Do you believe in HR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeonGod

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

I don't know what this means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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?

Quote:

---

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

---

I don't know what this means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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 ~;) ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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?

Quote:

---

Be upgradeable.

---

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yunus Dogus

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Are you making a truth claim?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Are you denying the existence of morality?

---

Are you proving it exists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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

Quote:

---

those who have seen flaws in the Christian religion and have struggled to make something more fair.

---

I was thinking of Voltaire.

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

i didnt really read it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

---

So is HR a product of man that we impose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I was thinking of Voltaire.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

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

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

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

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Can good men disagree?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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?

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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' ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wazikashi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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...

Confucius

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Confucius

---

We can go into Confucianism if you like. I can break down the etymologies for Jen (ren in the noted article) and what not. As I said, there is no HR tradition in Confucian thought so it will take us a bit a field from this topic.

Quote:

---

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

Thanks for that. ~:cheers:

---

:bow: