now aren't you glad you live in an empowered society?

PanzerJaeger

05-07-2005, 22:37

mercian billman

05-08-2005, 04:58

How could the Chinese people fight for their human rights ? Their oppressing regime is financed by the western consumers in such numbers that it's impossible to fight the regime without a new revolution. We in the west don't even give them our support by not purchasing the products produced on their slave labor.....

I didnt say the world was fair.

[QUOTE=PanzerJager]
But then again who would have thought a bunch of ragtag militia could muster the willpower to fight the greatest military in the world in north america?

And who would have thought the afghanis had the will power to fight the soviets?

The first example cannot be compared with the struggles of the people living within the PRC. The situation faced by people living in the PRC and colonial America are completely different.

In the second example the Afghans had help from the worlds most powerful nation.

I have a few questions for you Panzer

If I took over the most powerful country in the world, made slavery legal, kidnapped people from another country, and worked them to death would, you blame the enslaved for being unable to defend themselves? Did they deserve to be enslaved and worked to death because they were unable to defend themselves?

If I raped a woman would it be her fault because she was unable to defend herself? Did she deserve to be raped because she was unable to defend herself?

If human rights is what youre after, you had better be prepared to give blood and sweat to the cause.

What you have you given for your rights?

PanzerJaeger

05-08-2005, 05:21

If I took over the most powerful country in the world, made slavery legal, kidnapped people from another country, and worked them to death would, you blame the enslaved for being unable to defend themselves? Did they deserve to be enslaved and worked to death because they were unable to defend themselves?

I cannot answer the question without knowing how the nation that these poor souls were taken from reacted.

I can see where you are going with this though, and i dont think you understand my reasoning.

The collective populace of a nation can choose to make that nation as strong or as weak as they want. They can push their government to build a strong defense force, and if the country is weak, they can push for alliances.

My point was that if a nation doesnt do all that it can to ensure its "human rights", i feel no sympathy for them if they loose those priveledges.

The collective populace of China, for example, had a clear choice between a free and authoritarian system, they chose communism. Now we are supposed to feel sorry for them that they can be summarily arrested and shot, im afraid not.

If I raped a woman would it be her fault because she was unable to defend herself? Did she deserve to be raped because she was unable to defend herself?

Again you are interpreted my response on an individual level. This is probably my fault for not making myself clear.

If we look at you as one country and we look at her as another, the question is: Did she do everything she could to ensure her protection?

What you have you given for your rights?

Absolutely nothing. In fact much of my family fought to ensure the preservation of a government that didnt believe in rights.

But remember, im not the claiming everyone has inherent human rights. If the time comes when i have to fight for my rights or allow them to be eroded, i will have to make that decision with my ballot or my gun. ~;)

bmolsson

05-08-2005, 07:22

The collective populace of China, for example, had a clear choice between a free and authoritarian system, they chose communism. Now we are supposed to feel sorry for them that they can be summarily arrested and shot, im afraid not.

So the people that died in 9/11 had no right to live, since their nation did not protect them good enough ?? ~:confused:

bmolsson

05-08-2005, 07:25

But remember, im not the claiming everyone has inherent human rights. If the time comes when i have to fight for my rights or allow them to be eroded, i will have to make that decision with my ballot or my gun. ~;)

Bottomline would then be that violence over a turf of land is something we should encourage? Everyone should have their own little gun to get the neighbour coming to close and make sure that they elect a leader that ensure their increased expansion ?

Don't you think that if all humans feels they are equal that the reason behind wars and terrorism would vanish ?

PanzerJaeger

05-08-2005, 07:51

So the people that died in 9/11 had no right to live, since their nation did not protect them good enough ??

Yet another emotionally charged response.. possibly a cheap shot.. who knows.

Let me state again.

No one has an inherent right to live. Such priveledges are guaranteed by strong governments.

The 9/11 victims did not have a right to live. That isnt the same as saying they should have been killed or that it wasnt a bad thing that they were killed.

They had the priveledge of living in a society that recognizes the importance and value of every life, and the government that society supports failed them.

So one more time for you - Living in a society that values life is a priveledge, not a right. That priveledge has been defended with blood and tears by people like the veterans we have on this board. "Human Rights" only exist when a government, supported by a populace, recognize them and are willing to stand up and defend them.

bmolsson

05-08-2005, 08:18

Big_John

05-08-2005, 18:32

problem is, humans are still highly tribal animals, and don't often care to afford protection to members outside of their group. while many americans, for example, may say that 'human rights' or life or whatever must be protected, how many people are actually willing to risk their life or their families lives for some people dying in a civil war in nigeria? there really isn't a 'global society' except in the minds of a few. certainly not one that can protect the people of the globe from each other in the way that tribes and nations protect their own.

i don't agree that any society has the responsibility to grant 'human privilege' or rights. philosophically, i don't think a society can have responsibilities unless there is a authority to which that society is responsible.

A.Saturnus

05-09-2005, 00:12

Big_John

05-09-2005, 00:14

sure why not, what's the angle?

A.Saturnus

05-09-2005, 00:18

Well, what is a tree then?

Big_John

05-09-2005, 00:22

a tree is some type of perennial woody plant, usually. instead of the crytpic questions, could you just skip to the point you are trying to make? i'm kind of in a hurry. ~;)

ICantSpellDawg

05-09-2005, 00:27

let's take a look at 2 hypothetical examples:

- two people live in a field, outside of any external social organization. because person 1 wants more space, he/she kills person 2.

- two bears live in a field, outside of any external social organization. because bear 1 wants more space, it kills bear 2.

what's the difference here? did human 1 commit a crime? did bear 1? did the human have a right to live that the bear did not? if so, why?

i agree with his point here
there needs to be more than science and instinct involved in human consciousness
and these need to be backed up by more than just laws
otherwise rights are in all of our imaginations

Big_John, do you believe trees exist?
maybe im a dummy, but i dont fully understand your point here

A.Saturnus

05-09-2005, 00:43

a tree is some type of perennial woody plant, usually. instead of the crytpic questions, could you just skip to the point you are trying to make? i'm kind of in a hurry. ~;)

Ok, I was just trying the Socratic Method. The tree is my favorite analogy in this topic.
The point is that there is no biological property that identifies anything as a tree. The things we call trees are not more related to each other than other types of plants. The category "tree" is not a biological reality, it is a category humans have made on the basis of external analogy. If we would choose not to call anything trees there would be no rational argument to convince us otherwise except maybe practicability. "Tree" is just a discription about an arbitrary group of objects. But we wouldn't say trees don't exist just because the concept "tree" does not refer to anything material.
Now, what does that have to do with it?
Well, if a person kills another, we find that undesirable. On the other hand if bear kills another bear, that's their business. What people do is of more relevance for us. That is why we discribe human behaviour in terms like "good", "bad" or "right". We can classify an arbitrary set of behaviour as "morally good" or "in concordance with someone's rights" just as we can discribe things as trees. If we can say that trees exist, we can also say human rights exist.

Big_John

05-09-2005, 01:24

Franconicus

05-09-2005, 10:39

I did my military service in the 80ies. Cold war. We stood with our NATO allies against the Soviet block. We were defending the ideals of a free world.

Lately I see some of our allies leaving these common values. And I am surprised about some statements in this forum.

The fundament of the free world that we were fighting for are the human rights. They are filed at http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html. They include:

• Right to life, liberty and security of person
• No one shall be held in slavery or servitude
• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
• Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law
• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
• …
These rights are not “nice to have” they are the fundament of a free world. They are our shield and our sword against each kind of terror and dictatorship. They make the difference between the free world and the terrorists and dictators. Anyone who violates them is part of the evil we have to fight.
Everyone who agrees on that will find an easy answer to the questions about colonialism, slavery, war … .
Sorry for this pathetic statement. ~:cheers:

Ja'chyra

05-09-2005, 11:12

• Right to life, liberty and security of person
• No one shall be held in slavery or servitude
• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
• Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law
• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
• …
These rights are not “nice to have” they are the fundament of a free world. They are our shield and our sword against each kind of terror and dictatorship. They make the difference between the free world and the terrorists and dictators. Anyone who violates them is part of the evil we have to fight.
Everyone who agrees on that will find an easy answer to the questions about colonialism, slavery, war

While these are rights that our civilisation has fought for, and would probably die to defend, they cannot be God given. The reason I say this is that I believe there is no such being, and if there is which one is the right one, all the religions can't be right, or can they?

I would also disagree that they are not "nice to haves" as they are innumerable cases of when they have been taken away, maybe not in this country but does that mean that human rights are dependant on where you are born? If so they are not "Human" rights but European or American etc rights.

So, are there human rights? I would say that we like to think so, but in fact there is no such thing, the fact that poeple have to fight for them proves this. Should there be? Undoubtedly, but I don't believe mankind is really ready to accept everyone as equal, and not only everyone but everything, we are too busy looking to see what we can exploit rather than nurture.

Franconicus

05-09-2005, 12:10

While these are rights that our civilisation has fought for, and would probably die to defend, they cannot be God given. The reason I say this is that I believe there is no such being, and if there is which one is the right one, all the religions can't be right, or can they?

I would also disagree that they are not "nice to haves" as they are innumerable cases of when they have been taken away, maybe not in this country but does that mean that human rights are dependant on where you are born? If so they are not "Human" rights but European or American etc rights.

So, are there human rights? I would say that we like to think so, but in fact there is no such thing, the fact that poeple have to fight for them proves this. Should there be? Undoubtedly, but I don't believe mankind is really ready to accept everyone as equal, and not only everyone but everything, we are too busy looking to see what we can exploit rather than nurture.

Thanks for your reply.
I agree that you do not need to believe in God to accept human rights.
I do not agree that these rights do not exist just because they are broken every day. They exist and are a benchmark to judge the behavior of a country, a government and every individual. They really seperate the good from the bad. And they are the vision for the future when everybody will not only have these rights but will be able to enforce the claim.

A.Saturnus

05-09-2005, 17:38

we are talking about different types of categories. unlike "human rights", the class "tree" does not depend on an authority to which something is resposible. "human rights" can be thought of as the rules of interaction given to humans by contract with an authority. without an authority (god, society, etc.) "human rights" has no meaning. maybe i'm missing your point?

Why does the existence of human rights depend on an authority to which something is responsible? Because you say so? Well, I say otherwise. Human rights can be thought of as the rules of interaction given to humans not by contract with an authority. The rules do not need an authority to exist, they just need the perception of existence to exist because they are a description. If someone - or even everyone - breaks the rules they don't cease to exist, they are just broken. Human rights are a description of human interactions. And since they are a description, they have to exist, otherwise we couldn't talk about them, as we couldn't talk about trees if the category "trees" wouldn't exist. Whether they have a moral force may be another matter, but this, too, is a question of perception. Descriptions get force by influencing behaviour and moral norms influence behaviour via the conscience. If I perceive a human interaction as immoral because it violates my idea of the human rights, I may avoid it. This way, the description called "human rights" has influenced may behaviour and it couldn't do that if it wouldn't exist. Since that actually happens, human rights must exist. QED.

ICantSpellDawg

05-09-2005, 17:44

the only human right is to live and then to die

everything else is privilege based on circumstance

those privileges can be spread through diplomacy, diffusion of ideas or wars of liberation

those privileges can be defended diplomatically or physically

the only people who will spread these are people who believe in something larger than themselves
some sort of design

egoism does not allow for one (or a community) to risk his/her life to save the lives of others

that takes altruism - and must be based on an idea of a greater good than simply preservation of self

and even greater than preservation of species

Big_John

05-09-2005, 19:44

Why does the existence of human rights depend on an authority to which something is responsible? Because you say so? Well, I say otherwise. Human rights can be thought of as the rules of interaction given to humans not by contract with an authority. The rules do not need an authority to exist, they just need the perception of existence to exist because they are a description. If someone - or even everyone - breaks the rules they don't cease to exist, they are just broken. Human rights are a description of human interactions. And since they are a description, they have to exist, otherwise we couldn't talk about them, as we couldn't talk about trees if the category "trees" wouldn't exist. Whether they have a moral force may be another matter, but this, too, is a question of perception. Descriptions get force by influencing behaviour and moral norms influence behaviour via the conscience. If I perceive a human interaction as immoral because it violates my idea of the human rights, I may avoid it. This way, the description called "human rights" has influenced may behaviour and it couldn't do that if it wouldn't exist. Since that actually happens, human rights must exist. QED.i'm not sure what you're after, to be honest. i've never argued that the concept of "human rights" doesn't exist. 'existence' is your bugaboo. explicitly, in fact, i've stated that they are a part of social contracts. and humans, being social animals will usually be allowed some set rights by their societies. but as far as i can tell, these rights are essentially created from a "what would you not want to happen to you" proposition: no stealing, killing, raping, etc. because you wouldn't want those things to happen to your or yours, would you?

this is a fine criterion. it is especially necessary in a multi-tribal society of tribal animals. but they are still arbitrary rules, as far as i can see. and as you note, the main difference between this arbitrary set and the arbitrary set of "trees" is that these "human rights" are empowered with the ability to meaningfully and drastically affect/limit human interactions. but why? where does this power come from? are you maintaining that the power is created by the person that believes in human rights? if so, they are powerless for anyone who chooses not to believe in them. so a murderer who honestly does not believe in something akin to "thou shalt not kill" should expect no consequence if he is discovered? when said murderer is punished what 'force' is doing this? certainly not his conception of human rights. it must be other people's conceptions.. it must be society. society is both the originator (if one does not believe in god anyway) and enforcer of these rules.

this is to say that clearly these rights can exist, and clearly they are contingent. they may be contingent on social ordinance or on divinity or on something else. but contingent they must be. QEDon't. ~:)

again:

- two people live in a field, outside of any external social organization. because person 1 wants more space, he/she kills person 2.

- two bears live in a field, outside of any external social organization. because bear 1 wants more space, it kills bear 2.

what's the difference here? did human 1 commit a crime? did bear 1? from what i can tell, you maintain that the difference is that you care about the human interaction but not about the other. my question is why? more than that, why does your caring about such imbue the people with rights? would they have had rights if you never read this hypothetical?

A.Saturnus

05-09-2005, 23:19

There is a jump of logic between these two sentences of yours:

are you maintaining that the power is created by the person that believes in human rights?

they are powerless for anyone who chooses not to believe in them.

The second sentence does not follow from the first.
If person A believes in human rights then this grants them power. From this follows that human rights can have power over person B which does not believe in human rights contrary to your reasoning in as much as person A has power over person B.

when said murderer is punished what 'force' is doing this?

That depends on what drives the punishers. If it is the concept of human rights, we can say that the human rights have enforced punishment on the murderer. Of course, human rights cannot enforce anything without first influencing the minds of potential punishers, since it is only a description. You insist that there is a difference to the concept of trees, but there is none. The concept of trees does certainly influence our behaviour in some way. It is real and has influence on the world, in spite of being arbitrary. Just as human rights.

what's the difference here? did human 1 commit a crime? did bear 1? from what i can tell, you maintain that the difference is that you care about the human interaction but not about the other. my question is why? more than that, why does your caring about such imbue the people with rights? would they have had rights if you never read this hypothetical?

Why do I care more about humans than bears? Because I interact with humans and rarely with bears. My caring about such imbues people with rights because it drives me to create categories of human interaction. These categories exist independently of this hypothetical. You could apply my concpet of human rights to a hypothetical situation without showing me. And if you don't, they still would apply if you did.

A.Saturnus

05-09-2005, 23:48

Let's get into detail:

Assume a toy world. In the toy world we have a set of entities {A, B, C, D, E, F} and a set of actions {v, w, x, y, z}. O is a placeholder for an entity.
Let AxB be an interaction between A and B with action x where A is the iniciator and B the object of the action.
Now we can put interactions into arbitrary categories.
The following interaction belong to category +
AvO (except E and F for O); OzOO; OyA (except B for O); CvD and EwF.
Any interaction that significantly increases the chance of one of these interactions to happen belongs also to category +

The following interactions belong to category -
FzO; AvE; AvF; OwF (except E for O); OyOO and AxO.
Any interaction that significantly increases the chance of one of these interactions to happen belongs also to category -

All other interactions don't belong to either category.

Now assume we approve of interactions of category + and disapprove of interactions of -
If we call the interactions of category + "rights", then we have introduced rights into our toy world. Equally we can introduce crimes by calling - that way.
Now lets look at an hypothetical situation like yours:
- AxE occurs
- BxF occurs

what's the difference here? did A commit a crime? did B? if so, why? Simply because we defined crime that way. Of course, anyone could define crime differently. If so, which definition prevails is decided by the biggest stick.

Papewaio

05-10-2005, 02:59

A crime could be definied as anything that decreases the best strategy available in game theory.

bmolsson

05-10-2005, 03:31

Bears don't kill each other over turf. They believe in "Bear Rights"......

Big_John

05-10-2005, 03:37

If so, which definition prevails is decided by the biggest stick.this was my point. the biggest stick carriers in the modern world are nation states, and they get to define the limits of human interaction (i.e. human rights). justification of these rights is entirely arbitrary and up to the wielder of said stick. none of this defines anything essential about the character of personal interaction, other than, all else being equal, power prevails (as with most any animal). one could also argue that an essential part of human character is to recognize power as an authority, this is true of many from what i can see.

so, human rights certainly can be conceptualized and defined, but they need not be. what's more, without a responsible power, these rights are essentially empty, since their meaning is derived from their effect. in the bear scenario, there is no responsible power. from what i can tell, neither bear B nor human B had any right to not be killed, unless that right was decided by the more powerful of the two (in which case, that individual would become the responsible power).

i'll concede that the distinction between "tree" classification and "rights" classification may be one of degree and not of type. that really has nothing to do with my stance on human rights.

A.Saturnus

05-11-2005, 16:26

so, human rights certainly can be conceptualized and defined, but they need not be. what's more, without a responsible power, these rights are essentially empty, since their meaning is derived from their effect. in the bear scenario, there is no responsible power. from what i can tell, neither bear B nor human B had any right to not be killed, unless that right was decided by the more powerful of the two (in which case, that individual would become the responsible power).

Why should their meaing be derived from their effect? The meaning of a word is not dependend on what effect it has. "Rights" are not empty since they aren`t defined so.
The categories in my last post do exist and they are not empty. Of course you can hit me on the hand untill I agree to define these categories otherwise, but that is irrlevant.
I`m not sure you got yet my point. I`m saying that what we call "rights" are categories of interpersonal behaviour we make for ourselves. Given that, I don`t know how anyone could claim with a straight face that they don`t exist. If you say that rights are something else than that, ok than they might not exist. But then we`re not talking about the same thing. That rights are categories of course does not imply that they are universal or have any necessary force. They are just categories in our cognitive landscape. Like other cognitive entities they can influence our behaviour. Those cognitive entities that influence a lot of people, have of course more power than those that only influence a lot.
That I think a man should not kill another man does not prevent this from happening nor does it necessary lead to a punishment. But that makes these rights still existend in my personal view. In my cognitive landscape killing another man is classified as immoral. Since that is so, there is nothing missing to make a right. You can say that rights are subjective, but you can`t say they don`t exist.

Big_John

05-11-2005, 23:04

once again, i don't know why you're hung up on the "existence" angle. that's not my concern. but perhaps instead of "meaning" i should have said "force" (what's more, without a responsible power, these rights are essentially empty, since their force is derived from their effect). maybe my language is much too imprecise.

I`m saying that what we call "rights" are categories of interpersonal behaviour we make for ourselvesyes, i've already said as much in other words a couple of times.

You can say that rights are subjective, but you can`t say they don`t exist.sure from the very first time anyone ever conceived of such, "human rights" in any form has always "existed" as a concept. is that your point? what i've been trying to say is that since these rules are conceptual and arbitrary, without an enforcing entity, they are just an empty* concept. that enforcing entity can be all of us (society), it could be imaginary like god (imo of course), it could be just you. you can give the concept power over yourself if you want. but, imo, the concept need not be of concern to someone else unless something is enforcing that concept over them.

*i.e. without force. i'm essentially equating the concept of meaningfulness to the ability to control behavior. so a concept without effect loses meaning (is empty), imo. just my personal outlook, and certainly semantically suspect.

ICantSpellDawg

05-12-2005, 00:19

once again, i don't know why you're hung up on the "existence" angle. that's not my concern. but perhaps instead of "meaning" i should have said "force" (what's more, without a responsible power, these rights are essentially empty, since their force is derived from their effect). maybe my language is much too imprecise.

yes, i've already said as much in other words a couple of times.

sure from the very first time anyone ever conceived of such, "human rights" in any form has always "existed" as a concept. is that your point? what i've been trying to say is that since these rules are conceptual and arbitrary, without an enforcing entity, they are just an empty* concept. that enforcing entity can be all of us (society), it could be imaginary like god (imo of course), it could be just you. you can give the concept power over yourself if you want. but, imo, the concept need not be of concern to someone else unless something is enforcing that concept over them.

*i.e. without force. i'm essentially equating the concept of meaningfulness to the ability to control behavior. so a concept without effect loses meaning (is empty), imo. just my personal outlook, and certainly semantically suspect.

john i agree with you on this, for the most part
your arguement is the more logical of the two
doesnt mean that you are right - but it does make more sense

Big_John

05-12-2005, 01:01

john i agree with you on this, for the most part
your arguement is the more logical of the two
doesnt mean that you are right - but it does make more sensewell, i don't know about 'logical'.. i mean it looks like saturnus is the one with a background in formal logic. but i agree with you (and myself lol) that my stance seems more sensible. but i wouldn't be surprised if we've been arguing two separate issues wthout knowing it.

ICantSpellDawg

05-12-2005, 01:08

well, i don't know about 'logical'.. i mean it looks like saturnus is the one with a background in formal logic. but i agree with you (and myself lol) that my stance seems more sensible. but i wouldn't be surprised if we've been arguing two separate issues wthout knowing it.

from my limited understanding of the real world having only lived for 21 years - i agree with your understanding of human rights

without faith based reasoning (which i have an INCREDIBLY difficult time buying),
acting off of a basic presumption that there is no truth that can be defined that could give meaning to "rights" beyond temporary circumstance and power to back it up
AND that the only evidence of rights i have seen is death

your point of view is the one i subscribe to as the most logical

if there was a truth of some sort, that would be different

i tend to cede the win to those who have much more background in logic than i, but if they cant convince a 21 year old of their ideas then i wouldnt be so quick to say that they are the more logical

not saying that saturnus is wrong, but i dont buy his arguement as easily

Papewaio

05-12-2005, 02:12

Human Rights... if you have to fight for them they are not an inherent attribute of humans.

They could be construed as the inherent attributes of a type of society... the required social rules that allow the society to exist.

bmolsson

05-12-2005, 05:49

I read somewhere that ants don't allow killing each other in their society. I don't think that some of the basic human rights we are discussing here are unique for the human race. There are some other societies with their sets of rights which in many surely must have similarities.....

Papewaio

05-12-2005, 05:52

Ants are like a huge family in each colony. A lot of sisters normally.

However ants will invade other colonies, wipe them out, take slaves, behead the queen and take her place and lots of other nasty things...

bmolsson

05-12-2005, 06:20

However ants will invade other colonies, wipe them out, take slaves, behead the queen and take her place and lots of other nasty things...

Only if the other colonies have WMD's...... ~D

Big_John

05-12-2005, 06:27

not sure why you'd want to use ants as an example.. wouldn't chimpanzees or another social ape be a better analogy? in any case, i imagine the rules of animal societies vary quite a bit from species to species, and to a lesser degree, from one population to the next.

PanzerJaeger

05-12-2005, 07:07

However ants will invade other colonies, wipe them out, take slaves, behead the queen and take her place and lots of other nasty things...

They will really take slaves? Thats fascinating.

bmolsson

05-12-2005, 07:14

However ants will invade other colonies, wipe them out, take slaves, behead the queen and take her place and lots of other nasty things...

They will really take slaves? Thats fascinating.

Only black ants though..... ~D

Warning: Sarcasm....

Big_John

05-12-2005, 07:24

Thats fascinating.yes it is.. couple of links for you:

http://www.denverhughes.net/Ants/Behavior.htm
http://www.antcolony.org/news/FromtheSameAntSpeciesDifferentBehavior.htm

Paul Peru

05-12-2005, 08:19

bmolsson

05-12-2005, 08:37

I really liked this passage on the ant links....

What Herbers and Foitzik discovered is that the enslaver ants in West Virginia behaved much differently than the enslaver ants in New York -- even though the ants in both locations belonged to the same species. In turn, the enslaved ants in West Virginia also behaved differently than did those in New York.

~;)

Big_John

05-12-2005, 14:57

Pindar

05-12-2005, 19:19

Big_John

05-12-2005, 23:05

One can certainly argue HR are political constructs. This means there are no HR outside of that standard. Thus, the base appeal made by the Founding Fathers would have to be rejected. The stance taken by Martin Luther King would have to be rejected. Any extra legal standard: whether it be slave revolts or objections to genocide would have to be rejected insofar as a legal standard existed.

The rub is that rights appeals contain more than legal license there is also a moral appeal. If one says: "I have a right to X" the implication is both legal and moral.
sure, and both legal and moral appeals are appeals to some responsible power. a society at large can reject appeals against genocide, slavery, what-have-you, because it has the power to do so. if a person or group believes that those things are not correct, that such things should not be, they can try to affect change, in any number of ways. in doing so, such persons are, by definition choosing to recognize a different responsible power than the society. for the sake of argument, i'm admittedly taking an overly simplistic and static view of what constitutes a 'society'.

Papewaio

05-12-2005, 23:07

This means there are no HR outside of that standard. Thus, the base appeal made by the Founding Fathers would have to be rejected. The stance taken by Martin Luther King would have to be rejected. Any extra legal standard: whether it be slave revolts or objections to genocide would have to be rejected insofar as a legal standard existed.

What if you define HR as the social interactions required to create a type of society. Without HR other types of despotic nations do exist.

The fact that one has to legislate and use power to make HR happen would be a hint that HR are not an inherent trait. They are the foundation of certain types of societies.

Pindar

05-12-2005, 23:28

sure, and both legal and moral appeals are appeals to some responsible power. a society at large can reject appeals against genocide, slavery, what-have-you, because it has the power to do so...

A right's appeal is a positive assertion regarding some X. Based on the above argument: HR do not exist outside of political mandate. Thus, the slave has no right (justification) to rebel.

...if a person or group believes that those things are not correct, that such things should not be, they can try to affect change, in any number of ways. in doing so, such persons are, by definition choosing to recognize a different responsible power than the society.

Politically derrived HR means: any attempt to effect change has no justification outside of legal dicta. Gandhi must therefore be condemned.

for the sake of argument, i'm admittedly taking an overly simplistic and static view of what constitutes a 'society'.

I understand.

Papewaio

05-12-2005, 23:52

Politically derrived HR means: any attempt to effect change has no justification outside of legal dicta. Gandhi must therefore be condemned.

Here it comes to the crux. It will only be condemned if there is a will and a way. Condemnation just like HR just like the law just like politics are (social) constructs.

BTW Churchill condemned Gandhi in terms very similar to how he condemned Hitler...

Pindar

05-13-2005, 00:08

What if you define HR as the social interactions required to create a type of society. Without HR other types of despotic nations do exist.

If one takes HR as required to create society there are counter-examples. There are societies that exist that make no reference to HR. HR is a Western construct.

If one argues HR are required to create a certain type of society then assuming one believes such a society is desirable the argument becomes a moral question even though it would appear to simply be a practical concern. For example: the model would seem to be: one desires society X. To get X one must have HR Y. Y appears to have value insofar as it brings about X. Thus the tenor is practical. Now what if a member of society doesn't agree with either the goal X or the mode of operation Y? Can that one be justifiably coerced? If so, why? Justification is necessarily concerned with justice which means it is a moral question. Thus, one must already have an established moral dynamic in order to answer the question. This means efficacy questions are of a secondary order.

