What would atheists term as rights?
I am referring to rights without a qualifier e.g. not legal rights, but simply rights.
When a person says gay people have the right to have sex, what is meant by "right"?
Christians think of rights as an "objective" right, which is a list of approved actions as interpreted from their scripture or taught from their church.
If I am in discussion with Christians and I try to explain my stance, I find myself having to tailor my language so that at least we can have a discussion. Although I don't believe the term "rights" without a qualifier has any meaning, when I talk to Christians I find myself saying that everything is a right and that rules (e.g. law) is used to restrict the rights (or actions) that we can perform and that a government does not bestow rights, but merely restricts and infringes rights. That some rights (e.g. murder, rape etc) need to be restricted in order to produce a functional society.
My view is that government should refrain from infringing rights if it is not necessary to provide a functioning society, in this way government should be minimalist. e.g. restricting gay sex is not necessary for a functioning society hence restricting this right is unnecessary.
What do you all think?
A right is the freedom to express free-will, unless it conflicts with another persons' claim to the same.
Laws exists to govern the conflicts.
Seems to me that we are born with no natural rights whatever.
QuoteWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Well, if we believed in a creator, maybe that might be so. But most of us here do not.
Rights, for me, are granted by law and custom. I know I have a right to walk the footpaths near my village, because the right is laid down by national law and the local paths are formally defined on a map that sits in County Hall. But 'natural' rights? I simply don't understand what they are.
Quote from: Stevil on December 09, 2011, 06:58:22 AM
What would atheists term as rights?
I am referring to rights without a qualifier e.g. not legal rights, but simply rights.
When a person says gay people have the right to have sex, what is meant by "right"?
Rights are defined by the rules of whatever game is being played. In chess, for example, when it's my turn, I have the right to move one of my pieces, as the rules say that piece can move, to a space none of my other pieces occupy. In business, if I'm operating under contract, I have the right to do what the contract says I can do, or doesn't say I can't, so long as the law of the land says I can do it, or doesn't say I can't.
When Christians talk about sex and who has the right to engage in it, they're assuming "the game of heaven and hell" is in play, and in that game, the rules says a married man and woman can have sex, nobody else can. If no such game is in play, then no such rules apply.
If atheists, agnostics, or apatheists want to talk about a right to have sex, they will first have to name the game being played, and then reference its rules. We can't know in advance what game they will name, because part of the essence of all three perspectives is the refusal to sit down at a game board merely because some authority, book, or group consensus insists, barring a gun to the head, and sometimes barring not even that, if the game is odious enough or the dignity or stubbornness stern enough.
I'm an apatheist. So what game, then, will I name, as the context for sex? Well, for me, the game that provides context for all of life is logical consistency. Since I apparently would claim that I submit only to a gun to the head, unless dignity or stubbornness preclude even that, it would be logically consistent for me to name some game where the rules preserve survival, dignity, and free will. I will call this, "the game of ego." In
the game of ego, I have the right to do anything that doesn't conflict with my own*, or someone else's, survival, dignity, or free will. I like this game because if everyone plays it, they get to keep three things I'm happy to let them have, and I get to keep those same three things, for any of which I would sacrifice much. It all works.
In
the game of ego, two men or two women can have sex without any threat to either one's survival, dignity, or free will, so they have the right to have sex.
*Yes, in
the game of ego, it's against the rules for me to kill myself, or allow myself to be humiliated or controlled unless the only other option is death. Not all apatheists, or atheists or agnostics for that matter, will want to play this game. Some of them may want to preserve their right to kill themselves, or their right to engage in activities that entail their own humiliation or surrender of control. That's fine. They don't have to play my game. They can find or create one of their own and play that one instead. That's a large part of why we're apatheists, atheists or agnostics in the first place.
(Edit: added note at the bottom, marked by an asterisk.)
Nowadays they have that right, because the law says they have. Previously the law made it criminal, so they didn't have the right and could be prosecuted for gay sex.
I think much the same thing as you Stevil. Society / government dictates what's legal and illegal, and I personally would like those laws kept to a minimum. Laws against rape or murder seem sensible and necessary, laws against homosexual sex or the use of certain narcotics don't IMO.
I don't really like to talk about rights full stop, as I think those rights are granted by society / government. I don't think we have any natural rights to anything, we have the ability to do lots of things, and those options are either allowed or proscribed by government / society.
Quote from: OldGit on December 09, 2011, 10:54:49 AM
Nowadays they have that right, because the law says they have. Previously the law made it criminal, so they didn't have the right and could be prosecuted for gay sex.
True, the law of the land is a game overlaying all that we do, and within that context, rights or the absence of rights can be identified.
Yet even what the law of the land permits may be prohibited by some other game that is simultaneously being played. For example, the law of the land won't punish me if, while playing chess, I palm my opponent's queen when my opponent looks away. But the rules of chess will declare me a cheater.
It is common for us to be playing multiple games at once.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 09, 2011, 10:45:43 AM
Rights are defined by the rules of whatever game is being played.
So what game, then, will I name, as the context for sex?
the game that provides context for all of life is logical consistency.
I will call this, "the game of ego." In the game of ego, I have the right to do anything that doesn't conflict with my own, or someone else's, survival, dignity, or free will.
Let me challenge you on the concept of rights being defined by rules.
Do rules invent moves/actions/options for you, or do they restrict?
If you are playing a game of chess, one that has no rules, does that mean that you cannot move any of your chess pieces as you have not been given any rules as to how and when they can move?
I feel without rules, you could move them anywhere at anytime, basically you could do anything that you desire as long as it is physically possible and you are able. Introducing rules restricts your options it does not increase your options.
The rules provided by government restrict our actions, they do not increase our actions.
If we think of all possible actions as our "rights" then we have the right to do anything including murder each other.
When a government implements rules against murder then they infringe on our right to murder, but of course this is necessary to provide a functioning society.
If there is a law against gay sex, this does not mean that we have no right to perform gay sex, it means that government is infringing on our rights to perform gay sex. I feel a government would need to provide justification for infringing on this right.
In discussion with Christians they feel that government should not introduce the right to perform gay sex as they feel it is not an objective right. That we have no rights unless god grants them to us first.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on December 09, 2011, 09:41:35 AM
A right is the freedom to express free-will, unless it conflicts with another persons' claim to the same.
Laws exists to govern the conflicts.
My challenge to this statement.
This seems somewhat to lead towards an objective "morality" of "rights"
That if defining a right in the way that you do, people could come to an objective agreement on what is a right and what is not.
But working out the conflict and the impact and the priority would most likely introduce subjective elements.
But are there really rights? objective rights? Or are we simply able to do what is physically possible and that we are able to do?
Defining rights as you have above, seems somewhat arbitrary to me, why this definition, how did you come up with it?
I feel what you have defined might be a good platform for a government to use when defining law but it is not really defining a universal right.
Universally we can do what ever we please (given our physical constraints), but socially we require rules to function.
So rights really don't exist, not by my reckoning. Not as a concept. But in discussion with people that say certain people have no right to perform a specific action, how can we debate this without defining "right" to include all actions that we are physically able to perform? If we say that we have no rights then that makes them correct that these certain people have no right to perform a specific action.
Quote from: Stevil on December 09, 2011, 11:32:53 AM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on December 09, 2011, 09:41:35 AM
A right is the freedom to express free-will, unless it conflicts with another persons' claim to the same.
Laws exists to govern the conflicts.
My challenge to this statement.
This seems somewhat to lead towards an objective "morality" of "rights"
That if defining a right in the way that you do, people could come to an objective agreement on what is a right and what is not.
But working out the conflict and the impact and the priority would most likely introduce subjective elements.
But are there really rights? objective rights? Or are we simply able to do what is physically possible and that we are able to do?
Defining rights as you have above, seems somewhat arbitrary to me, why this definition, how did you come up with it?
I feel what you have defined might be a good platform for a government to use when defining law but it is not really defining a universal right.
Universally we can do what ever we please (given our physical constraints), but socially we require rules to function.
So rights really don't exist, not by my reckoning. Not as a concept. But in discussion with people that say certain people have no right to perform a specific action, how can we debate this without defining "right" to include all actions that we are physically able to perform? If we say that we have no rights then that makes them correct that these certain people have no right to perform a specific action.
I
do define a 'right' as to include all actions that we are physically able to perform, unless it conflicts with another persons' claim to the same.
There is nothing arbitrary about defining my rights against this backdrop of perfect freedom (which ultimately we should all have, governmental or personal oppression notwithstanding). I totally disagree with OG - I was born with infinite rights (subject to the qualification of conflict of rights) and it is absurd to call this arbitrary. This is a fundamentally anarchistic view that I am at odds to argue against.
I am a free person - an animal with no natural master and no natural slaves. If we are to assume there is no overall giver of rights (God), I am at liberty to do as I please (given our physical constraints - as you say). Any social compromises I make (and there are many) are of my own free-will for a peaceful life. I have not relinquished my rights, but have accepted a socially acceptible modus operandi in the interests of peace and harmony. And I value peace and harmony.
Laws should be simply used to try to fairly govern the conflicts.
Quote from: OldGit on December 09, 2011, 09:52:28 AM
Seems to me that we are born with no natural rights whatever.
QuoteWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Well, if we believed in a creator, maybe that might be so. But most of us here do not.
Rights, for me, are granted by law and custom. I know I have a right to walk the footpaths near my village, because the right is laid down by national law and the local paths are formally defined on a map that sits in County Hall. But 'natural' rights? I simply don't understand what they are.
Do you not have a right to paint your bottom blue if you so choose? By your logic, as there is no specific law (to my knowledge) then the right does not exist.
Quote from: Stevil on December 09, 2011, 11:32:53 AM
But are there really rights? objective rights? Or are we simply able to do what is physically possible and that we are able to do?
Defining rights as you have above, seems somewhat arbitrary to me, why this definition, how did you come up with it?
I feel what you have defined might be a good platform for a government to use when defining law but it is not really defining a universal right.
Universally we can do what ever we please (given our physical constraints), but socially we require rules to function.
So rights really don't exist, not by my reckoning. Not as a concept. But in discussion with people that say certain people have no right to perform a specific action, how can we debate this without defining "right" to include all actions that we are physically able to perform? If we say that we have no rights then that makes them correct that these certain people have no right to perform a specific action.
I agree that rights don't actually exist, they are what government / society decides that it is legally permissble for us to do. But I also think, like you, that actions should only be made illegal or socially unnacceptable if they are clearly detrimental to the well being of society.
I can see your dilemma, but I don't think that saying we have no objective rights supports people trying to constrain others lives just because they don't like certain things (like say Christians and homosexuality). By the same logic, I think those same homophobic Christians also have no objective rights to be heterosexual or abstinent or anything else.
If we accept there are no objective rights, I think we are then in a position to try and make our own laws and decide what we allow and prohibit as a society. Hopefully we can do this using common sense and intelligence and just prohibit those actions we deem antisocial and/or dangerous, rather than doing so based on a book written by fairly backward goatherders a few thousand years ago who also though the Earth was flat.
Plus, I think we all know that Christians make an individual personal choice on which laws of the Bible they follow and which they choose to ignore. I suspect that those who use the Bible to argue against homosexuality are inherently homophobic people using a book to try and justify their own small-minded views.
Quote from: Stevil on December 09, 2011, 11:23:30 AM
Let me challenge you on the concept of rights being defined by rules.
Go for it. By the rules of this forum you have the right to challenge me. ;)
Quote from: Stevil on December 09, 2011, 11:23:30 AM
Do rules invent moves/actions/options for you, or do they restrict?
Rules restrict options. They also do something else. They provide structure to the process, which is what a game is, a process by which competitors test themselves and their luck against one another and one another's luck. Take away all rules, and if you are to have a game at all, something else will have to provide the structure. So now I'll introduce another concept, the facts of life. Put two assassins out in the jungle and tell them whoever kills the other wins a million dollars, no referee, no impartial observer, no rules. The process will nevertheless have structure, provided by the facts of life. Deny a human air and it dies. Puncture its heart and it dies. These are facts of life and they will structure the process whereby the assassins contend with one another.
Notice also that I put the assassins in the jungle. I did that to eliminate any need to worry about the law of the land. If I had put them in a city instead, the law of the land would have interposed itself on the proceedings, such that, two games would have been simultaneously under way, the game of trying to kill one's opponent, and the game of trying to elude the city's lawkeepers. Interestingly, even the second game, that of eluding the city's lawkeepers, would have been governed (structured) primarily by the facts of life, rather than rules, unless and until one or both assassins got caught. While the perpetrators are still at large, running free, there would only be the facts of life to really worry about, such as, lawkeepers can call in reinforcements, and lawkeepers can shoot guns in public without having other lawkeepers shoot at them in turn, whereas, in this scenario, the assassins cannot call in reinforcements, and the assassins cannot shoot guns in public without having lawkeepers shoot at them in turn. If one or both assassins is caught, then rules will come into play; I.e, every law that was broken will constitute a justification for arrest, confinement, prosecution, and possible conviction with whatever sentence goes along with the verdict.
Even in games that have relevant rules during play, the facts of life add structure. In a game of one-on-one basketball, the taller player can always block the shorter player's shot if the shorter player is planted on the ground, whereas the shorter player sometimes won't be able to block the taller player's shot, even if the taller player is planted on the ground. These are facts of life and they, along with rules, provide structure to the process by which the two basketball players test themselves and their luck against one another and one another's luck.
In the absolute sense of your original question, facts of life, like rules, restrict options. I can't kill my opponent by taking a walk on the beach, or listening to my iPod, or composing a poem, or any of a thousand other activities I might name. Only a very narrow range of actions will kill my opponent. Cut, bludgeon, poison, suffocate. The facts of life restrict options.
In any game, what the rules permit are my rights, and what the facts of life permit are my realistic opportunities. The absence of any rules means all is permitted, hence my rights are open-ended. Now this can get tricky. I said the game of eluding the city's lawkeepers had no rules unless and until one or both assassins got caught. While the perpetrators are still at large, running free, I would say their rights are open-ended, they are utterly at liberty. Once caught, they will be arrested, confined, and prosecuted in accordance with rules, and during these proceedings they will have certain rights, but fewer rights than someone who hasn't been arrested. If convicted, they will have even fewer rights yet, presumably. Many people will disagree with what I'm saying here. Probably they will do so on the basis of an assumption, namely, that some games aren't optional. For example, they may argue the game of avoiding criminality isn't optional. I say it is. (My hypothetical assassins presumably agree with me.) I say every game is optional. I stand for a radical degree of human freedom. No game constrains me unless I choose to play it. The game of avoiding criminality is no different from chess, which is no different from basketball, which is no different from a duel of assassins, which is no different from the Christian's game of heaven and hell. Every game is optional. Any game I'm not playing has no power to structure my destiny. But any game I am in fact playing has the power to structure my destiny both with rules and with facts of life, as these define my rights and my realistic opportunities.
Now the Christian's game of heaven and hell is, to the apatheist, the same as the game of avoiding criminality to the dueling assassin. The apatheist declines to play the heaven and hell game, even as the dueling assassin declines to play the criminality avoidance game. The dueling assassin who is active in a city chooses to play the game of eluding the city's lawkeepers, a game that only has relevant rules if and when a player gets caught. Likewise, the apatheist chooses to play the game of ignoring Judgment Day, a game that only has relevant rules if and when a player gets caught, which can only happen if (a) there is an afterlife; (b) there is a disembodied being powerful enough to impose its will on the ghosts of the dead; and (c) the disembodied being is inclined to pass judgment on a ghost's newly ended life. Thus the game of ignoring Judgment Day is a kind of wager, like betting on a horse race, and that wager's outcome will be governed (structured) by the facts of life, such as, whether some, all or none of (a), (b), and (c) turn out to be reality rather than myth. If they all turn out to be reality, then rules will kick in, whatever rules the disembodied super-being decides to bring to bear in judgment. If only (a) and (b), or only (a), turn out to be reality, then any rules that kick in will presumably be rules for governing the afterlife, rather than rules for judging the life on earth. If none turn out to be reality, then no rules will kick in, as there won't be a player for the game.
I'll stop there and see what you think, Stevil.
^
That's lovely, PC, but is this thread about 'rights' or 'rules'?
Quote from: ScissorlegsDo you not have a right to paint your bottom blue if you so choose? By your logic, as there is no specific law (to my knowledge) then the right does not exist.
True. I suppose the point is that our common law allows us to do anything not forbidden.
The question of rights is very similar to the question of morals. From a purely naturalistic/rationalistic standpoint, I do not think that it is possible to determine objective morality, nor do I think it is possible to determine objective, universal rights. Both end up being what we agree on, as individuals and as a society, through government or culture. If, on the other hand, one begins with some religious system, such as Christianity or Islam, then all rights and morals flow deductively from the premises laid down in that system. But without some agreed upon authoritative source such as religion, there is no way to determine either objective morality or objective rights, and we make up whatever rules suit us.
Actually this is probably also true with religion, as we would have to agree upon the religion in order for the rules of that faith to apply, and there is no universal agreement. Sharia law means nothing to a Christian, just as Jesus' "New Commandment" means nothing to a Muslim.
Some very good discussion here so far! Going back to the OP, as an infidel I obviously do not avail myself of the concept of "god-given" rights. However, I find the concept of "natural rights" relatively easy to accept. James A. Donald has written what I consider to be an excellent essay on the concepts of "natural law and natural rights," which uses the idea of "evolutionary stable strategy" to argue that "natural rights" do exist in a more or less objective sense. I think that Donald puts forward some very important ideas regarding the existence of natural rights, and also explains why the concept of natural rights is indispensable in the effort to combat creeping authoritarianism. I don't agree with everything that Donald says, but I do think that he makes a respectable case for the existence of natural rights.
If we say that the state is the entity that defines rights and gives them to the people, and that rights do not exist except as defined and given by the state, then we ignore the fact that people consider themselves to have rights which may not be defined by the state. And in fact, it appears that at least in some cases, the state itself can be seen to recognize rights which are inherent to people. This doesn't occur without some contention, of course. The specific example that I'm thinking of would be the right to privacy which has served as the basis for rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States such as
Roe v Wade. There is no right to privacy enumerated by the Constitution of the United States; did the Supreme Court create that right with their judgment, or did they merely acknowledge its existence? According the Constitution of the US, they were acknowledging its existence, per the 9th Amendment.
Donald considers the concepts of natural rights and natural laws to be essential for the protection of freedom in the context of modern societies:
QuoteFrom "Natural Law and Natural Rights" by James A Donald (http://jim.com/rights.html):
Those of us who seek to protect and restore freedom must avoid using the words our enemies seek to impose on us. The only way to escape from this trap is to use the language of natural law, the language with which a free society was envisioned and created, the words for which so many people killed and died. If we submit to using words that prevent us from expressing the thought of limits to government power and authority, then there will be no limits to government power and authority.
Words carry with them systems of ideas. The only system of ideas capable of repudiating limitless and absolute state power is natural law. It is impossible to speak about limits to the power and authority of the state except in the language with which such ideas were originally expressed. No other language is available.
If someone rejects the language of natural law, refuses to use such words, pretends not to comprehend them, and rejects them as meaningless, then he is not interested in using words as a medium of communication. He is merely using them as a method of control. It is pointless to attempt to communicate with such a person.
I think that he goes too far in the last paragraph above. People can disagree about the existence of natural law, and therefore reject the language of natural law, without necessarily being uninterested in using words as a medium of communication.
QuoteIbid (http://jim.com/rights.html):
The real issue is not "what is the nature of good" as utilitarians pretend. The real issue is: Are rights a discovery by individuals that enable them to get along peaceably with other individuals, or are they a creation of a supreme being such as a reified society or reified state, that imposes peace on a vicious multitude with no inherent knowledge of good and evil, thus forcing on them the peace that slaves of a common master possess.
Today instead of frankly arguing that human rights are nonsense, as Bentham did, modern utilitarians use elaborate euphemisms, such as "positive rights" and "positive freedom". No two people seem to mean the same thing when they make distinction between positive and negative rights and liberties, and their meanings seem to change rapidly from one paragraph to the next. The effect of this supposed distinction is always to destroy the meaning of "liberty" and "right", and usually to legitimize as slavery as liberty. This supposed concept is mere fog.
Of course, one of the first things that Donald said in the paper is that he uses the term "natural law" loosely, and with shifting definitions, so in a way he's no better than those he criticizes here.
I think that in the following section, Donald gives a very reasonable picture of the development of natural rights and natural law. Really, I think that he bases most of his argument on the concept of "rightful opposition," and that on the approach of a "reasonable man." These admittedly are vague concepts, and maybe I'm willing to forgive that because I agree with much of what he says. *shrugs*
QuoteIbid (http://jim.com/rights.html):
Throughout most of our evolution, men have been in a state of nature, that is to say. without government, hierarchically organized religion, or an orderly and widely accepted means of resolving disputes. For the past four or five million years the capacity to discern evil lurking in the hearts of men has been an even more crucial survival capability than the capacity to discern tigers lurking in shadows.
The primary purpose of this capability was to guide us in who we should associate with, (so as to avoid having our throats cut in our sleep), who we should make alliance with (to avoid betrayal), who we should trade with, (to avoid being cheated), who we should avoid, who we should drive away, and who, to make ourselves safe, we should kill.
It would frequently happen that one man would, for some reason good or bad, use violence against another. When this happened those knowing of this event needed to decide whether it indicated that the person using force was brave and honorable, hence a potentially valuable ally, or foolish and eager for trouble, hence someone to be avoided, or a dangerous criminal, hence someone to be driven out or eliminated at the first safe opportunity to do so. Such decisions had to be made from time to time, and making them wrongly could be fatal, and often was fatal.
A secondary purpose of this capability was to guide us in our own conduct, to so conduct ourselves that others would be willing to associate with us, ally with us, do deals with us, and would refrain from driving us away or killing us.
Not all things that are evil, or contrary to nature, are violations of natural law. Violations of natural law are those evils that may rightly be opposed by force, by individual unorganized violence.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on December 09, 2011, 04:08:30 PM
That's lovely, PC, but is this thread about 'rights' or 'rules'?
The two concepts are inseparable. My rights within the game are whatever the rules of the game permit me to do. If there aren't any rules, then my rights within the game are open-ended. As soon as the game has even one rule, my rights have been narrowed. If the rule is, don't defecate on the rug, then I don't have the right to defecate on the rug. Absent any other rules, I have the right to read a book while hopping on one foot, or to drive my car while humming a tune, or to perform any other action realistically available to me - but I don't have the right to defecate on the rug, unless I take myself out of the game.
Quote from: Recusant on December 09, 2011, 07:47:07 PM
Donald considers the concepts of natural rights and natural laws to be essential for the protection of freedom in the context of modern societies:
Recusant, I wasn't able to pick out, in what you shared, an argument for the existence of natural rights. The argument (which I may be failing to grasp) seems to me to be, "We have to claim the existence of natural rights or else cede absolute power to government; therefore, natural rights exist." I must be missing something.
I would say, instead, that if we don't want to cede absolute power to government, then let's not. Let's simply refuse to do so. It doesn't seem to me to be a question of logic or fact, but rather, a question of desire and action. Let's refuse to play the totalitarian game. Why play a game we don't like? The only reason I ever would, is if I had a gun to my head. Even then, dignity and/or stubbornness might compel me to rebel, despite the likelihood of a bullet in the brain.
Yes, I didn't do a very good job of presenting his argument, but then again, that really wasn't my intention. His paper is fairly long, and maybe his argument isn't all that strong to begin with, but I find it compelling. Again, this may only be because I sympathize with it. ::)
I personally take the same sort of position in regard to natural rights and natural law as I do in regard to morality. I don't think that the inherited tendencies toward moral behavior that humans exhibit constitute an actual morality, but I do think that those tendencies serve as the basis for human morality as developed by any human society. In the same way, we have inherited a tendency to assert and endeavor to protect the freedom to act on our own volition, to protect the means of survival from the depredations of others, to protect those close to us, etc. This tendency forms the basis for what can be called natural rights. I don't know whether it can be conclusively argued that natural rights stemming from this tendency exist in any objective sense, but I don't think that a case can be made that the tendency itself doesn't exist. Donald makes the point that to live as a social species, as opposed to a eusocial species, there must be both some form of morality and some form of rights. Thus the basis for natural rights is our nature as a social species.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 09, 2011, 10:06:49 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on December 09, 2011, 04:08:30 PM
That's lovely, PC, but is this thread about 'rights' or 'rules'?
The two concepts are inseparable. My rights within the game are whatever the rules of the game permit me to do. If there aren't any rules, then my rights within the game are open-ended. As soon as the game has even one rule, my rights have been narrowed. If the rule is, don't defecate on the rug, then I don't have the right to defecate on the rug. Absent any other rules, I have the right to read a book while hopping on one foot, or to drive my car while humming a tune, or to perform any other action realistically available to me - but I don't have the right to defecate on the rug, unless I take myself out of the game.
But by saying that you are deferring your rights to external authority which is unacceptable if the external authority is corrupt. And it is MY decision as to who I consider corrupt.
If a stranger stopped you in the street and said "You can't walk on this side of the road, those are my rules", does that then mean you have no right to walk on that side of the road? No, because it was an external 'authority' imposing his rules on you. His rules bear no relation to your rights.
It apparently depends on who imposes the rules as to whether or not rights are seen to be infringed. A 'Law' is seen as a 'rights determiner' because we can all see the value in most laws. Whereas a school bully, who might limit ones actions to the same degree is taken to be just trampling over a victims' rights.
You have argued that we have 'no right' to break the law - I disagree. If I am breaking the law while acting of my own free-will, AND I am not infringeing anyone elses rights, then I will not be made to feel I am doing something wrong. Laws are often not MY rules. I do, however, have a social conscience and choose to limit my law-breaking because I can see the benefit of some laws.
I'm surprised Davin hasn't chipped in to this thread - he's always a feisty proponent of anti-authoritarian ideals.
I don't like the natural law or intrinsic rights idea, I think it is an idea which isn't worth the convoluted effort of maintaining it.
I don't give much weight to "noble savavage" or "pastroral ideal" concepts either.
Old, new, derived or novel, my values are mine and they'll determine if I refrain from acting against you.
I'm a modern human I'll argue for laws that benefit me, others will do the same.
I have doubts about this freedom thing too.
It might be OK if humans lived in isolation but they don't.
Virtually everything you do effects me, what you eat, how you cook it, what you drive, how you drive, what you imbibe before you drive, where you park.
Sometimes the cry of freedom is noble, other times it seems a peevish reaction to reasonable restriction.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 10, 2011, 02:08:16 AM
I don't like the natural law or intrinsic rights idea, I think it is an idea which isn't worth the convoluted effort of maintaining it.
I don't give much weight to "noble savavage" or "pastroral ideal" concepts either.
Old, new, derived or novel, my values are mine and they'll determine if I refrain from acting against you.
I'm a modern human I'll argue for laws that benefit me, others will do the same.
I have doubts about this freedom thing too.
It might be OK if humans lived in isolation but they don't.
Virtually everything you do effects me, what you eat, how you cook it, what you drive, how you drive, what you imbibe before you drive, where you park.
Sometimes the cry of freedom is noble, other times it seems a peevish reaction to reasonable restriction.
I understand your position. But I do wonder if we have been a little brainwashed in our modern, civilised society into accepting authority a little too readily. The phenomenon of social law is open to abuse when the media decide that a certain activity is disagreeable. We know the power of the media and we also know it can't always be trusted to give an impartial or balanced view. And the unthinking masses blindly take their cues from media. In the States, social law is often meeted from a fundamentalist Christian standpoint - and this is wholly unacceptable. In many African countries oppression comes as standard. In Muslim society social justice for women is in tatters. In Britain I am forced to pay for the booze and cigarettes of the lazy unemployed because they apparently have a rightful claim to my money. The list goes on. I worry about Nanny-statism, erosion of free will and oppression and I feel all of those things in my own civilised country.
So the whole idea of social law as a definer of rights is not to be praised because the social conscience is subject to corruption. I'll admit that it keeps the mindless masses in order, but I won't be told what my rights are by anyone.
EDIT.: Revised 'social justice' for 'social law'.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on December 10, 2011, 07:59:45 AMBut I do wonder if we have been a little brainwashed in our modern, civilised society into accepting authority a little too readily.
I think we have been manipulated into being dissatisfied with not getting our own way in everything. Democracy should be something revered, people fought and died for it and the alternative isn't pretty. Compromise is necessary, we don't have to hate other members of society for receiving a perceived favour, perhaps some need a nanny to teach them not to act like spoilt children.
We could have a thread that looks at this nanny state thing, I don't like the term but I'd like to object to or support to specific issues. I have nothing against grandmothers myself, I don't know why their name is used to deride.
Quote from: Recusant on December 09, 2011, 11:21:44 PM
In the same way, we have inherited a tendency to assert and endeavor to protect the freedom to act on our own volition, to protect the means of survival from the depredations of others, to protect those close to us, etc. This tendency forms the basis for what can be called natural rights. I don't know whether it can be conclusively argued that natural rights stemming from this tendency exist in any objective sense, but I don't think that a case can be made that the tendency itself doesn't exist. Donald makes the point that to live as a social species, as opposed to a eusocial species, there must be both some form of morality and some form of rights. Thus the basis for natural rights is our nature as a social species.
First, did you mean "eusocial" or "asocial"? I had to look up the first of those, and Dictionary.com says it means: "of or pertaining to a form of insect society, as that of ants, characterized by specialization of tasks and cooperative care of the young."
I agree our species has a tendency to posit natural rights, but since our species also has a tendency to posit invisible, immortal super-beings, I end up viewing this line of reasoning as saying more about anthropology than anything else.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on December 10, 2011, 12:13:06 AM
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 09, 2011, 10:06:49 PM
As soon as the game has even one rule, my rights have been narrowed. If the rule is, don't defecate on the rug, then I don't have the right to defecate on the rug. Absent any other rules, I have the right to read a book while hopping on one foot, or to drive my car while humming a tune, or to perform any other action realistically available to me - but I don't have the right to defecate on the rug, unless I take myself out of the game.
But by saying that you are deferring your rights to external authority which is unacceptable if the external authority is corrupt. And it is MY decision as to who I consider corrupt.
Here's my position stated more pithily, and so pleasingly to me that I made it my sig:
-----
All games are optional, and so, since only rules curtail rights, and only games contain rules, and everything with rules is a game, it follows that, prior to opting into any games, one exists in a state of open-ended rights; I.e., radical freedom.
-----
I don't have to play the corrupt authority's game, but if I choose to play it, then the rules of it bind me, just as the rules of chess bind me if I choose to play chess.
I either play or don't play. That choice is always mine, and the consequences of whichever option I choose are my responsibility. Put a gun to my head and I will hate you as a bully, but I don't have to obey you. I could choose to take a bullet in the brain.
Now, I could choose a third option, which is to play the game of pretending to play the corrupt authority's game. Underneath that pretense could lurk all manner of subversions.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on December 10, 2011, 12:13:06 AM
If a stranger stopped you in the street and said "You can't walk on this side of the road, those are my rules", does that then mean you have no right to walk on that side of the road? No, because it was an external 'authority' imposing his rules on you. His rules bear no relation to your rights.
True, so long as I decline to play the stranger's game. If I opt instead to play it, then I forfeit the right to walk on that side of the road.
The default position is to be opted out of all games, hence opted out of all rules, hence a condition of open-ended rights; I.e., radical freedom.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on December 10, 2011, 12:13:06 AM
It apparently depends on who imposes the rules as to whether or not rights are seen to be infringed. A 'Law' is seen as a 'rights determiner' because we can all see the value in most laws. Whereas a school bully, who might limit ones actions to the same degree is taken to be just trampling over a victims' rights.
I would never say what you said there. No one imposes rules on me but myself, by opting into a game, and so no one restricts my right but myself, voluntarily.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on December 10, 2011, 12:13:06 AM
You have argued that we have 'no right' to break the law - I disagree.
Hopefully my position is clearer now. I haven't argued what you're saying I argued.
I can opt out of the game of avoiding criminality. Opting out, I no longer am bound by the rules that define criminality. The facts of life are such, unfortunately, that opting out of the game of avoiding criminality automatically entails opting into one of three games, either (1) avoiding the lawkeepers, or (2) violently engaging the lawkeepers, or (3) politically engaging the lawkeepers, the last of those generally entailing a submission to arrest, confinement, and prosecution.
