Do you believe in HR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

---

Because of the Devil. :devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Because of the Devil. :devil:

---

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

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"

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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

---

And your definition of political:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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: ]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I'm not really arguing anything.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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

---

Do you believe trees exist? ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

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