The fact that one has to legislate and use power to make HR happen would be a hint that HR are not an inherent trait. They are the foundation of certain types of societies.

Standard HR theory traces such to Deity: ultimate meaning is therefore tied to an overarching theology. If this were a standard Christian model: the notion of free-will means Deity has voluntarily created space for the creature to act and be responsible for that action. The choices of the creature do not necessarily effect the will of the Creator.

Legislation is the codification of will. The manifestation of power, whether political or no, does not equal the lack of a trait, but the opposite. The Cheetah's burst of speed is not based on an external, but comes from within.

Pindar

05-13-2005, 00:15

Here it comes to the crux. It will only be condemned if there is a will and a way. Condemnation just like HR just like the law just like politics are (social) constructs.

This doesn't follow. The ability to condemn is not that same as the power to enforce that condemnation.

BTW Churchill condemned Gandhi in terms very similar to how he condemned Hitler...

Given Churchill and Gandhi were opposed one must choose between them: they cannot both be right about the same thing. One either accepts self-determination or Empire.

Papewaio

05-13-2005, 00:21

Legislation is the codification of will. The manifestation of power, whether political or no, does not equal the lack of a trait, but the opposite. The Cheetah's burst of speed is not based on an external, but comes from within.

The Cheetah does not need a legal document, police, jury, judge, lawyer and society to sprint.

If it was an inherent trait we would not need to legislate it.

If one takes HR as required to create society there counter-examples. There are societies that exist that make no reference to HR. HR is a Western construct.

HR is a system. Bats fly and so do birds. It is a thing called parrallel evolution where different genetic twists end with a similar solution. Multiple societies comming to similar solutions does not show that HR is inherent. All it shows is that it is the best solution for a particular niche.

Just like a Rose, HR is still HR even by any other name. It is a system of rights that seem to be pretty close to maximising the potential of a society. It is a best fit solution for societies, it does not mean however all societeis have all HR nor does it mean HR is all that is required.

Papewaio

05-13-2005, 00:24

This doesn't follow. The ability to condemn is not that same as the power to enforce that condemnation.

It follows the example for HR.

The ability for HR to be said is not the same as HR being enforced. HR requires enforcement to exist.

Pindar

05-13-2005, 09:31

The Cheetah does not need a legal document, police, jury, judge, lawyer and society to sprint.

If it was an inherent trait we would not need to legislate it.

I wasn't clear. The cheetah example was in reference to inherent power and was meant to demonstrate that a power need not depend on an external source. That is all.

HR is a system. Bats fly and so do birds. It is a thing called parrallel evolution where different genetic twists end with a similar solution. Multiple societies comming to similar solutions does not show that HR is inherent. All it shows is that it is the best solution for a particular niche.

I'm not sure I understand the point here. It doesn't seem to reply to my post. There are a host of societies that have no notion of HR.

Inherency is only applicable if one argues HR is based on natural law which itself is tied to a theological perspective.

Just like a Rose, HR is still HR even by any other name.

No, it is not. HR is a concept. As such, its meaning is bound by the conceptualization. It is either a political construct or directly connected to natural law theory which was the original understanding.

HR requires enforcement to exist.

This is not correct. Whether one opts for a political understanding or a theological appeal neither are bound by enforcement to have meaning. Enforcement is separate from construction or understanding.

A.Saturnus

05-13-2005, 21:12

Pindar

05-13-2005, 22:30

God can't prove his moral arguments any better than anybody else.

You don't understand the notion God.

Big_John

05-13-2005, 22:52

Big_John, I mainly object to your use of "empty". I don't think it is correct tosay rights are empty just because they need an independent agent to have an effect. We agree as much that whether something is called a right, does not necessary add any force to it. But I disagree that that makes the concept "right" unimportant, irrelevant or in any way dismissable.ok, the way i see things, importance, relevance, etc. are all subjective. if a concept is important to me, and i'm satisfied with my own justification for it, great. nothing more is required for me to act on my belief. is my concept universally important? i don't know what that even means, nor do i care. i think it's a nonsensical question, tbph.

If I may put it philosophically, I suspect a certain disappointment with the failing of ethical universalism on your part. ~:)ok, i don't know what you meant lol. :embarassed: do you think i'm disappointed in my own belief that there is no objective moral/ethical truth? if that's what you are saying, i honestly don't know; i don't really think about it much. if anything, i think i find the freedom of possibility beautiful but a bit daunting.. maybe?

On the basis of that may lie a common misunderstanding of ethical relativism. Some think that since moral concepts do not have force of themselves, we ought not to force them on others who disagree with us. But any such reasoning is of course contradictory.i think oughts and ought nots, like other concepts, are relative. i think power is the decision maker. if you think something ought to happen, and you have the power to carry it out, good enough for me. if i disagree with you, i'd better either get out of your way, deteriorate your power, or increase my own.

ICantSpellDawg

05-14-2005, 07:41

ok, the way i see things, importance, relevance, etc. are all subjective. if a concept is important to me, and i'm satisfied with my own justification for it, great. nothing more is required for me to act on my belief. is my concept universally important? i don't know what that even means, nor do i care. i think it's a nonsensical question, tbph.

ok, i don't know what you meant lol. :embarassed: do you think i'm disappointed in my own belief that there is no objective moral/ethical truth? if that's what you are saying, i honestly don't know; i don't really think about it much. if anything, i think i find the freedom of possibility beautiful but a bit daunting.. maybe?

i think oughts and ought nots, like other concepts, are relative. i think power is the decision maker. if you think something ought to happen, and you have the power to carry it out, good enough for me. if i disagree with you, i'd better either get out of your way, deteriorate your power, or increase my own.

i believe that this is where our society is progressing
without the concept of a higher authority backing ethics up - they cease to be universal or long lasting

human rights come from the same concept
in a truly egoistic world - there is nothing wrong with slavery, murder, theft unless you are the victim

Papewaio

05-14-2005, 08:54

I'm not sure I understand the point here. It doesn't seem to reply to my post. There are a host of societies that have no notion of HR.

Which kind of hints again that HR is not an inherent trait of either humans or societies it is a construct.

Inherency is only applicable if one argues HR is based on natural law which itself is tied to a theological perspective.

Howabout natural law based on nature not theology?

I am arguing that HR is not an inherent trait based on it not being part of a humans genes. It is a concept which is created and enforced by society. I am not appealing to any higher law then those of nature like gravity, molecular bonding and games theory.

No, it is not. HR is a concept. As such, its meaning is bound by the conceptualization. It is either a political construct or directly connected to natural law theory which was the original understanding.

A concept is not limited by its naming. You can call a rose another name and it is still a rose. HR is a set of principles some of which are definitly going to have a different name in a different society. The concept is still around.

This is not correct. Whether one opts for a political understanding or a theological appeal neither are bound by enforcement to have meaning. Enforcement is separate from construction or understanding.

I'm arguing HR as a natural inherent trait from natural law based on nature not theology.

HR is not derived from our genes it is created from our memes. And not those of a god.

A.Saturnus

05-14-2005, 18:20

You don't understand the notion God.

I guess it would be a preposterous claim I did, but I understand Hume's Law and no one, whatever its nature, can find a way around that. Unless it stands outside of logic. If it does, the discussion ends here.

ok, the way i see things, importance, relevance, etc. are all subjective. if a concept is important to me, and i'm satisfied with my own justification for it, great. nothing more is required for me to act on my belief. is my concept universally important? i don't know what that even means, nor do i care. i think it's a nonsensical question, tbph.

Well, I only mean to say that "right" is a cognitive category that is not without practical use.

ok, i don't know what you meant lol. do you think i'm disappointed in my own belief that there is no objective moral/ethical truth? if that's what you are saying, i honestly don't know; i don't really think about it much. if anything, i think i find the freedom of possibility beautiful but a bit daunting.. maybe?

I mean that you may think the relativity of morality is a problem that it isn't really.

i think oughts and ought nots, like other concepts, are relative. i think power is the decision maker. if you think something ought to happen, and you have the power to carry it out, good enough for me. if i disagree with you, i'd better either get out of your way, deteriorate your power, or increase my own.

Yes, but that all oughts are relative does not have any normative implications. Ethical relativism stops no one to be a moralist.

i believe that this is where our society is progressing
without the concept of a higher authority backing ethics up - they cease to be universal or long lasting

The point is that they never have been universal. The concept of a unquestionable moral authority is in fact contradictio in adjectivo. If God tells you "you ought not... ", you can simply interrupt her and say you don't know what she's speaking of.

Pindar

05-14-2005, 20:59

Pindar

05-14-2005, 21:02

I guess it would be a preposterous claim I did, but I understand Hume's Law and no one, whatever its nature, can find a way around that. Unless it stands outside of logic. If it does, the discussion ends here.

You are confused. This isn't an epistemological concern. It is definitional.

A.Saturnus

05-14-2005, 22:44

I know, I know, you just define things such that no one can argue. But you cannot define a consistent concept such that it avoids Hume's Law.

Papewaio

05-15-2005, 07:35

Papewaio,

I think I need to pull back here. Your last post seems strained on a number of levels, but I'm not sure I understand your point(s). I have explained the standard implications of HR. You seem to believe in HR but are also attempting a new variation. To continue I need to know what your definition of HR is.

Human rights is a group of ideas.

These ideas are derived from the minds of men and women. They are not inherent in our genes or given to us by a higher power. They are there because we thought of them and enforce them. However in the face of certain situations a weak society will throw these ideas away and/or be crushed by a stronger society.

When applied the human rights ideas make a certain kind of society.

As a set of rules of society they can be easily compared and contrasted with other sets of rules. The most basic would be to take their polar opposites for instance:

• No people of a certain ethnic groupright to life, liberty and security of person
• Anyone of a certain ethnic group shall be held in slavery or servitude
• Anyone sof a certain ethnic group hall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
• No people of a certain ethnic group has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law
• People of a certain ethnic group shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Now how popular would that kind of society be and how long would it last with one based on Human rights? Human rights are an idea, created and given force by humans. They are not the only choice nor are they given strength by their ideals alone.

ICantSpellDawg

05-15-2005, 17:15

Human rights is a group of ideas.

These ideas are derived from the minds of men and women. They are not inherent in our genes or given to us by a higher power. They are there because we thought of them and enforce them. However in the face of certain situations a weak society will throw these ideas away and/or be crushed by a stronger society.

When applied the human rights ideas make a certain kind of society.

As a set of rules of society they can be easily compared and contrasted with other sets of rules. The most basic would be to take their polar opposites for instance:

• No people of a certain ethnic groupright to life, liberty and security of person
• Anyone of a certain ethnic group shall be held in slavery or servitude
• Anyone sof a certain ethnic group hall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
• No people of a certain ethnic group has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law
• People of a certain ethnic group shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Now how popular would that kind of society be and how long would it last with one based on Human rights? Human rights are an idea, created and given force by humans. They are not the only choice nor are they given strength by their ideals alone.

"However in the face of certain situations a weak society will throw these ideas away and/or be crushed by a stronger society."

first of all - that is a bogus statement
from my experience, the power that throws away HR tends to be the overwhelming force most of the time

I think that you are both (Pape/Pind) arguing a similar point, however, Pindar is arguing that the concept of human rights that we use today as "modern dogma" is based on a logical interpretation of ones (distinctly christian)faith rather than of "natural law" which simply urges our own survival at the expense of all others.

is that anywhere near what we are talking about? or am i way off?

it is in my personal and extremely limited opinion that as we further logical debate void of religion, we will come to more and more barbaric and "natural" conclusions (with regards to our approach to life)

Pindar

05-15-2005, 18:10

I know, I know, you just define things such that no one can argue. But you cannot define a consistent concept such that it avoids Hume's Law.

I don't think I've introduced any exotic definitions nor do I think I tend to do so. My participation in this thread has basically involved explaining fairly standard fair.

Hume's Law is hardly "lawful" given there isn't even a consensus on what he meant. More to the point, Kant's 'Categorical Imperative' is an a priori rejoinder.

The above aside, the central question revolves around the notion god and as such, is not an issue of correspondence, but coherence.

ICantSpellDawg

05-15-2005, 18:13

nevermind - I posted a notion that was patently false
so i deleted it

Pindar

05-15-2005, 18:16

Pindar

05-15-2005, 18:22

I think that you are both (Pape/Pind) arguing a similar point, however, Pindar is arguing that the concept of human rights that we use today as "modern dogma" is based on a logical interpretation of ones (distinctly christian)faith rather than of "natural law" which simply urges our own survival at the expense of all others.

is that anywhere near what we are talking about? or am i way off?

I'm not really arguing anything. I have simply pointed out there are two standard ways one can conceptualize HR: one is as a political construct the other involves a metaphysical appeal. The latter is the older tradition and is tied to Christian theology. The former is beholden to the political body that creates it and does not extend beyond that purview.

ICantSpellDawg

05-15-2005, 18:29

I'm not really arguing anything. I have simply pointed out there are two standard ways one can conceptualize HR: one is as a political construct the other involves a metaphysical appeal. The latter is the older tradition and is tied to Christian theology. The former is beholden to the political body that creates it and does not extend beyond that purview.

right, and i agree - that was very concisely stated
why is anyone arguing with this?

Pindar

05-15-2005, 18:32

right, and i agree - that was very concisely stated
why is anyone arguing with this?

Because of the Devil. :devil:

ICantSpellDawg

05-15-2005, 18:44

Because of the Devil. :devil:

HAHAHAHAHAHA

A.Saturnus

05-15-2005, 20:31

I don't think I've introduced any exotic definitions nor do I think I tend to do so. My participation in this thread has basically involved explaining fairly standard fair.

Hume's Law is hardly "lawful" given there isn't even a consensus on what he meant. More to the point, Kant's 'Categorical Imperative' is an a priori rejoinder.

The above aside, the central question revolves around the notion god and as such, is not an issue of correspondence, but coherence.