Games are optional but the facts of life aren't.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 10, 2011, 09:30:31 AMFirst, did you mean "eusocial" or "asocial"? I had to look up the first of those, and Dictionary.com says it means: "of or pertaining to a form of insect society, as that of ants, characterized by specialization of tasks and cooperative care of the young."
I agree our species has a tendency to posit natural rights, but since our species also has a tendency to posit invisible, immortal super-beings, I end up viewing this line of reasoning as saying more about anthropology than anything else.
I definitely meant "eusocial." Eusocial species do not operate in a way in which the concept of rights, natural or otherwise, would ever arise. Donald uses this idea in passing a couple of times by comparing humans, a species of intelligent apes, to a theoretical species of intelligent bees. The primary unit of bees and other eusocial species is the collective, and such species act as a collective; the individual in such species functions only to serve the greater good, and it really has no identity other than as a unit of the collective. On the other hand, the primary unit of social species is usually a family, and individuals of such species act through cooperation while still having an identity as individuals; they can and do act for selfish good. The concept of rights would be irrelevant and meaningless to an intelligent eusocial species, while it seems to be integral to
homo sapiens sapiens.
Rights, whether conceived of as inherent in our nature or as something bestowed by society or a god, seem to be an inevitable component of human societies. I can imagine a human society functioning properly without a god, but I can't do the same for a society without rights. Even if rights are thought to only be applicable to a certain portion of society (as has happened in the past) they seem to exist in all human societies. Maybe this is an argument from ignorance, though. ;)
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 10, 2011, 08:59:09 AM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on December 10, 2011, 07:59:45 AMBut I do wonder if we have been a little brainwashed in our modern, civilised society into accepting authority a little too readily.
I think we have been manipulated into being dissatisfied with not getting our own way in everything. Democracy should be something revered, people fought and died for it and the alternative isn't pretty. Compromise is necessary, we don't have to hate other members of society for receiving a perceived favour, perhaps some need a nanny to teach them not to act like spoilt children.
We could have a thread that looks at this nanny state thing, I don't like the term but I'd like to object to or support to specific issues. I have nothing against grandmothers myself, I don't know why their name is used to deride.
Dammit! I just don't have time today to respond to these points properly.
But I'd like to clarify the interpretation of Nanny. I take this to mean a children's caregiver - a nursemaid.
A nanny state is more likely to create a society of spoilt children than a democratic meritocracy ever would.
PC, sorry I don't have the time today to debate this as I'd like.
I think our ultimate points coincide, but I disagree with some of your details.
You have not forfeited your rights by walking down only one side, you have had your rights unfairly violated.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 10, 2011, 09:53:15 AM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on December 10, 2011, 12:13:06 AM
If a stranger stopped you in the street and said "You can't walk on this side of the road, those are my rules", does that then mean you have no right to walk on that side of the road? No, because it was an external 'authority' imposing his rules on you. His rules bear no relation to your rights.
True, so long as I decline to play the stranger's game. If I opt instead to play it, then I forfeit the right to walk on that side of the road.
How so? Isn't it better to say that the stranger who said that you can't walk on that side of the road had no right to do so in the first place? ???
Even if
you concede and don't walk on that side of the road, it still doesn't give that stranger the right.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on December 10, 2011, 02:21:56 PM
You have not forfeited your rights by walking down only one side, you have had your rights unfairly violated.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 10, 2011, 06:24:31 PM
How so? Isn't it better to say that the stranger who said that you can't walk on that side of the road had no right to do so in the first place? ???
Even if you concede and don't walk on that side of the road, it still doesn't give that stranger the right.
Scissorlegs, xSilverPhinx. I combined your responses since you both said essentially the same thing.
Let me start by saying that outside of this thread I don't think or talk in terms of rights. I'm trying, here on this thread, to make sense of a concept that is actually foreign to me.
Consider the eagle. What are its rights? It ascends, soars, sees a fish in the stream, dives, grabs, secures its grip, ascends. Did it have the right to do that? Where would those rights have come from? How could they be taken away?
What of the fish? Were its rights violated? If so - how? Of what substance are rights composed?
I don't think eagles or fish have rights, because as far as I know, they don't think so either. As far as I can tell, rights exist only in the mind. Rights are notions. Only a notional consciousness, a sapience, can bring rights into being by thinking of them. Eagles and fish are spared such conundrums. They exist in a world that is governed (structured) exclusively by facts of life - facts of power, risk, opportunity, gain, and loss.
Nor do I think rights exist as simple positives; rather, they exist as double negatives. To say, "I have the right," is to say, "There is no reason why I shouldn't." To say, "I don't have the right," is to say, "I shouldn't."
Thus rights and morality are tightly coupled. I have the right to do what isn't immoral.
But what do I consider immoral? Objectively, nothing. Subjectively, I abhor suffering, despise bullies, and submit to logical consistency. My concept of rights, to the extent I really entertain such a concept, is wrapped up in the principle of logical consistency. If I haven't committed to anything, then I have nothing to be logically consistent with, and so my rights are open-ended. The moment I commit to something, I suddenly have something to be logically consistent with, and from that eventuality there emerges the notion, "I shouldn't," which is identical to the notion, "I don't have the right." This only happens to me because I voluntarily submit to the principle of logical consistency. Why do I submit to it? Because that's the kind of guy I am.
What both of you want me to do, I think, is judge the stranger immoral. That's what so much of morality-speak is aimed at: judging other people. But how can I judge other people? I lack an objective standard! I have only my subjectivity, and the primary attribute of my subjectivity is this: it is mine. It binds only me. Do I judge bullies? No. I hate them. There is no morality in my hate. It is pure, raw emotion, irrational, instinctive, bestial, savage. As the mongoose lashes out at the cobra, so I lash out at the bully. I claim zero moral superiority and zero moral sanction. I am the eagle and the bully is the fish.
Since I have no way to say, "You shouldn't," to someone else, I likewise have no way to say, "You don't have the right." Furthermore, since I really have no way to say, with any coherent meaning, "There is no reason why you shouldn't," I have no way to say, "You have the right." I can only claim rights for myself, and can only deny rights to myself, and the only principle I have available to me for doing that is logical consistency, because no other principle has struck me forcefully enough that I was compelled to submit to it.
What I have never understood is why anyone needs to claim moral superiority or moral sanction in order to strike back at the bully. Kick him in the balls and punch him in the throat. As he gurgles a desperate prayer to black-robed Death, raise your face to the sun and bellow victory in the inarticulate roar of the silverback.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 11, 2011, 12:38:18 AM
What I have never understood is why anyone needs to claim moral superiority or moral sanction in order to strike back at the bully. Kick him in the balls and punch him in the throat. As he gurgles a desperate prayer to black-robed Death, raise your face to the sun and bellow victory in the inarticulate roar of the silverback.
Wow, that's a nice image ;D
I think I better understand what you mean now.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 11, 2011, 12:38:18 AM
Consider the eagle. What are its rights? It ascends, soars, sees a fish in the stream, dives, grabs, secures its grip, ascends. Did it have the right to do that? Where would those rights have come from? How could they be taken away?
What of the fish? Were its rights violated? If so - how? Of what substance are rights composed?
Completely agree with this, except I would add humans into the mix as well.
We all have the right to do whatever it is that we can physically do.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 11, 2011, 12:38:18 AM
Thus rights and morality are tightly coupled. I have the right to do what isn't immoral.
But, completely disagree with this.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 11, 2011, 12:38:18 AM
But what do I consider immoral? Objectively, nothing.
So there we have it, if there is no objective immoral then we have the right to do anything.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 11, 2011, 12:38:18 AM
If I haven't committed to anything, then I have nothing to be logically consistent with, and so my rights are open-ended.
Just because you might accept everything as a right it doesn't mean that you have to commit to a subset of rights. You can still come up with a principle e.g. the golden rule and use that to enforce law onto society in order to create a functional sustainable society. Just recognise that these law rules do infringe on people's rights and thus take law very seriously, do not impose on a whim or appease a small proportion of the voters.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 11, 2011, 12:38:18 AM
The moment I commit to something, I suddenly have something to be logically consistent with, and from that eventuality there emerges the notion, "I shouldn't," which is identical to the notion, "I don't have the right."
It is fine for you to say I should but when you say noone should then you are imposing. I don't think it is necessary to come to a conclusion that you are capable of defining rights or morality. Just focus on essential law for a functional society.