From is follows no ought
Consequently, whatever the nature of god is, it cannot imply an ought. You cannot define god in a way that would save ethical universalism any more than you can define him so that she can make round triangles. I don't know why you bring correspondence into it.

right, and i agree - that was very concisely stated
why is anyone arguing with this?

Because it is wrong. There are more than two standard conceptualizations of HR and even the named two are rather collective terms for sets of conceptualizations. For example, for Hugo Grotius, HR were a metaphysical concept but one that was indepedent of God. The one I - and, if I get him correctly, Pape - advocated in this thread is one that sees HR neither as metaphysical nor as political construct, but as cognitive category.

ICantSpellDawg

05-15-2005, 23:10

From is follows no ought
Consequently, whatever the nature of god is, it cannot imply an ought. You cannot define god in a way that would save ethical universalism any more than you can define him so that she can make round triangles. I don't know why you bring correspondence into it.

Because it is wrong. There are more than two standard conceptualizations of HR and even the named two are rather collective terms for sets of conceptualizations. For example, for Hugo Grotius, HR were a metaphysical concept but one that was indepedent of God. The one I - and, if I get him correctly, Pape - advocated in this thread is one that sees HR neither as metaphysical nor as political construct, but as cognitive category.

i fail to understand your explaination of this "cognitive catergory" as any diffrent from the political or metaphysical (devoid of a deity) explanations.
i must be missing something
lets try it one more time

i guess i should read "Hugo Grotius"

King Henry V

05-16-2005, 00:22

I think that everyone has a right to life, such as unborn babies. However, if one human commits a heinous act such as murder, that person should be stripped of all human rights.

P.S Why is this forum so atheistical?

kiwitt

05-16-2005, 00:31

if one human commits a heinous act such as murder, that person should be stripped of all human rights.

Only if the institution that removes the human rights is not corrupt. If it is corrupt you can ignore it. According to another thread, I read. ~D

BTW: I believe in "Human Rights" for all people, regardless of what they may have done.

Papewaio

05-16-2005, 01:01

OK, your idea of HR is political and as such fits into what I have already described.

And your definition of political:

Politically derrived HR means: any attempt to effect change has no justification outside of legal dicta. Gandhi must therefore be condemned.

My definition of HR is not a political one as it can be found prior to codification as laws.

I see them as rules in which societies choose to live by. These are first habits, fads, fashions, customs, social trends then they become traditions, dogma and law.

Pindar

05-16-2005, 06:54

From is follows no ought

Yes, I know and as I said, the real meaning of this has several interpretations. There is no one single understanding. For example: there is the idea that no evaluative conclusions can be derived from factual premises. This of course assumes factual premises cannot themselves be evaluative (something Hume never argues for). There is also the non-cognitive interpretation: that moral judgments do not state facts and are not truth evaluable. Others see the view as a rejection of ethical-realism. Then there are cognitive interpretations: these see the above as a further support for Hume's view that moral properties are not discernable by demonstrative reason which leaves open whether such can be can be conclusions of valid probable arguments. Others see it as arguing that moral judgments necessarily appeal to sentiment: meaning non-moral premises cannot yield moral precepts alone, but once a sentimentary perspective has been determined (through experience) then one is free to make inferential determinations by factual premises. This is something Hume does himself throughout his works. The point is 'Hume's Law' as coined by R. M. Hare, is one of a larger chorus of interpretations.

Consequently, whatever the nature of god is, it cannot imply an ought. You cannot define god in a way that would save ethical universalism any more than you can define him so that she can make round triangles. I don't know why you bring correspondence into it.

Hume was an Empiricist. Thus, his judgments are tied to the world and are not used to make metaphysical conclusions. The basic thrust of his project given this empiricism is based around a correspondence logic.

Regarding Deity: one has simply to say 'God is the good' and one has an identity statement that necessarily implies an 'ought'. It is a strained, if not an absurd interpretation to try and apply Hume's is/ought to metaphysics proper.

Because it is wrong. There are more than two standard conceptualizations of HR and even the named two are rather collective terms for sets of conceptualizations. For example, for Hugo Grotius, HR were a metaphysical concept but one that was independent of God.

"The law of nature is a dictate of right reason, which points out that an act, according as it is or is not in conformity with rational nature, has in it a quality of moral baseness or moral necessity; and that, in consequence, such an act is either forbidden or enjoined by the author of nature, God."

"For God has given conscience a judicial power to be the sovereign guide of human actions, by despising whose admonitions the mind is stupefied into brutal hardness."

-Hugo Grotius

Grotius was part of a larger natural law tradition. You shouldn't try and take Grotius outside of the struggles that informed his thought: i.e. his conflict with Calvinist determinism.

The one I - and, if I get him correctly, Pape - advocated in this thread is one that sees HR neither as metaphysical nor as political construct, but as cognitive category.

If you wish to put forward a cognitive HR theory do so. I will read it.

Pindar

05-16-2005, 06:59

And your definition of political:

I would say all these: "habits, fads, fashions, customs, social trends then they become traditions, dogma and law" fit within the political arena though law is obviously the most explicit. Politics is the social arena and has its mores defined by its participants.

Papewaio

05-16-2005, 07:09

I would say all these: "habits, fads, fashions, customs, social trends then they become traditions, dogma and law" fit within the political arena though law is obviously the most explicit. Politics is the social arena and has its mores defined by its participants.

Which was what I casually would have defined until you stated:

any attempt to effect change has no justification outside of legal dicta. Gandhi must therefore be condemned.

You seemed to state that only that which is defined by law is allowed. I felt that there is a wider criteria to the social arena.

I also have a different feeling for what natural law is. For myself it was any system that could arise within nature. Not one that is limited to being theological in basis.

My ideas stem more from thinking of a proto-society and then selecting the rules it would live by (not playing God but more like Populos ~D ). Some societies would benefit better from such rules more then others and would prosper. The 7-day old shellfish tribes in the desert would do worse then the tribes that abstain from shellfish.

Pindar

05-16-2005, 07:26

Which was what I casually would have defined until you stated:

"any attempt to effect change has no justification outside of legal dicta. Gandhi must therefore be condemned. "

You seemed to state that only that which is defined by law is allowed. I felt that there is a wider criteria to the social arena.

I see. I used legal dicta, but that standard would apply to any social norm. The codes of the village operate under the same rubric as any Parliamentary act.

I also have a different feeling for what natural law is. For myself it was any system that could arise within nature. Not one that is limited to being theological in basis.

That's fine, but it is not the standard notion of natural law. Law typically implies a justified coercion. The justification is then tied to notions of Justice. If you want this to be what arises within nature you would have to explain what justice means in this context: does the tiger know justice, the horsefly, the typhoon?

Papewaio

05-16-2005, 07:36

That's fine, but it is not the standard notion of natural law. Law typically implies a justified coercion. The justification is then tied to notions of Justice. If you want this to be what arises within nature you would have to explain what justice means in this context: does the tiger know justice, the horsefly, the typhoon?

From which standard are you drawing your definition of natural law?

I was using science...

----

I don't think I do have to explain justice for an animal or a typhoon just as I don't have to explain the properties of an electron with those of a mineral.

[Edit, of course then we can get into the slippery slope of emergent properties ~:eek: ]

bmolsson

05-16-2005, 08:08

I'm not really arguing anything.

And it's your human right to do so ? ~;)

bmolsson

05-16-2005, 08:16

If you want this to be what arises within nature you would have to explain what justice means in this context: does the tiger know justice, the horsefly, the typhoon?

Tiger justice: That female is mine and here is my right paw to prove it !!!

Horse fly justice: Not that horse, it's gay since they castrated him, taste like !@#@!$....

Typhoon justice: No, you can't call your self Donald Trump, you are a TYPHOON......

bmolsson

05-16-2005, 08:19

From which standard are you drawing your definition of natural law?

I was using science...

I think the difference lays in the assumption that our laws in our society are created based upon a higher intelligence, which animals are assumed not to have.

I would argue that all laws are natural. A law is created because its practical for the survival of the society. Animals don't shit in their food and they will punish anyone that shit in their food (from the same spieces). We give our selves and our Gods far to much credit........

ICantSpellDawg

05-16-2005, 16:31

Law typically implies a justified coercion. The justification is then tied to notions of Justice. If you want this to be what arises within nature you would have to explain what justice means in this context: does the tiger know justice, the horsefly, the typhoon?

that is very good
i need to read some books rather than encyclopedias on natural law

A.Saturnus

05-16-2005, 16:36

What Hume precisely meant is only of historical interest. I assumed a non-cognitive interpretation. I wasn't aware there's a controversy around it.

Regarding Deity: one has simply to say 'God is the good' and one has an identity statement that necessarily implies an 'ought'. It is a strained, if not an absurd interpretation to try and apply Hume's is/ought to metaphysics proper.

I can also say that my left foot is the Good. Such tautologic reasonings are really uninteresting. I still cannot conclude that my left foot implies any normative force apart from kicking someone's ass. Whatever definitions you use, your morality cannot escape its arbitrariness.

i fail to understand your explaination of this "cognitive catergory" as any diffrent from the political or metaphysical (devoid of a deity) explanations.
i must be missing something
lets try it one more time

Well, read my post about arbitrary categories on page 2. You'll see that it involves no political or metaphysical appeal. Cognitive categories are a construct of the mind. They neither require a political surrounding nor a metaphysical basis. Just like trees.

If you wish to put forward a cognitive HR theory do so. I will read it.

Do you believe trees exist? ~:)

A.Saturnus

05-16-2005, 16:38

P.S Why is this forum so atheistical?

That may have to do with the fact that there is a general trend of secularization in the Western world since the Age of Enlightment and most participants of this forum are Westerners.

ICantSpellDawg

05-16-2005, 16:41

Do you believe trees exist? ~:)

no - trees do not exist
only giant plants with similar characteristics in appearance

i think you are off the mark when you attempt to relate the existence of trees to the existence of morality, but you have your arguement and i cannot "refute" it

A.Saturnus

05-16-2005, 16:57

no - trees do not exist
only giant plants with similar characteristics in appearance

i think you are off the mark when you attempt to relate the existence of trees to the existence of morality, but you have your arguement and i cannot "refute" it

Maybe because there is nothing to refute. I do not say one must see HR necessarily the way I do it. I'm just explaining my stance. If you think trees don't exist, fine. That's perfectly reasonable. But you should understand the reason why some people (a majority in fact) disagree with you. You should aknowledge that people have cognitive categories and act according to it. The category of trees can influence behaviour, so can the category of "rights".
A cognitive category doesn't need to rely on society or god. You may not call a cognitive category morality, but it can have the same effect.

ICantSpellDawg

05-16-2005, 17:08

Maybe because there is nothing to refute. I do not say one must see HR necessarily the way I do it. I'm just explaining my stance. If you think trees don't exist, fine. That's perfectly reasonable. But you should understand the reason why some people (a majority in fact) disagree with you. You should aknowledge that people have cognitive categories and act according to it. The category of trees can influence behaviour, so can the category of "rights".
A cognitive category doesn't need to rely on society or god. You may not call a cognitive category morality, but it can have the same effect.

i believe the catergories of plants have nothing to do with right and wrong
you are arguing that because trees are an arbitrary concept, so is right and wrong?

that there is actually no "real" disctinction in the morality of behavior, but only in our perception of it?

well, i disagree - it sounds good, but i do not believe that everything is grey area on a big, arbitrarily ordered scale

Pindar

05-16-2005, 21:03

From which standard are you drawing your definition of natural law?

I was using science...

Natural law predates the rise of science. The earliest advocates of natural law can be found in the Stoic tradition. As far as Christian thinkers go: most look to ST. Thomas.

----

I don't think I do have to explain justice for an animal or a typhoon just as I don't have to explain the properties of an electron with those of a mineral.

[Edit, of course then we can get into the slippery slope of emergent properties ~:eek: ]

If you claim natural law is any system that arises within nature that includes animal behavior and weather patterns.

Pindar

05-16-2005, 21:49

What Hume precisely meant is only of historical interest. I assumed a non-cognitive interpretation. I wasn't aware there's a controversy around it.

It's not only of historical interest if one appeals to it to justify some position.

I can also say that my left foot is the Good. Such tautologic reasonings are really uninteresting. I still cannot conclude that my left foot implies any normative force apart from kicking someone's ass. Whatever definitions you use, your morality cannot escape its arbitrariness.

As I mentioned initially: it is a question of definition. Definitions are tautological. Metaphysical/conceptual topoi are thus. If it is uninteresting you should avoid such conversation.

Now you could say your left foot is good, which might be a definition though it doesn't sound like one (it sounds more like a stated condition), but some definitions are better than others. When discussing Deity: the basic concept revolves around perfection. What is perfect cannot err, by definition. This impacts any pronouncement by such a Being. This includes moral pronouncements and explains why God can "'prove' His moral pronouncements better than" somebody else even German psychology students.

As far as normative force is concerned: this involves the capacity to implement one's will, which God has sufficient capacity to see done, by definition. This again is distinct from the common German.

Do you believe trees exist? ~:)

Nominalist definitions if they move beyond the self fall into the political arena. If they remain confined and subject to the self, they are void of truth value and irrelevant to all save the self. But I will grant you if one wishes to comprise his own little universe to play in he can do so and be consistent in the doing. This can even include HR.

Papewaio

05-17-2005, 05:43

Natural law predates the rise of science. The earliest advocates of natural law can be found in the Stoic tradition. As far as Christian thinkers go: most look to ST. Thomas.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. I was using it just with reference to science, particularly the concept of memes and emergent systems

If you claim natural law is any system that arises within nature that includes animal behavior and weather patterns.

Electrons have a set of properties, minerals have another. Although minerals contain electrons, minerals have different properties.

Not all natural laws are used at the same time on the same system. Nor as an act of reductionism is it useful to try and prove the general until the particular case is proven.

What I am getting to is that the complex social interactions of humans may be a result of our own intelligence. It would of course not be a good thing to rule out animals.

Pindar

05-17-2005, 09:21

Electrons have a set of properties, minerals have another. Although minerals contain electrons, minerals have different properties.

Not all natural laws are used at the same time on the same system. Nor as an act of reductionism is it useful to try and prove the general until the particular case is proven.

What I am getting to is that the complex social interactions of humans may be a result of our own intelligence. It would of course not be a good thing to rule out animals.

I'm not sure I understand your point. It sounds like you still need to answer for the horsefly's sense of justice and perhaps a salt crystal to boot.

A.Saturnus

05-17-2005, 22:53

As I mentioned initially: it is a question of definition. Definitions are tautological. Metaphysical/conceptual topoi are thus. If it is uninteresting you should avoid such conversation.

Yes, indeed. We have gone there before and none got the wiser. If you throw your perfect being around it comes down to this that you think I reject entirely reasonable arguments and I think your whole reasoning is one big sophism. Let's leave it at that.

Nominalist definitions if they move beyond the self fall into the political arena. If they remain confined and subject to the self, they are void of truth value and irrelevant to all save the self. But I will grant you if one wishes to comprise his own little universe to play in he can do so and be consistent in the doing. This can even include HR.

Good, then that is settled. I'll use that quote when I need it.

Papewaio

05-17-2005, 23:04

I'm not sure I understand your point. It sounds like you still need to answer for the horsefly's sense of justice and perhaps a salt crystal to boot.

I think you have changed the criteria around. I will show why I don't have to prove justice for a salt crystal if you can show that justice is inherent in humans using the scientific method.

Pindar

05-18-2005, 21:34

Yes, indeed. We have gone there before and none got the wiser. If you throw your perfect being around it comes down to this that you think I reject entirely reasonable arguments and I think your whole reasoning is one big sophism. Let's leave it at that.

OK

They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

Psalms 82:6 ~;)

Good, then that is settled. I'll use that quote when I need it.

As Master of the Horse: I grant you leave to do so.

:charge:

Pindar

05-18-2005, 21:44

I think you have changed the criteria around. I will show why I don't have to prove justice for a salt crystal if you can show that justice is inherent in humans using the scientific method.

You've confused me again. The standard HR positions I've explained make no reference to the scientific method, nor are they required to do so. A political HR position does not recognize an inherent criteria. It recognizes the political act itself as the standard. The older HR view is based on a theological appeal. So it would be metaphysics not physics that is the standard.

Now, you claimed a natural law position where: "any system that arises within nature" applies. This seems to entail our horsefly and salt crystals.

Papewaio

05-19-2005, 01:44

You've confused me again. The standard HR positions I've explained make no reference to the scientific method, nor are they required to do so. A political HR position does not recognize an inherent criteria. It recognizes the political act itself as the standard. The older HR view is based on a theological appeal. So it would be metaphysics not physics that is the standard..

I already made my case that I am using science to explain HR.

If HR is any any shape real like gravity then it should be testable. Or more importantly why does it arise?

Now, you claimed a natural law position where: "any system that arises within nature" applies. This seems to entail our horsefly and salt crystals.

Not if you understand emergent systems.

Using the salt crystals example. Salt is a group of atoms that form ionic bonds to form a lattice. Metals on the other hand bond in a different method even if they are composed of some of the same atoms. Diamond and Graphite have the same atoms but form different substances.

Now let people be atoms and societies the substances they create.

If the political bonding rules are one way they form one type of society.

If the political bonding rules are another they form another type of society.

HR is a type of human bond. When humans link up in a society they form a type of society.

While if they link up with say facist bonding they form a different kind of society.

The HR society and the facist society are as different as Diamond and Graphite. The individuals do not inherently have one type of bond, it is a requirement of the societies that are formed.

Hence humans do not inherently have human rights. HR societies do.

Pindar

05-19-2005, 02:12

I already made my case that I am using science to explain HR.

That is fine, it does not impact the two standards I mentioned.

If HR is any any shape real like gravity then it should be testable. Or more importantly why does it arise?

Other systems do not argue HR as a physical property so testability would be the wrong dynamic.

Not if you understand emergent systems.

Using the salt crystals example. Salt is a group of atoms that form ionic bonds to form a lattice. Metals on the other hand bond in a different method even if they are composed of some of the same atoms. Diamond and Graphite have the same atoms but form different substances.

Now let people be atoms and societies the substances they create.

If the political bonding rules are one way they form one type of society.

If the political bonding rules are another they form another type of society.

HR is a type of human bond. When humans link up in a society they form a type of society.

While if they link up with say facist bonding they form a different kind of society.

The HR society and the facist society are as different as Diamond and Graphite. The individuals do not inherently have one type of bond, it is a requirement of the societies that are formed.

Hence humans do not inherently have human rights. HR societies do.

This explanation does not seem really removed from the political HR model. You have restricted natural law to particular HR societies and therefore do not recognize HR outside of those societies. Thus, individuals living beyond the bounds of society proper or other societies (I believe you mentioned fascist systems as an example) do not have HR. Such outside the HR standard you desribe could therefore be killed with impunity.

Three difficulties your view seems to have is: one it begs the question: HR societies have HR. This does not explain why one society has 'it' and another doesn't. Nor does it explain its rise. Rather it points out HR exists with HR societies. This is circular. Second, your explanation does not explain or exclude other things that arise from nature. The horsefly,typhoon, salt etc. could also quality under natural law according to your standard. Third, your explanation does not seem to deal with the primary aspect of natural law or its subset HR which is an informed propriety. Natural law or HR language typically includes a moral appeal. This is what gives it force. Your model by focusing on form does not speak to content.

Papewaio

05-19-2005, 02:42

Three difficulties your view seems to have is: one it begs the question: HR societies have HR. This does not explain why one society has 'it' and another doesn't. Nor does it explain its rise.

I agree as I stated:

Or more importantly why does it arise?

I havn't got to that stage. My first point was to show that societies exist where HR does not hence HR is not inherent for everyone.

Rather it points out HR exists with HR societies. This is circular.

As circular as stating HR exists with Humans.

What I am stating is that HR is a set of constructs. They arise out of human ideas.

Second, your explanation does not explain or exclude other things that arise from nature. The horsefly,typhoon, salt etc. could also quality under natural law according to your standard.

Not all physical laws apply to everthing with even magnitude.

Third, your explanation does not seem to deal with the primary aspect of natural law or its subset HR which is an informed propriety. Natural law or HR language typically includes a moral appeal. This is what gives it force. Your model by focusing on form does not speak to content.

Typically includes a moral appeal... I think I have already stated that this is not a typical view of HR that I am using.

From a scientific viewpoint why does it have to include a moral appeal? What are morals? Isn't this a circular arguement that HR requires Morals which require Theology?

Why is it not possible to argue that the force which gives HR power is that it makes a stronger society? (for example more equal rights resulting in a larger ratio of talented workers etc).

By pre-empting that HR must be based purely on morals you are limiting the scope of the examination back to theology and politics. As stated I am examing this from a science point of view. If HR is inherent it should show some sort of properties.

Kanamori

05-19-2005, 03:26

With all of the talk of Hume, I'm a bit late, I admit, I cannot resist.

Humean (http://www.unc.edu/~prinz/pictures/hume.gif)

~:cheers:

A.Saturnus

05-19-2005, 21:27

As Master of the Horse: I grant you leave to do so.

Thank you.

Pindar

05-20-2005, 00:25

With all of the talk of Hume, I'm a bit late, I admit, I cannot resist.

Humean (http://www.unc.edu/~prinz/pictures/hume.gif)

~:cheers:

That's funny. They should have drawn Hume fatter. I think he is the only fat philosopher besides the Ox (St. Thomas)

Papewaio

05-20-2005, 01:32

That's funny. They should have drawn Hume fatter. I think he is the only fat philosopher besides the Ox (St. Thomas)

Interesting there is not many fat scientists... except economists and they only count as philosophers/scientists because no other faculty will take them ~D ~;)

Pindar

05-20-2005, 01:34

My first point was to show that societies exist where HR does not hence HR is not inherent for everyone.

Got it.

As circular as stating HR exists with Humans.

Given HR is 'Human Rights' it follows this is within the human domain: true enough, but the other views I put forward trace HR to political acts or theology not simply to the human condition.

From a scientific viewpoint why does it have to include a moral appeal? What are morals? Isn't this a circular arguement that HR requires Morals which require Theology?

The noun in HR is 'right'. 'Right' typically has two parallel connotations. One is a legal mandate for X. The other is a moral mandate for X. Therefore reference to 'right' would traditionally have to take into consideration these elements.

Morals refer to notions of good and evil. The moral/theological appeal is not circular. If one attempts to explain a HR claim by appealing to a theology they are tracing the force of that claim to God ultimately. They are therefore saying: X is Y because of Z. Z is the guarantor of the veracity of Y that the X is claiming to be.

Why is it not possible to argue that the force which gives HR power is that it makes a stronger society? (for example more equal rights resulting in a larger ratio of talented workers etc).

You could make that argument. You would need to qualify 'stronger'. Is stronger a moral claim? Is stronger a pragmatic claim? etc. You would also need to explain 'power'. You would also need to stress the difference between your project and the political model which might argue a similar view.

By pre-empting that HR must be based purely on morals you are limiting the scope of the examination back to theology and politics. As stated I am examing this from a science point of view. If HR is inherent it should show some sort of properties.

HR would seem to be constrained by the concepts it defers to. In this case: human and rights. The properties of HR are dependant on the specific system for example: a standard HR model may argue those properties are life, liberty etc.

Papewaio

05-20-2005, 01:59

The noun in HR is 'right'. 'Right' typically has two parallel connotations. One is a legal mandate for X. The other is a moral mandate for X. Therefore reference to 'right' would traditionally have to take into consideration these elements.

Taking smaller bites, will reply to the rest latter.

The Rose is a Rose by any name convention.

I wasn't taking the name Human Rights to be anything other then a blanket meaning for a set of social rules. It could be renamed DNA 23-Paired-Chromsomes Post Fire-Invention Social-Structure or Anti-Gah . The name isn't as important as what it refers to. I was just using HR as a label.

Pindar

05-20-2005, 02:05

Taking smaller bites, will reply to the rest latter.

The Rose is a Rose by any name convention.

I wasn't taking the name Human Rights to be anything other then a blanket meaning for a set of social rules. It could be renamed DNA 23-Paired-Chromsomes Post Fire-Invention Social-Structure or Anti-Gah . The name isn't as important as what it refers to. I was just using HR as a label.

If that is the case: that a concept does not need to refer to its basic meaning then there is no way to guarantee we or anyone is talking about the same thing. There will be no point of intersection.

Papewaio

05-20-2005, 02:09

If that is the case: that a concept does not need to refer to its basic meaning then there is no way to guarantee we or anyone is talking about the same thing. There will be no point of intersection.

Not quite, what I am saying is the functions of HR is not as important as what we call the group of functions.

Papewaio

05-20-2005, 02:20

I agree we have to be talking about the same thing.

What I don't want to do is argue wether something is crimson or puce when it is the wavelength and intensity that is under discussion...

Pindar

05-20-2005, 19:34

I agree we have to be talking about the same thing.

What I don't want to do is argue wether something is crimson or puce when it is the wavelength and intensity that is under discussion...

This tact points to other problems. Rights are seen as concepts. Your view seems to be a materialism. You must then show how these two correspond. You must also deal with a basic reductio issue.

Papewaio

05-23-2005, 06:57

You could make that argument. You would need to qualify 'stronger'. Is stronger a moral claim? Is stronger a pragmatic claim? etc. You would also need to explain 'power'. You would also need to stress the difference between your project and the political model which might argue a similar view.

I would define it using evolutionary terms. However it gets difficult because do we define it using survial of the genes and/or memes?

So the stronger meta-gene/meme survives. Obviously for the ideas to survive/propagate they need a medium. So if the ideas protect/create/strengthen the medium then the ideas have a chance to propagate. Also some ideas by their very nature may attract/disgust people so they will become more or less popular (scientists in WWII being drawn disproportionally to the West rather then facsim... imagine the other way around and Nazi Germany with V2 rockets armed with nukes).

============

• Right to life, liberty and security of person
• No one shall be held in slavery or servitude
• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
• Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law
• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Lets pretend these five ideas are the only five axioms of Human rights.

Now these ideas seem to be quite attractive to a lot of people. Do they also improve the societies and the individuals lifes above those who live in the opposite society of:

• Only Citizens have then Right to life, liberty and security of person
• No Citizen shall be held in slavery or servitude
• No Citizen shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
• Only Citizens have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law
• No Citizen shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Now this society is fine if you are a citizen. But what if only men qualify as citizens? Will it benefit the citizens sure. Will it benefit the non-citizens, probably not as virtually every time someone is denied HR benefits someone will exploit them. Will the society be as competitive as another where everyone qualifies as a citizen regardless of race, creed or sex... probably not but not definite. Will this society be as attractive as other societies? Will it be able to propagate ideas as quickly as a society that has HR for all?

Pindar

05-24-2005, 06:29

I would define it using evolutionary terms.

That means survival. Given there are a host of social systems that qualify that do not make any HR appeal HR itself seems irrelevant.

Lets pretend these five ideas are the only five axioms of Human rights.

Now these ideas seem to be quite attractive to a lot of people. Do they also improve the societies and the individuals lifes above those who live in the opposite society of...

Improve is a loaded term. It suggests moral judgment which would be a separate criteria from the evolutionary standard.

This: This tact points to other problems. Rights are seen as concepts. Your view seems to be a materialism. You must then show how these two correspond. You must also deal with a basic reductio issue. is still an issue you must confront.

Papewaio

05-24-2005, 06:44

This: This tact points to other problems. Rights are seen as concepts. Your view seems to be a materialism. You must then show how these two correspond. You must also deal with a basic reductio issue. is still an issue you must confront.

Actually my main thrust is that Human Rights are just concepts and require something to impose them into the material world.

If human rights where inherent in every human in the material world they would not require legal and political apparatus to establish.

Ergo human rights are artifical concepts created by humans and then imposed by the political/legal/social system not an inherent human trait.