BTW Recusant,
I haven't had time to read through the article you gave a link to yet, I am very keen to and will do so soon.
Quote from: Stevil on December 11, 2011, 06:08:02 PM
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 11, 2011, 12:38:18 AM
Consider the eagle. What are its rights? It ascends, soars, sees a fish in the stream, dives, grabs, secures its grip, ascends. Did it have the right to do that? Where would those rights have come from? How could they be taken away?
What of the fish? Were its rights violated? If so - how? Of what substance are rights composed?
Completely agree with this, except I would add humans into the mix as well.
We all have the right to do whatever it is that we can physically do.
Whatever is in our power? But then the word "right" because vague: morally and even legally meaningless.
For instance, would you also say that hurting others is a right, even if you could? Under what conditions could it be considered a right?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 11, 2011, 11:21:52 PM
Whatever is in our power? But then the word "right" because vague: morally and even legally meaningless.
For instance, would you also say that hurting others is a right, even if you could? Under what conditions could it be considered a right?
The problem with this discussion is that there are not enough words in the English language and the term "right" is ambiguous and we all have preconceptions with regards to what is meant by "right".
I do not subscribe to the term "right" because there is no such thing as an "objective right", but just because there is no such thing, that doesn't mean that we have no rights to do anything.
My dilemma, is in terms of trying to discuss this topic with people, especially with people from a different world view. Even in this thread it is difficult to clearly articulate amoungst atheists, we just don't have the words to easily discuss this topic.
I think as a starting point if we use the definition
Right = The universal approval to make actions that are not immoralThen this in some ways in compatible with both Christians and Atheist, although ultimately it defines a different set of "rights"
For Christains they have a defined list of immorals. The universal approval to them means approval of god, thus god gives us rights by approving all acts that are not immoral.
For Atheists we don't subscribe to objective morals or immorals (at least, I don't know where we would get these from if we believe they do exist). With regards to universal approval, our universe is non conscious, it can't disapprove of anything, so basically we have approval to do anything that we physically are capable of.
So in essence for Atheists we could simplify the definition of rights and state that we have the right to do anything that we are physically capable of doing.
This doesn't mean that we think people in society should be able to do anything that they are physically capable of doing (for example, hurting others).
Yes, we have the universal right to hurt others, but as part of society we want to restrict this right in order to create a functional society. In this way, laws create restrictions not new rights (legal rights are a subset of universal rights). All qualified rights must be a subset of universal rights. (e.g. woman's rights, human rights, animal rights, gay rights, legal rights)
These rights are defined by us (humans) and are used to put constraints (boundaries) on the superset of all actions that we can possible perform.
So if the following is agreed:
1. We have the universal right to do any action that we are physically capable of performing
2. We do not subscribe to any objective morals or immorals
Then how do we define law for our society?
Is the purpose of law to:
A. Create a functional society
B. Create a moral society
C. To create a functional and moral society
Once we define the purpose of law, then we can go about defining how we come to an agreement on rules when we don't even subscribe to objective morality.
Quote from: Stevil on December 11, 2011, 06:08:02 PM
We all have the right to do whatever it is that we can physically do.
Why? Presumably because there is no such thing as objective morality. But in the absence of objective morality, shall we argue for the existence of objective rights? On what basis? It seems easier to affirm that in the objective realm both morality and rights are absent. Only in the subjective realm do morality and rights emerge.
Quote from: Stevil on December 11, 2011, 06:08:02 PM
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 11, 2011, 12:38:18 AM
Thus rights and morality are tightly coupled. I have the right to do what isn't immoral.
But, completely disagree with this.
Do you still, after writing your later post? In your later post you seem to affirm what I say in the above quote.
Quote from: Stevil on December 11, 2011, 06:08:02 PM
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 11, 2011, 12:38:18 AM
But what do I consider immoral? Objectively, nothing.
So there we have it, if there is no objective immoral then we have the right to do anything.
Only true if rights exist objectively. If they do, then the microscope or the telescope should detect them or should at least detect something that implies them. Anything objective is amenable to the scientific method. Shall we expect the scientist to teach us of rights?
Quote from: Stevil on December 11, 2011, 06:08:02 PM
Just because you might accept everything as a right it doesn't mean that you have to commit to a subset of rights. You can still come up with a principle e.g. the golden rule and use that to enforce law onto society in order to create a functional sustainable society.
If I am powerful enough, then yes, certainly. I could also, if powerful enough, impose some insane and stupid principle that fosters a society of lunatic idiocy.
Quote from: Stevil on December 11, 2011, 06:08:02 PM
Just recognise that these law rules do infringe on people's rights and thus take law very seriously, do not impose on a whim or appease a small proportion of the voters.
Why not? If power is all we can objectively affirm, then the only objective counter-argument is an opposing force, gun versus gun to the death or surrender. This is why we need to bring subjectivity into the discussion. There are only two available paths: war, or consensus around subjective values. The Bill of Rights, for example, represents consensus around subjective values. What state of affairs is most conducive to arriving at a consensus? Balance of power.
Quote from: Stevil on December 11, 2011, 06:08:02 PM
It is fine for you to say I should but when you say noone should then you are imposing.
Fortunately I never say that no one should.
Quote from: Stevil on December 11, 2011, 06:08:02 PM
I don't think it is necessary to come to a conclusion that you are capable of defining rights or morality. Just focus on essential law for a functional society.
Isn't this a thread about rights? ;)
Rights and laws make an interesting duo, as either can be mother while the other is daughter. I can first affirm rights and then make laws to protect those rights, or I can, alternatively, make laws and then discover rights in the implications of what I legislated. For example, nowhere in the
Tanakh (the Jewish scripture) will you find any statement anything like, "You shall have the right to have property of your own and keep it." Rather, you will find this: "You shall not steal." That law implies a right to have and keep property.
I'm more comfortable starting from the assumption inaction is the natural state, but you can be justified to do things.
Hunger justifies killing a fish.
If a guy is tossing dynamite in the lake to catch fish, you'd be justified in whacking him.
I don't think theists are justified in vilifying people.
Quote from: Stevil on December 12, 2011, 12:35:36 AM
For Atheists we don't subscribe to objective morals or immorals (at least, I don't know where we would get these from if we believe they do exist). With regards to universal approval, our universe is non conscious, it can't disapprove of anything, so basically we have approval to do anything that we physically are capable of.
No, what we have is the lack of disapproval, or, more specifically, the lack of divine, universal, or objective disapproval. Mortal, particular, subjective disapproval may still exist and very often does. Do we care about it? To what extent?
Quote from: Stevil on December 12, 2011, 12:35:36 AM
So in essence for Atheists we could simplify the definition of rights and state that we have the right to do anything that we are physically capable of doing.
Only true until we start playing a game - but I'll desist from employing that language, since it doesn't seem to help me communicate. Instead I'll say, with less generality but perhaps greater clarity, we don't have the right to do anything we are capable of doing if we live in a society of laws, since laws enshrine or imply rights and the limitation of rights. Legally, I don't have the right to sneak up behind you and shove a broadsword into your abdomen. It is equally true that if you and I are playing chess, I don't have the right to reach out with my hand and palm your queen when you aren't looking.
Quote from: Stevil on December 12, 2011, 12:35:36 AM
This doesn't mean that we think people in society should be able to do anything that they are physically capable of doing (for example, hurting others).
Yes, we have the universal right to hurt others,
It really seems more straightforward to deny the existence of both universal/objective rights and universal/objective morality. The universe in its objectivity knows nothing of rights and nothing of morality. Out there in the jungles and in the seas there is only power, struggle, death, and birth.
Quote from: Stevil on December 12, 2011, 12:35:36 AM
So if the following is agreed:
1. We have the universal right to do any action that we are physically capable of performing
2. We do not subscribe to any objective morals or immorals
I do not subscribe to objective morals and also do not subscribe to universal/objective rights, yet I arrive at the same place as you, to whit:
Quote from: Stevil on December 12, 2011, 12:35:36 AM
Then how do we define law for our society?
Is the purpose of law to:
A. Create a functional society
B. Create a moral society
C. To create a functional and moral society
Once we define the purpose of law, then we can go about defining how we come to an agreement on rules when we don't even subscribe to objective morality.
In the absence of objective rights and objective morals, we are left with nothing to do but decide for ourselves, subjectively, what purposes we want our laws to serve, reach a consensus from among the various subjective points of view, and then design laws to fulfill the purposes called out in our consensus.
Here's my subjectivity for what it's worth:
First, I want logical consistency in whatever we do.
Secondly, I want a society in which all of its members thrive.
So now I ask, where can I study thriving to learn its parameters? I answer, in the wild. In the jungles and in the seas there is thriving to be studied. What else do I find there? Most conspicuously, I find balance. In the systems of weather, in the systems of ecology, and in the systems of metabolism, there is always the tendency to settle into equilibrium at the some point of balance. I will suggest, then, that balance is a likely candidate for thriving's most crucial parameter.
Thirdly, therefore, I want a society structured around the principle of balance.
How do we achieve balance? Well, since balance occurs naturally in the wild, the laws of nature must be conducive to it. Is there a law of nature that can be extrapolated into a principle of social behavior on which to build a framework for legislation? I think so. I think it's Newton's third law of motion: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." I discuss this more fully here: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8834.0
Fourthly, then, I want legislation to be built on a framework founded on Newtonian Ethics as I have proposed it, with its defining principle, "For every action let there be an equal and opposite reaction."
If the above were all in place, would the members of society have any discernible rights? They would have exactly one, but it's a doozy.
They would have the right to reap as they have sown.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 12, 2011, 03:00:38 AM
Quote from: Stevil on December 11, 2011, 06:08:02 PM
We all have the right to do whatever it is that we can physically do.
Why? Presumably because there is no such thing as objective morality. But in the absence of objective morality, shall we argue for the existence of objective rights? On what basis? It seems easier to affirm that in the objective realm both morality and rights are absent. Only in the subjective realm do morality and rights emerge.
This is certainly a difficult topic to articulate. I have no belief in objective morality and I have no belief in objective rights.
So, with regards to rights, we could either say nothing is a right or everything is a right or we could say we take the stance that the concept of rights is meaningless.
But how does this leave us positioned if we are in a debate with Christians?
For example, lets say that it is against the law for gay people to have sex.
A Christian will say that the government should not give the gay people the right to have sex because gay sex is not a right.
For an Atheist, if you do not believe in a higher authority to government, then how can you argue that government is wrong?
This also brings up another concept. The concept of objective wrong and objective right.
Who is to say what is wrong and what is right?
At least with my approach, if I state that all actions are a right, then I can defend the position by stating that a rule restricting gay sex is not an esssencial requirement for a functioning society. The emphasis is that government rules, restrict rights (actions) rather than give rights.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 12, 2011, 03:00:38 AM
Thus rights and morality are tightly coupled. I have the right to do what isn't immoral.
Quote from: Stevil on December 11, 2011, 06:08:02 PM
But, completely disagree with this.
Do you still, after writing your later post? In your later post you seem to affirm what I say in the above quote.
No, how can I agree with you when there is no such thing as morality? This is a concept invented by religious outfits. Without religion, how do you define what is morally right and wrong?
I was using your statement because I could fudge it to mean different things for Christians and Atheists, but then I had to simplify it because it is absurd in the atheist realm to have a definition that includes morality.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 12, 2011, 03:00:38 AM
Quote from: Stevil on December 11, 2011, 06:08:02 PM
But what do I consider immoral? Objectively, nothing.
So there we have it, if there is no objective immoral then we have the right to do anything.
Only true if rights exist objectively. If they do, then the microscope or the telescope should detect them or should at least detect something that implies them. Anything objective is amenable to the scientific method. Shall we expect the scientist to teach us of rights?
I do think we are getting hung up on semantics. I believe that the concept of rights is meaningless. I am just trying to use it in such a way that allows for discussion with Theists whom feel that there are situations that we as society, as government should not give rights to people.
My understanding is that rights are not given but are instead taken away.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 12, 2011, 03:00:38 AM
Quote from: Stevil on December 11, 2011, 06:08:02 PM
Just because you might accept everything as a right it doesn't mean that you have to commit to a subset of rights. You can still come up with a principle e.g. the golden rule and use that to enforce law onto society in order to create a functional sustainable society.
If I am powerful enough, then yes, certainly. I could also, if powerful enough, impose some insane and stupid principle that fosters a society of lunatic idiocy.
Yes and there are many tyrants that do this. But without a higher authority how can a person say that a law is unfair or wrong, how can a person complain that their rights have been violated?
Christians have a way to do this, they implore god's law but what can Atheists do?
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 12, 2011, 03:00:38 AM
Quote from: Stevil on December 11, 2011, 06:08:02 PM
Just recognise that these law rules do infringe on people's rights and thus take law very seriously, do not impose on a whim or appease a small proportion of the voters.
Why not? If power is all we can objectively affirm, then the only objective counter-argument is an opposing force, gun versus gun to the death or surrender. This is why we need to bring subjectivity into the discussion. There are only two available paths: war, or consensus around subjective values. The Bill of Rights, for example, represents consensus around subjective values. What state of affairs is most conducive to arriving at a consensus? Balance of power.
What about the individual? How can the individual Atheist complain about having their "rights" violated? If they have no rights then they have no right to complain, they also can't have any rights that are violated.
Do you see what I am getting at. It is simmantics, but that is how theism works, Islam has a very high importance to the meaning of words and symbolism, so does Christianity. I feel they often confuse themselves with the limitation of words and hence derive great meaning into the ambiguity of their words.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 12, 2011, 03:00:38 AM
Quote from: Stevil on December 11, 2011, 06:08:02 PM
It is fine for you to say I should but when you say noone should then you are imposing.
Fortunately I never say that no one should.
But what if someone in power does? Given you have no rights, how can you argue against rules that you don't agree with? What do you base your stance on? You don't have rights unless they are granted to you by the rule maker, so you can't complain if the rule maker doesn't give you certain rights.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 12, 2011, 03:00:38 AM
Quote from: Stevil on December 11, 2011, 06:08:02 PM
I don't think it is necessary to come to a conclusion that you are capable of defining rights or morality. Just focus on essential law for a functional society.
Isn't this a thread about rights?
Yes this thread is about rights, these are extremely important with regards to defining the law which in my view restricts a person's rights. If the law makes it illegal for a woman to go to school and be educated then how can she complain? She has no right to an education. If she does have the right to education despite what the law states then who is the author of this right?
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 12, 2011, 03:00:38 AM
Rights and laws make an interesting duo, as either can be mother while the other is daughter. I can first affirm rights and then make laws to protect those rights, or I can, alternatively, make laws and then discover rights in the implications of what I legislated. For example, nowhere in the Tanakh (the Jewish scripture) will you find any statement anything like, "You shall have the right to have property of your own and keep it." Rather, you will find this: "You shall not steal." That law implies a right to have and keep property.
Hmmm, again I think semantics is the issue. I understand what you are saying that in a game, the rights are known based on the rules of the game.
But in the game of life the Christians are playing the Christian game and defining the rules a that of god and his morality, and which they complain that the government, whom is bound to gods game, is not playing by the right rules.
If Atheists look to the game of life and don't recognise everything as a right then at best we can only state that the governments rules define our rights and theat we don't have any rights whatsoever out side of that definition as there is no higher authority that is authoring a set of rules define a higher right.
I certainly feel this is not our lot in life as Atheists. If we classify everything as a right then a government needs to justify all its rules and why these restrictions on our rights are necessary for a functional society.
Quote from: Stevil on December 12, 2011, 07:24:12 AM
This is certainly a difficult topic to articulate. I have no belief in objective morality and I have no belief in objective rights.
So, with regards to rights, we could either say nothing is a right or everything is a right or we could say we take the stance that the concept of rights is meaningless.
Or we could identify the kind of situation where rights exist. I have suggested that rights exist in any situation where rights are defined, and that rights are defined in any situation where rules hold sway. No rules, no rights. But posit rules and you automatically posit rights. In the wild, no rules, no rights. In the city or at the chess board, rules hold sway, and so there are rights.
Everything that exists is limited. Even space has a shape, with an outer edge, albeit that edge would presumably push outward if some object challenged the boundary. Stars and stones, amoebas and ants, skyscrapers and stamps, all are limited. To say that something is unlimited is to say it's unreal. Only the unreal has no limits, for example the hypothetical God. By insisting on limits to rights I defend the notion that rights exist. As soon as I argue for no limits I argue for non-existence, whether the topic is God, rights, the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, or the quantity of phlogiston that can be hidden in a two by four.