Improve is a loaded term. It suggests moral judgment which would be a separate criteria from the evolutionary standard.

Improve as in improve the chances of survival.

That means survival. Given there are a host of social systems that qualify that do not make any HR appeal HR itself seems irrelevant.

Maybe HR is irrelevant. Maybe its survival characteristics are the same as puppy eyes... just too cute for us not to foster. Maybe HR as a social system is the best for our current niche.

bmolsson

05-24-2005, 06:48

Isn't moral a result of evolution ?

Pindar

05-24-2005, 06:56

Actually my main thrust is that Human Rights are just concepts and require something to impose them into the material world.

Imposition is distinct from the concept. This is not something an advocate would need to argue. The adocate is concerned the claim itself.

If human rights where inherent in every human in the material world they would not require legal and political apparatus to establish.

This doesn't follow.

Ergo human rights are artifical concepts created by humans and then imposed by the political/legal/social system not an inherent human trait.

That is the political standard I referred to.

Improve as in improve the chances of survival.

Survival seems to occur without the appeal so the HR appeal seems unecessary.

Papewaio

05-24-2005, 07:21

Survival seems to occur without the appeal so the HR appeal seems unecessary.

But does HR improve the survival?

Also I'm not just talking survival of the gene but the meme and of the gene/meme group.

What is the definition of inherent then? I presumed it was something that was internal to the object.

Papewaio

05-24-2005, 07:59

Imposition is distinct from the concept. This is not something an advocate would need to argue. The adocate is concerned the claim itself.

Imposition is the act of forcing a condition.

The claim as I see it is that HR is an inherent trait.

My arguement is that HR is not inherent as HR is a concept.

As a concept it is external to humans (the genes even if created by our memes). It only exists when it is imposed.

If it was inherent it would need no more legislation then inherent traits like the ability to breath or think.

My current understanding is that if it requires an external act it is not an internal trait.

Pindar

05-24-2005, 17:42

But does HR improve the survival?

Also I'm not just talking survival of the gene but the meme and of the gene/meme group.

What is the definition of inherent then? I presumed it was something that was internal to the object.

I not sure how you are using "improve", but if you mean something akin to increase survivability then that is by no means clear.

I think the normal position is to argue "inherent" is a characteristic or essential aspect of some thing, but it doesn't follow that because a thing exists that it cannot be constrained.

Imposition is the act of forcing a condition.

The claim as I see it is that HR is an inherent trait.

My arguement is that HR is not inherent as HR is a concept.

As a concept it is external to humans (the genes even if created by our memes). It only exists when it is imposed.

If it was inherent it would need no more legislation then inherent traits like the ability to breath or think.

My current understanding is that if it requires an external act it is not an internal trait.

I think 'imposition' does suggest force.

If one argues a HR based on a metaphysical appeal then that may very well include the idea that HR is essential. There is no necessary tension between such a claim and seeing HR as a concept. The Platonic notion is that concepts are both essential and inherent. In fact, the standard notion of rationality in the West is exactly this.

I can't say I am at all clear on what you want to argue. The bulk of the above and several of your other posts seem to place HR in the political realm which is one of the standard positions I initially mentioned. The only thing that might be different is if you were to argue HR is in fact physical (genes, DNA etc.). This would then require you to either redefine HR (which may mean you are not talking about the same thing as others) or you have to tie the standard concept to matter.

Papewaio

05-25-2005, 04:45

I can't say I am at all clear on what you want to argue. The bulk of the above and several of your other posts seem to place HR in the political realm which is one of the standard positions I initially mentioned. The only thing that might be different is if you were to argue HR is in fact physical (genes, DNA etc.). This would then require you to either redefine HR (which may mean you are not talking about the same thing as others) or you have to tie the standard concept to matter.

I see HR as a group of ideas so a group of memes. Human made and human implemented.

From my point of view if HR was inherent in humans it would be in the genes and would not require external means.

If one argues a HR based on a metaphysical appeal then that may very well include the idea that HR is essential. There is no necessary tension between such a claim and seeing HR as a concept. The Platonic notion is that concepts are both essential and inherent. In fact, the standard notion of rationality in the West is exactly this.

No metaphysical appeal on my side. I am seeing HR as human created concepts hat may or may not enhance survival. I would assume that as they exist HR are in some way enhancing survivability in the current environment.

Nor am I claiming that HR is essential or inherent to the individual human.

HR is a set of ideas on how to interact.

For me the concepts of HR are like the rules of chess. The pieces themselves have inherent properties such as mass and shape. But the rules are external.

Pindar

05-25-2005, 22:25

I see HR as a group of ideas so a group of memes. Human made and human implemented.

Nor am I claiming that HR is essential or inherent to the individual human.

HR is a set of ideas on how to interact.

So how is this differrent from seeing HR as political constructs.

Papewaio

05-25-2005, 23:54

So how is this differrent from seeing HR as political constructs.

Not much. However there is no need to base them on legal or moral grounds.

They are just rules. Obviously when you select a set of rules ones bias becomes apparent and hence the politics or political expediency of implementing the rules them would make it politically influenced.

Pindar

05-26-2005, 01:57

Not much. However there is no need to base them on legal or moral grounds.

They are just rules. Obviously when you select a set of rules ones bias becomes apparent and hence the politics or political expediency of implementing the rules them would make it politically influenced.

I think your rules language places your position firmly in the political catergory.

Papewaio

05-26-2005, 01:59

I think your rules language places your position firmly in the political catergory.

So what are the essential forms of the political category and are they testable?

Pindar

05-26-2005, 02:12

So what are the essential forms of the political category and are they testable?

I don't know what you mean by forms. I'm not sure the meaning of the test reference either.

Under a political HR dynamic such are the constructs of societies and have form through legal edict, tradition and other social norms etc. If one wanted to know what these were in some particular locale they could read the laws in place or ask someone about the standards.

Papewaio

05-26-2005, 02:14

As political would I have to automatically assume they are inalienable.

Pindar

05-26-2005, 02:22

As political would I have to automatically assume they are inalienable.

No, inalienability is based upon a theological appeal. The Founding Fathers were justifying rebellion against their sovereign by appealing to a higher authority: God. This is the same standard others like Martin Luther King etc. used to justify their civil disobedience.

A strict political HR would see such as a construct and having no force prior to or beyond that constructing authority.

ICantSpellDawg

05-26-2005, 02:27

No, inalienability is based upon a theological appeal. The Founding Fathers were justifying rebellion against their sovereign by appealing to a higher authority: God. This is the same standard others like Martin Luther King etc. used to justify their civil disobedience.

A strict political HR would see such as a construct and having no force prior to or beyond that constructing authority.

you are my hero
who ever said that all lawyers are sleaze?

Papewaio

05-26-2005, 02:50

A strict political HR would see such as a construct and having no force prior to or beyond that constructing authority.

Interesting.

I suppose the difference is that I am not assuming that there is not a higher power, I am just not including it as part of the scope.

Pindar

05-26-2005, 03:02

you are my hero
who ever said that all lawyers are sleaze?

Most of us are. It comes from the hair gel.

Pindar

05-26-2005, 03:10

Interesting.

I suppose the difference is that I am not assuming that there is not a higher power, I am just not including it as part of the scope.

That lack of inclusion has an impact. A political HR can bracket the question of God as well. Consequently, a political HR is bound to and defined by the polity that is its source. Thus, if Jews have no legal standing then under that rubric they could not claim rights abuse when tortured, killed etc.

That is one difficulty with a political HR model. There are others.

Papewaio

05-26-2005, 03:13

That lack of inclusion has an impact. A political HR can bracket the question of God as well. Consequently, a political HR is bound to and defined by the polity that is its source. Thus, if Jews have no legal standing then under that rubric they could not claim rights abuse when tortured, killed etc.

That is one difficulty with a political HR model. There are others.

But to apply equally to all does one have to make the rights inalienable and/or include a higher power appeal?

Surely if a rule is added 'All humans in this society and ones we encounter will be treated 'equally'.' etc then there is no need to make them inherent/inalienable/god appeal.

Pindar

05-26-2005, 03:24

But to apply equally to all does one have to make the rights inalienable and/or include a higher power appeal?

The rub is determining the force of the justification. Where does it come from? The HR stance from the Christian Tradition is based on the notion that all are God's children and therefore have inherent worth.

Surely if a rule is added 'All humans in this society and ones we encounter will be treated 'equally'.' etc then there is no need to make them inherent/inalienable/god appeal.

One could do that, but the force or justification is still tied to the political stance. This means it could be changed and that change would have equal authority. Further, any other society that had contrary legislation would be equally justified.

Papewaio

05-26-2005, 03:33

The rub is determining the force of the justification. Where does it come from? The HR stance from the Christian Tradition is based on the notion that all are God's children and therefore have inherent worth.

It comes from its utility in promoting a society which can progress faster. Higher survival charateristics for the society, its individuals and its ideals.

One could do that, but the force or justification is still tied to the political stance. This means it could be changed and that change would have equal authority. Further, any other society that had contrary legislation would be equally justified.

The justification for any rule in society should be the benefit it brings.

GoreBag

05-26-2005, 03:44

No, inalienability is based upon a theological appeal. The Founding Fathers were justifying rebellion against their sovereign by appealing to a higher authority: God. This is the same standard others like Martin Luther King etc. used to justify their civil disobedience.

Or because they just wanted to pay less taxes. Not all the Holy Father Creators were Christians, you know.

Kanamori

05-26-2005, 04:06

As far as I see it, some concept of morals is almost certainly dependant on, or draws from, the concept of god/God/gods (however you want to put it). As I think of it, God (again, however you wan't to put it to show differences, I put them all together, except the greek gods, they are the exception to this model, within the scope of my knowledge) is simply the ultimate truth: the essence of existence. To make some distinction between right and wrong is to call upon that belief of some ultimate truth. In that, I think the line between political and theological HR can blur. Custom can be very much derived from that appeal to an ultimate truth; I think that that is more than political and theological HR existing at the same time with a distinction between the two.

Pindar

05-26-2005, 07:13

It comes from its utility in promoting a society which can progress faster. Higher survival charateristics for the society, its individuals and its ideals.

This is formally problematic and fraught with counter examples on a practical level. Society is 'a' society and consequently a particular. A universal (which is what your 'all' entails) cannot be so constrained.

The survival referent is tainted because there are a host of societies that have not made HR appeals and have been highly successful in and up to the present.

The justification for any rule in society should be the benefit it brings.

This of course begs the question. If I say shooting Jews benefits society then the action is self evidently justified.

Pindar

05-26-2005, 07:17

Or because they just wanted to pay less taxes.

No, the question is formal nor practical. HR is not concerned with the Stamp Act. It is concerned with a base justification to go against the Divine Right of Kings. The theoretical argument can be clearly traced back through Locke and Hobbs to St. Thomas.

Not all the Holy Father Creators were Christians, you know.

I don't know what this means.

Pindar

05-26-2005, 07:25

As far as I see it, some concept of morals is almost certainly dependant on, or draws from, the concept of god/God/gods (however you wan't to put it). As I think of it, God (again, however you wan't to put it to show differences, I put them all together, except the greek gods, they are the exception to this model, within the scope of my knowledge) is simply the ultimate truth: the essence of existence. To make some distinction between right and wrong is to call upon that belief of some ultimate truth. In that, I think the line between political and theological HR can blur. Custom can be very much derived from that appeal to an ultimate truth; I think that that is more than political and theological HR existing at the same time with a distinction between the two.

Your intuitions are correct. The appeal to an underlying Absolute is not only the case within the religious arena, but also the bedrock of the larger Western Intellectual Tradition. Political expedients or utility arguments for HR have fairly pronounced coherency problems.

Papewaio

05-27-2005, 00:07

This is formally problematic and fraught with counter examples on a practical level. Society is 'a' society and consequently a particular. A universal (which is what your 'all' entails) cannot be so constrained.

I don't see HR as universal. I think an efficient way to make it work is to say it is. HR is a method of conduct selected from a whole spectrum of ways.

The survival referent is tainted because there are a host of societies that have not made HR appeals and have been highly successful in and up to the present.

Of course many socieities have been successful without HR. HR is not inherent, universal or inalienable. My arguement is that HR is not inherent. It is a set of social rules that we choose to live by if we wish to. I don't see an HR 'force' stopping the Mongol Hordes.

This of course begs the question. If I say shooting Jews benefits society then the action is self evidently justified.

Say and prove are not the same.

Nor did I think you approved of 'nice/beautiful' theorys above 'nasty' ones.

Pindar

05-27-2005, 01:20

I don't see HR as universal. I think an efficient way to make it work is to say it is. HR is a method of conduct selected from a whole spectrum of ways.

Of course many socieities have been successful without HR. HR is not inherent, universal or inalienable. My arguement is that HR is not inherent. It is a set of social rules that we choose to live by if we wish to. I don't see an HR 'force' stopping the Mongol Hordes.

Say and prove are not the same.

It sounds like you are trying to make a pragmatic appeal: the truth of a thing is not important as long as it does want we want it to do. This of course leads to the question: what do you want it to do? You have already agreed that HR is not necessary for a society to be successful. Your comments seem to have removed HR of any inherent value, so there doesn't seem to be any rationale for the appeal to begin with.

Your view, as I currently understand it, sounds like an amoral position. HR have no implicit standing and what standing might be afforded is based on expediency. Expediency itself has a natural reductio quality: what is expedient for the community may not be for the individual and since community itself is an abstraction, self interest is the only real criteria. This of course has massive impact: questions of justice are subject dependant and arbitrary. The rapist, pedophile and butcher of men has been given a reprieve. Is this where you want to go?

Nor did I think you approved of 'nice/beautiful' theorys above 'nasty' ones.

I don't know what this means.

Papewaio

05-27-2005, 01:50

It sounds like you are trying to make a pragmatic appeal: the truth of a thing is not important as long as it does want we want it to do.

I am saying that just because HR is warm and fuzzy does not make it true.

This of course leads to the question: what do you want it to do?

Be upgradeable. If it is not inalienable, universal and inherent then there is room for improvement in what it can do. Just because I like the ideas doesn't mean I accept the basis that they are inalienable, nor does it mean that I think God created them, nor does it mean that they are necessary or that they are the highest principles that we have.

You have already agreed that HR is not necessary for a society to be successful.

Correct they are not necessary for some types of socieities. Monarchies for starters are not really founded on equal rights.

Your comments seem to have removed HR of any inherent value, so there doesn't seem to be any rationale for the appeal to begin with.

I have stated that HR is not inherent to the human gene. That does not automatically devoid them of value. That we create or discover something is part of what makes humans great, artists and scientists are some of the best examples of what we can do.

Your view, as I currently understand it, sounds like an amoral position. HR have no implicit standing and what standing might be afforded is based on expediency. Expediency itself has a natural reductio quality: what is expedient for the community may not be for the individual and since community itself is an abstraction, self interest is the only real criteria.

The value in HR is a society that can progress beyond societies that do not. So if to maintain HR it requires an allusion or is that illusion of inalienable god derived rights then that is what is done.

This of course has massive impact: questions of justice are subject dependant and arbitrary. The rapist, pedophile and butcher of men has been given a reprieve. Is this where you want to go?

Opposite. As they cause damage to society they would get eliminated quicker in a non-HR society then an HR one. So which is really devoid of justice? The society that acts or the one that says all are equal to the point that criminals have the same resources as victims?

Eliminated = reformed (Tea with Jag), detained (locked in a room with you and I would be punishment enough) or even executed (after given the other two choices it would probably be self administed ~;) ).

I don't know what this means.

It means that a truth should not necessarily be deleted because the result is not to our liking.

Pindar

05-27-2005, 02:21

I am saying that just because HR is warm and fuzzy does not make it true.

It means that a truth should not necessarily be deleted because the result is not to our liking.

Are you making a truth claim?

Be upgradeable.

If one claims life is an HR how is that upgradeable?

I have stated that HR is not inherent to the human gene. That does not automatically devoid them of value. That we create or discover something is part of what makes humans great, artists and scientists are some of the best examples of what we can do.

The value in HR is a society that can progress beyond societies that do not.

What is the basis of this claim?

Opposite. As they cause damage to society they would get eliminated quicker in a non-HR society then an HR one. So which is really devoid of justice? The society that acts or the one that says all are equal to the point that criminals have the same resources as victims?

I'm confused by what you wrote here. There seem to be a fair amount of assumptions about prosecution and criminal rights. What needed to be addressed is the source of a justice claim. HR operates within the moral sphere if HR is a construct then the moral dynamic that accompanies it is also a construct. There is also the problem of grounding that construct. Paying deference to society as opposed to the individual seems contrived.

Your position still sounds like a basic political HR schema I originally put forward.

ICantSpellDawg

05-27-2005, 03:15

Opposite. As they cause damage to society they would get eliminated quicker in a non-HR society then an HR one. So which is really devoid of justice? The society that acts or the one that says all are equal to the point that criminals have the same resources as victims?

interesting point - but the society which attempted to preserve the rights of all of its citizens even though it still had to protect basic ones of criminals would still be more just

why? because "justice" itself is a moral construct
in a society with situational "morality" which killed its criminals because of a lack morals would still lack justice - even without rape, murder, theft

killing criminals may prevent certain immoral actions but at the expense of the greater moral picture

Yun Dog

05-27-2005, 03:30

I believe in the survival of me and my kin

if I saw someone dying by the side of the road

I would make a decision about whether or not helping that person would be advantageous or disadvantageous to my own survival

as human cooperation has been our recipe for success as a species

I think in general cooperation is inately a good thing

however in reality not all other humans believe this to be the case

ICantSpellDawg

05-27-2005, 03:43

if I saw someone dying by the side of the road

I would make a decision about whether or not helping that person would be advantageous or disadvantageous to my own survival

that is understandable

if someone is dying in the road - you should make sure that if you go to help them you will not be killed yourself

morality exists on the same field as self preservation

some owuld argue that saving ones life is simply an act done because if you were there, you would like the same to be done for you

that is egoism

i reject it

if i save someone it is because i respect their life and am trying to save THEM

not myself, theoretically, through them

and "preservation of kin" according to an egoist is because you do not want to be at a loss of allies and therefore be more prone to being killed

but i see elderly who genuinely want to see their progeny do well as believing that something that they have is worth passing down to others because it is either "right" or because they have massive egos

Papewaio

05-27-2005, 03:53

Are you making a truth claim?

If one claims life is an HR how is that upgradeable?

I do not claim life is an HR. I claim that HR is a set of rules for society. As such they may be improved if they are not assumed to be infalliable.

What is the basis of this claim?

Survival. If HR improves the societies ability to survive. If the concept cannot survive it will die out, likewise if the individuals die the concept will die out.

I'm confused by what you wrote here. There seem to be a fair amount of assumptions about prosecution and criminal rights. What needed to be addressed is the source of a justice claim. HR operates within the moral sphere if HR is a construct then the moral dynamic that accompanies it is also a construct. There is also the problem of grounding that construct. Paying deference to society as opposed to the individual seems contrived.

Your position still sounds like a basic political HR schema I originally put forward.

Morals, Justice and HR they make us feel warm and fuzzy. But does that mean they actually exist?

Pindar

05-27-2005, 07:42

I do not claim life is an HR. I claim that HR is a set of rules for society. As such they may be improved if they are not assumed to be infalliable.

Life as a human right is a standard claim. Your rejection of it suggests you are arguing a different HR. Answering that HR is simply a set of rules for society would make them synonymous with standard law.

Survival. If HR improves the societies ability to survive. If the concept cannot survive it will die out, likewise if the individuals die the concept will die out.

I think you missed what my question was aiming at. You said: "The value in HR is a society that can progress beyond societies that do not." I am asking the basis of this claim. Progress is distinct from survival. I want to know how is this progress measured and how do you deal with the host of counterexamples?

Morals, Justice and HR they make us feel warm and fuzzy. But does that mean they actually exist?

Are you denying the existence of morality?

Papewaio

05-27-2005, 09:55

Are you denying the existence of morality?

Are you proving it exists?

Papewaio

05-27-2005, 10:02

I think you missed what my question was aiming at. You said: "The value in HR is a society that can progress beyond societies that do not." I am asking the basis of this claim. Progress is distinct from survival. I want to know how is this progress measured and how do you deal with the host of counterexamples?

I'm saying that HR may be valuable as a concept as it allows societies to last longer. It would be like a gene that doubles the length of the life of the individual. HRs value may be in that it allows more stable, longer lived, smarter socieities.

Papewaio

05-27-2005, 10:04

Life as a human right is a standard claim. Your rejection of it suggests you are arguing a different HR. Answering that HR is simply a set of rules for society would make them synonymous with standard law.

Surely that claim alone proves that HR is not inherent otherwise we would be immortal?

Pindar

05-27-2005, 17:17

Are you proving it exists?

Why the present progressive here? You didn't answer my question. I will answer yours: no, I am not proving it exists, I could do so, but I don't think a simple logical formula is really at issue. I could also prove Martians wear striped pants. I don't think we are concerned with basic validity. What is at issue (in this instance) is the existence of morality. If you reject morality there is no need to make any HR appeal. I accept morality exists, because I am a moral being: notions of good and evil are meaningful and impact my life. My guess is it is the same for you.

I'm saying that HR may be valuable as a concept as it allows societies to last longer.

I understand, I am asking the basis of this claim. The longest surviving political system I can think of is Rome. Rome did not appeal to HR so your statement seems to lack merit.

Surely that claim alone proves that HR is not inherent otherwise we would be immortal?

I think you are confused about what an HR is. A human right is a value judgment. It is not a biology statement. It typically has legal and moral underpinnings and is therefore tied to the basic notion of justice. This does not mean one is compelled to follow an identified HR, but it may be ignoring such means one is unjust.

Papewaio

05-30-2005, 05:06

I accept morality exists, because I am a moral being: notions of good and evil are meaningful and impact my life. My guess is it is the same for you.

Yes I am moral. But why?

The reasons I am playing the devils advocate are more to figure out what is HR and can the concepts be reduced to an axiom set and do they cover enough. Also I like to understand how people get to a view point.

I believe HR exists. What I would like to figure out is are the just extensions of our family values and other biological wirings. Or are they a genuine case of our memes raising ourselves above our genes. Have we as a civilisation nutured ourselves above our nature?

However it may be proven that HR gives our societies a real advantage in surviving. In which case we have memes that are equivalent of the selfish gene scenario. Apparent altruism covering real greed.

bmolsson

05-31-2005, 02:53

I accept morality exists, because I am a moral being: notions of good and evil are meaningful and impact my life.

So you are a businessman after all..... ~D

Pindar

05-31-2005, 22:00

Yes I am moral. But why?

The reasons I am playing the devils advocate are more to figure out what is HR and can the concepts be reduced to an axiom set and do they cover enough. Also I like to understand how people get to a view point.

Discussing the existence of a thing and the source of that existence are two different things. I think the standard for HR claims remains the two I initially put forward.

Historically the axiomatic set for HR would be found in the larger corpus of Christian theology as that is the only system to develop along those lines.

How people get to a point of view is a social/psychological question and not directly related to HR as a concept. I would guess that most people 'get to a view point' based on experience and/or tradition.

What I would like to figure out is are the just extensions of our family values and other biological wirings. Or are they a genuine case of our memes raising ourselves above our genes. Have we as a civilisation nutured ourselves above our nature?

Biological appeals seem flawed given the shear number of peoples that never made any HR appeal as well as some of the other difficulties I pointed out earlier in the thread.

Papewaio

05-31-2005, 23:19

Historically the axiomatic set for HR would be found in the larger corpus of Christian theology as that is the only system to develop along those lines.

Are you sure that only Christian theology has been the only system to develop HR. It seems quite a sweeping statement.

Since the Cyrus Cylinder predates Christianity by a mere 500 years and is said to be the first example of human rights.

I'm sure a lot of the Christian traditions also can find roots in Greek philosophy. And surely a lot of HR has come from those who have seen flaws in the Christian religion and have struggled to make something more fair.

Biological appeals seem flawed given the shear number of peoples that never made any HR appeal as well as some of the other difficulties I pointed out earlier in the thread.

I said that HR is a meme. I certainly don't think it is inherent ie coded into our genes to implement HR. Some people may flourish better in an HR environment while others would not do as well. Genghis Khan in a modern HR environment would have a difficult time spawning as many children short of becoming a sperm donar.

ICantSpellDawg

06-01-2005, 00:17

Cyrus was attempting to make himself a legitimate king of assyria, agade and sumer by saying all the nice things he did and how he avoided the mean things

i have heard that "human rights" in this case were developed as a novel way to approach ruling a foreign land

rather than strip the people of their gods and livelihoods, it would be better to let them do what they do and appreciate you for not taking advantage

he did as much as he could to inject his line into the legitimate royal branches of mesopotamia

this was a means to that end

Cyrus decided that the old gods would stay, the old palaces etc etc etc

he was comparing himself to nabonidus by showing his own "devotion" to marduk and how benevolent his rule would be

i am interested in how cyrus brain worked, but im not sure if his "Human rights" were anything more than an appeal to allow others to more easily bend to his rule

what were they based on? a new concept? his religious beliefs?
what authority did they actually have beyond his rule?
how often did he adhere to his own tenents?

anyway - this cylinder is an appeal for some sort of rights based on a religious belief

what about without religion? can there logically be any HR?

Pindar

06-01-2005, 03:40

Are you sure that only Christian theology has been the only system to develop HR. It seems quite a sweeping statement.

Since the Cyrus Cylinder predates Christianity by a mere 500 years and is said to be the first example of human rights.

I'm sure a lot of the Christian traditions also can find roots in Greek philosophy. And surely a lot of HR has come from those who have seen flaws in the Christian religion and have struggled to make something more fair.

HR is not the pronouncements of a Persian King establishing his throne. HR is not the writing of a Prophet returned from Mt. Sinai. HR is not a product of the Orient. HR is a subset of natural law. Natural law is a byproduct of the rational tradition which means it is tied to the West. I mentioned earlier there are natural law precursors in Stoic thought: specifically Cicero, but it is not developed. The real fruition of natural law is with St. Thomas. This was not a critique of the 'flaws' of the Christian ethos but rather a study in the metaphysics of jurisprudence.

I said that HR is a meme. I certainly don't think it is inherent ie coded into our genes to implement HR. Some people may flourish better in an HR environment while others would not do as well. Genghis Khan in a modern HR environment would have a difficult time spawning as many children short of becoming a sperm donar.

I see.

bmolsson

06-01-2005, 03:49

Isn't HR just something practical to live by and therefore people like it ?

Papewaio

06-01-2005, 03:50

HR is not the pronouncements of a Persian King establishing his throne. HR is not the writing of a Prophet returned from Mt. Sinai. HR is not a product of the Orient. HR is a subset of natural law. Natural law is a byproduct of the rational tradition which means it is tied to the West. I mentioned earlier there are natural law precursors in Stoic thought: specifically Cicero, but it is not developed. The real fruition of natural law is with St. Thomas. This was not a critique of the 'flaws' of the Christian ethos but rather a study in the metaphysics of jurisprudence.

When I was thinking of
those who have seen flaws in the Christian religion and have struggled to make something more fair.

I was thinking of Voltaire.

ICantSpellDawg

06-01-2005, 04:20

http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm

i didnt really read it

Papewaio

06-01-2005, 04:28

bmolsson

06-01-2005, 04:31

I was thinking of Voltaire.

Did he really know that HR was ? The rolling of heads comes in mind... ~:)

Papewaio

06-01-2005, 04:53

If everyone followed HR would we need judges, law and police?

ICantSpellDawg

06-01-2005, 05:23

Did he really know that HR was ? The rolling of heads comes in mind... ~:)

what does that mean?
voltaire was before the revolution
im not sure what that means

Samurai Waki

06-01-2005, 06:00

No. not really. And I don't believe in Human Rights, simply because Human's were never granted nor given rights by anyone but ourselves. The Human Brain has not evolved passed our relatively new Homo-Sapien Roots, Humans now are no different than the Humans that forged the first tracks across Siberia and into America, or built the Egyptian Pyramids. Civilization is built on the backs of slaves, it is a human trait to want make things better, more grandeur, and to do this, one has to have servants, wether forced or not. It is also in Human Nature to want... to have... to need something that they do not have access to, this is how war is made, because obviously the other side doesn't want to give up what it already has. Jealousy, hatred, and greed have strong roots, and undeniable in our genetic make-up.
I'm looking at this with a realistic view-point, cultures have been bred into believing that woman are inferior, or African-Natives are good athletes, but dumb, petty criminals. Or Jewish people are greedy. This train of thought may have been learnt, but it is also part of our thought process. To prove this, A Person who is accepting of all races and cultures, also hates criminals and people who like and live on war and the suffering of others. The person who steals, or makes war or lives by slave-labour, also is mostly accepting of all races and cultures as well, but hates people that have no motivation, and also hates people that steal from him. Humanity needs to fight for what it wants, wether diplomatically, or by force, and when it has it, it needs more. With the growing and expansionistic nature of humanity, it has no time or need for Human Rights... either join them or die... or be outcasted, or incarcerated. And Until the Day the Human Brain evolves into something else, perhaps a higher intellect, and lower competitivism, Humanity will not change, and time, nor civilization, does not care wether you want basic rights, or not.

Wazikashi(King of Saxony)

Pindar

06-01-2005, 08:57

Isn't HR just something practical to live by and therefore people like it ?

No.

Pindar

06-01-2005, 09:03

When I was thinking of : those who have seen flaws in the Christian religion and have struggled to make something more fair.
I was thinking of Voltaire.

I see. Voltaire is good reading, but he wasn't a system builder. His attacks on Christianity, until his late conversion to Catholicism, aren't usually tied to HR.

Pindar

06-01-2005, 09:17

So is HR a product of man that we impose?

Depends on one's views of HR. If HR is simply a human construct one has to explain the 'ought' that motivates and justifies action as well as provide a schema that avoids solipsistic tendencies. The Thomistic tradition would have HR inextricably tied to the Divine order. This is what gives it force even in the face of government stricture. This is what the Founding Fathers were about when they claimed inalienable rights contra the Monarchy. This is what Martin Luther King was about when he ushered in the Civil Rights movement contra Jim Crow Laws.

If everyone followed HR would we need judges, law and police?

Depends on the parameters of HR. Can good men disagree? If so, then judgments might be needed.

bmolsson

06-01-2005, 10:59

Can good men disagree?

No.

ICantSpellDawg

06-01-2005, 12:58

I see. Voltaire is good reading, but he wasn't a system builder. His attacks on Christianity, until his late conversion to Catholicism, aren't usually tied to HR.

ive never heard of this late conversion to catholicism
interesting though

how did it occur?

Steppe Merc

06-01-2005, 13:14

I'd say that humans themselves created Human Rights. I believe that it is we should always treat each other well, and respect each other always, but I don't think we are magically granted something that makes us more worthwhile than other animals.
I just think it's the right thing to do, as apposed to something that we must do.

what about without religion? can there logically be any HR?
I'd say so... I think it is more based on a morality, than perhaps relgion, even though religon does influence morality for many people and societies.

ICantSpellDawg

06-01-2005, 13:37

im just saying that, if there is no judge and morality is created by man
what is the incentive to adhere to it

how can something be "wrong" if it is beneficial to me and there is no superlative judgement of my actions?

is it just because of society? why is that all that important?
what if social unity isnt too important to me and serves only to deter my basic will? in that case, wouldnt morality only be a hindrance to me?

also, if there is no identifiable truth, why should we take any laws seriously?
if they were created by man and existed before i agreed with them - how can they have authority over me?
since laws are all created by people, what gives one group of people the right to enshrine laws over later generations?

to those who belive that morals are secular, i jut think it doesnt make much sense.

Meneldil

06-01-2005, 14:27

I see. Voltaire is good reading, but he wasn't a system builder. His attacks on Christianity, until his late conversion to Catholicism, aren't usually tied to HR.

Voltaire's attacks on Christianity were rather aimed at the feudal system created by the Catholic church (he did believe in a Supreme Being, but not in the way the Church wanted people to do).
He has always been a catholic, I don't really understand what you mean by 'late conversion' ?

Pindar

06-01-2005, 18:51

He has always been a catholic, I don't really understand what you mean by 'late conversion' ?

Maybe not the best us of terms on my part. I was thinking of conversion as in the Latin: convertere meaning to 'turn around' not as in a formal rite. Voltaire had most certainly received that sacrament as a baby. Perhaps, reapprochement would be a better, more precise term.

ive never heard of this late conversion to catholicism
interesting though

how did it occur?

Poor use of words on my part. Late in life Voltaire seems to have turned to a piety that may have warmed the hearts of his Jesuit teachers from his youth.

Pindar

06-01-2005, 19:01

No. not really. And I don't believe in Human Rights, simply because Human's were never granted nor given rights by anyone but ourselves.

If HR are something to be granted by men then they most certainly can be withheld by the same. Thus, the claims of the Jew being led naked to the slaughter, who cries for some recognition in the dignity and the sanctity of life can be rightly dismissed and pushed further along in the line. Persona non grata have no standing.

Pindar

06-01-2005, 19:28

I'd say that humans themselves created Human Rights. I believe that it is we should always treat each other well, and respect each other always, but I don't think we are magically granted something that makes us more worthwhile than other animals.

Man and the mosquito have the same standing?

I just think it's the right thing to do, as apposed to something that we must do.

How do you distinguish right from must? If a moral judgment claims some X is 'right' does that not suggest a compelling interest?

Steppe Merc

06-01-2005, 21:28

Man and the mosquito have the same standing?
No. I believe it is worse to kill a human than an animal. But animals are in my mind precious as well, and must be treated with respect, and when they are killed, done so with as little pain as possible, and then used properly, not just killed and dumped on the side of the road (mainly talking about mammals, fish, reptiles, and birds, not as much insects here). They aren't equal, but should also be treated with respect.

How do you distinguish right from must? If a moral judgment claims some X is 'right' does that not suggest a compelling interest?
I don't know. This I believe is similar to Tuffy's question about how it could be secular. I honestly don't know, but I don't believe that humans were granted something by God or another higher being that makes them superior, and granted them these rights.
It is the right thing to do to follow these rights, but... Well I can't really explain myself. :bow:

Papewaio

06-01-2005, 23:31

If HR are something to be granted by men then they most certainly can be withheld by the same. Thus, the claims of the Jew being led naked to the slaughter, who cries for some recognition in the dignity and the sanctity of life can be rightly dismissed and pushed further along in the line. Persona non grata have no standing.

Which also proves that HR is made by man as no higher power stepped in and said 'You can't do that as he as Human Rights which are inalienable therefore you must obey them.'

Papewaio

06-01-2005, 23:41

I see. Voltaire is good reading, but he wasn't a system builder. His attacks on Christianity, until his late conversion to Catholicism, aren't usually tied to HR.

The Declaration of Independence was a step forward for governments declaring HR.

The Declaration of Independence was heavily influenced by Enlightenment philosophers. Of which Voltaire is one of the noted ones.

Pindar

06-02-2005, 02:04

Which also proves that HR is made by man as no higher power stepped in and said 'You can't do that as he as Human Rights which are inalienable therefore you must obey them.'

This is not correct. If one looks to the larger religious tradition that produced natural law and HR there is a clear theological standard. This standard revolves around free will. Free will necessarily includes the capacity to choose both good and evil and experience the consequences. Such is central to notions of justice and salvation. If there were a Divine Agent that prevented all evils acts, the bare notion of having free will would be frustrated.

I see. Voltaire is good reading, but he wasn't a system builder. His attacks on Christianity, until his late conversion to Catholicism, aren't usually tied to HR.

The Declaration of Independence was a step forward for governments declaring HR.

The Declaration of Independence was heavily influenced by Enlightenment philosophers. Of which Voltaire is one of the noted ones.

I agree The Declaration of Independence was a step forward and was influenced by Enlightenment thought. Important to this development were thinkers like Hobbes, Montesquieu, Rousseau and most importantly Locke. Voltaire was not a major contributor.

Papewaio

06-02-2005, 02:16

I agree The Declaration of Independence was a step forward and was influenced by Enlightenment thought. Important to this development were thinkers like Hobbes, Montesquieu, Rousseau and most importantly Locke. Voltaire was not a major contributor.

Are you stating that Voltaire was not a major contributor to the Enlightenment thought?

And that the rest of the 'members' of that age of enlightenment were pro-church?

Pindar

06-02-2005, 02:20

Are you stating that Voltaire was not a major contributor to the Enlightenment thought?

No. In many ways Voltaire embodies the Enlightenment. I'm saying Voltaire was not a major contributor to the natural law tradition that developed into the Declaration of Independence.

Papewaio

06-02-2005, 02:24

This is not correct. If one looks to the larger religious tradition that produced natural law and HR there is a clear theological standard. This standard revolves around free will. Free will necessarily includes the capacity to choose both good and evil and experience the consequences. Such is central to notions of justice and salvation. If there were a Divine Agent that prevented all evils acts, the bare notion of having free will would be frustrated.

It still comes back to Human Rights being there by choice and created by man. If we choose to ignore human rights nothing makes them happen. It is only by enforcing them that they exist.

Pindar

06-02-2005, 02:26

And that the rest of the 'members' of that age of enlightenment were pro-church?

Being pro or anti a church isn't relevant to the discussion of HR. The major strains of thinking: whether it be Catholic, Protestant or a Deist variant all followed the notion of an ordered universe. This order included a moral aspect.

Papewaio

06-02-2005, 02:31

Confucius teachings follow a similar pattern of ordered universe and moral teachings...

I just find it interesting that as more people turned from the strictor forms of the churches that HR became more talked about.

There definitly is a link between the rise of knowledge and the rise of human rights.

Pindar

06-02-2005, 02:32

It still comes back to Human Rights being there by choice and created by man. If we choose to ignore human rights nothing makes them happen. It is only by enforcing them that they exist.

No, this is wrong also. Enforcement or its lack does not equal existence. When King made appeal to HR contra the Jim Crow laws of the Sourthern U.S. States, the lack of appropriate legal dicta in the region or any enforcement did not impact the force of his argument.

Pindar

06-02-2005, 02:45

Confucius teachings follow a similar pattern of ordered universe and moral teachings...

Confucianism does appeal to an ordered universe. It does not have an HR tradition.

I just find it interesting that as more people turned from the strictor forms of the churches that HR became more talked about.

The rise of HR is tied to politics or more specifically jurisprudence not sacramental dogma. Discussion of natural law and attendant rights can be found during the height of Scholasticism. That tradition did not die, but found different expression as justification for rebellion came to the fore. Recall Hobbes and Locke are the Era of Monarch decapitation and civil war in England.

Papewaio

06-02-2005, 03:13

Maybe the key link is in rebellion... the rebels have to justify the cause so they use HR as the reason for the war... hmm WWII, Afghanistan, Iraq all fit the bill too...

Papewaio

06-02-2005, 03:16

Confucius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius)

Ethics
The Confucian theory of ethics is based on three important concepts:

While Confucius grew up, lǐ (礼 [禮]) referred to three aspects of life, that of sacrificing to the gods, social and political institutions, and daily behavior. It was believed that lǐ originated from the heavens. Confucius redefined lǐ, arguing that it flowed not from heaven but from humanity. He redefined lǐ to refer to all actions committed by a person to build the ideal society. Lǐ to Confucius became every action by a person aiming at meeting the person's surface desires. These can be either good or bad. Generally attempts to obtain short term pleasure are bad while those that in the long term try to make your life better are generally good.

To Confucius, yì (义 [義]) was the origin of lǐ. Yì can best be translated as righteousness. While doing things because of lǐ, your own self-interest, was not necessarily bad, you would be a better, more righteous person if you base your life upon following yì. This means that rather than pursuing your own selfish interests you should do what is right and what is moral. Yì is based upon reciprocity. An example of living by yì is how you must mourn your father and mother for three years after their death. Since they took care of you for the first three years of your life you must reciprocate by living in mourning for three years.

Just as lǐ flows out of yì, so yì flows out of rén (仁). Ren can best be translated as human heartedness. His moral system was based upon empathy and understanding others, rather than divinely ordained rules. To live by rén was even better than living by the rules of yì. To live by rén one used another Confucian version of the Golden Rule: he argued that you must always treat your inferiors just as you would want your superiors to treat you. Virtue under Confucius is based upon harmony with others, very different from the Aristotelian view of virtue being personal excellence.

An early version of the Golden Rule: “What one does not wish for oneself, one ought not to do to any one else; what one recognizes as desirable for oneself, one ought to be willing to grant to others.” (Confucius and Confucianism, Richard Wilhelm)

I think I do more reading for these talks with you then I did for my degree.

Thanks for that. ~:cheers:

Pindar

06-02-2005, 09:36

Maybe the key link is in rebellion... the rebels have to justify the cause so they use HR as the reason for the war... hmm WWII, Afghanistan, Iraq all fit the bill too...

Rebellion is a key component in the formulation, but it is not simply an after the fact affair. Enlightenment thinkers understood such was a breach of faith. How does one do that and stay in good standing? Recall, this is before the rise of moral minimalism. Metaphysical poets like John Donne's No man is an Island illustrate the point:

No man is an island, entire of itself
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main
if a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were
any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls
it tolls for thee.

The root 'just' of justification is central. If one's actions were not in accord with the just then what pain and suffering may result would reflect back on the source to utter ruin. Rebellion is no small affair and any system that is to give it place must apply rigor to virtue to produce right judgment and a sound position. HR is the product of this endeavor.

As far as other wars go: I don't know about WWII, but WWI, Afghanistan and Iraq have certain similarities. Wilsonian rhetoric has ties to the HR tradition and Bush also makes reference to it.