If the making of rules is simultaneously the making of rights, as I have suggested, then whenever we make rules we should ask ourselves what rights we want to establish. The rulemaker is the rights-maker. Absent God, the rulemaker is some sapient organic individual or collective, and so the rights-maker is that same sapient organic individual or collective. The rulemaker doesn't discover rights. The rulemaker creates them.
Quote from: Stevil on December 12, 2011, 07:24:12 AM
But how does this leave us positioned if we are in a debate with Christians?
For example, lets say that it is against the law for gay people to have sex.
A Christian will say that the government should not give the gay people the right to have sex because gay sex is not a right.
For an Atheist, if you do not believe in a higher authority to government, then how can you argue that government is wrong?
First, check the rules to see if they already define or at least suggest some right. For example, in the USA, the first amendment precludes Congress from making any law reflecting an establishment of religion. That rule limits the rights of Congress, and helps define the rights of American citizens. Congress can't stop us from doing X if the only reason we are being stopped is some religious dictum. Congress can't stop us from eating pork due to kosher or halal concerns, nor can Congress stop us from participating in gay sex. This is why people talk about a gay marriage amendment. Before Congress can legitimately pass any law restricting anything about gay sex, the Costitution must first be amended, because as it stands, the Constitution does not permit any law restricting anything if the only reason for the restriction is some religious dictum.
If we lived in a country where nothing like the first amendment existed, and the topic was something like gay sex, then we wouldn't debate; rather, we would negotiate. Power would sit at the table with power and hammer out some bargain, with each side employing whatever leverage was at hand.
Quote from: Stevil on December 12, 2011, 07:24:12 AM
At least with my approach, if I state that all actions are a right, then I can defend the position by stating that a rule restricting gay sex is not an esssencial requirement for a functioning society. The emphasis is that government rules, restrict rights (actions) rather than give rights.
I'll offer a way of talking that may work:
"Rulemaking is rights-making. Prior to rulemaking, actual rights don't exist, but potential rights are open-ended. The rulemaker must start from the supposition of open-ended potential rights and then must decide how rights will be limited in the actual, compelled by subjective values, governed by any extant meta-rules, and countered by any sufficiently robust power of a different mind."
Often there are meta-rules governing the particular rulemaking exercise. For example, the Constitution is a set of meta-rules governing any rulemaking process undertaken by Congress in its job as legislator. A large part of why the Constitution exists at all is to limit the power of Congress to restrict rights when they make rules.
I have to stop here but I'll come back later to continue.
I think that looking at rights from a historical or cultural point of view helps one gain perspective. What Christians and other theists who believe that rights are god-given often ignore that these things are sensitive to both historical context and culture.
Gay rights, black rights, women's rights...these things were gained, not given.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on December 10, 2011, 12:13:06 AMI'm surprised Davin hasn't chipped in to this thread - he's always a feisty proponent of anti-authoritarian ideals.
When people think they know me, they are often surprised by my behavior. I think it's better for other people to assume that they don't know me and be far less surprised all the time.
Not much said here is something I disagree or agree with. I've had many discussions on rights and found that there is no good definition that can be used as a barrier. I'll try my best:
If something someone wants to do in no way affects anyone else, they should be allowed to do it without any kind of argument. Masterbation is a good example.
If something someone wants to do only affects those who ae willing to allow it to happen (without coersion), then it should not be prevented. Boxing is a good example of this kind of thing. One wouldn't allow a person to go around punching people in the face, but if the other person is reasonably able to consent, then it should be allowed.
If something someone wants to do affects someone else, then we need to consider whether the action is reasonable and whether we are going to allow everyone to do the same action or not. Most of the arguments fall into this last category. It's an all or nothing kind of game to me, it would be unfair to allow a certain group to say whatever they want and another group to not say what they want. Free speech is one of the best examples because everyone can be allowed to do it and no one is prevented from it (extreme cases aside).
The last cetegory is the protections of what is reasonable to prevent other people from doing to someone else. These things are stances against certain behaviors, privacy protections, personal property and safety are all good examples of what should be prevented to happen to someone. Ones privacy should be respected by the public and the government, only to be violated upon reasonable evidence that is overseen by an elected official. At least that is my opinion. I'd rather maintain my privacy at the risk of dying to a terrorist attack than give it up for a false sense of security.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 12, 2011, 11:33:51 AM
Or we could identify the kind of situation where rights exist. I have suggested that rights exist in any situation where rights are defined, and that rights are defined in any situation where rules hold sway. No rules, no rights.
Everything that exists is limited. Even space has a shape, with an outer edge,
Actually Space itself is the physical embodiment of nothing. I seriously doubt it has a shape or spacial limit (outer edge).
But I am glad that you brought the cosmos into the conversation. If we regress into space then the default rules are the laws of physics. In this game we are allowed to make any actions that we are physically able to. Unfortunately this means if a government comes up with a law making it illegal for us to go faster than the speed of light then we have no right to complain. I can live with this limitation.
Now that we have established the universal game and hence the universal rules and ultimately
now that we have established our the universal rights
we can move forward in this conversation rather than spend all our time arguing about the definition of a "right"
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 12, 2011, 11:33:51 AM
If the making of rules is simultaneously the making of rights, as I have suggested, then whenever we make rules we should ask ourselves what rights we want to establish. The rulemaker is the rights-maker. Absent God, the rulemaker is some sapient organic individual or collective, and so the rights-maker is that same sapient organic individual or collective. The rulemaker doesn't discover rights. The rulemaker creates them.
You have just bestowed total responsibility to the governing power of each country.
When Hitler decided he didn't want Jews to exist anymore then he created a rule whereby they no longer have the right to exist. He had his soldiers slaughter them by the millions. By your definition, you would not be able to oppose him as you would not have the right nor be able to complain based on any rights violation.
... but if you agree with my definition...
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 12, 2011, 11:33:51 AM
If we lived in a country where nothing like the first amendment existed, and the topic was something like gay sex, then we wouldn't debate; rather, we would negotiate. Power would sit at the table with power and hammer out some bargain, with each side employing whatever leverage was at hand.
When you say "we" you mean only those in power. In a few countries it is illegal for gay people to have gay sex. In Germany it was illegal for gay people to be alive.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 12, 2011, 11:33:51 AM
I'll offer a way of talking that may work:
"Rulemaking is rights-making. Prior to rulemaking, actual rights don't exist, but potential rights are open-ended. The rulemaker must start from the supposition of open-ended potential rights and then must decide how rights will be limited in the actual,
How do we define "potential rights"?
It would seem somewhat watered down for a person to complain about having their potential rights being violated. e.g. that woman in the middle east who complains about being raped and then ends up in jail for her crime of sex out of wedlock.
[/quote]
Quote from: Stevil on December 12, 2011, 05:50:00 PM
Actually Space itself is the physical embodiment of nothing. I seriously doubt it has a shape or spacial limit (outer edge).
Wikipedia has a good article on the shape of space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe
Quote from: Stevil on December 12, 2011, 05:50:00 PM
But I am glad that you brought the cosmos into the conversation. If we regress into space then the default rules are the laws of physics. In this game we are allowed to make any actions that we are physically able to.
OK. I'm going to stop disagreeing with your metaphorical use of words like "rules" and "allowed" and just follow your argument and see where it leads.
The default rules of space (the laws of physics) allow me to club you in the head and then, as you lie on the floor unconscious, the default rules of space allow me to cut off your limbs with a chainsaw. Apparently that means I have the right to do those things. Do I? Why or why not?
Out in the wild, in the jungles and in the ocean depths, is there anything my body and mind can accomplish that I don't have the right to do?
I'll assume, until you tell me otherwise, that in the wild my rights are open-ended. What I can, I may. Might is right.
Quote from: Stevil on December 12, 2011, 05:50:00 PM
Unfortunately this means if a government comes up with a law making it illegal for us to go faster than the speed of light then we have no right to complain. I can live with this limitation.
Yet presumably I don't have the right to complain if the government won't allow me to dismember you with a chainsaw. How did I lose that right to complain? What force or fact took it away from me?
I'll need to hear your answers before I can continue.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 13, 2011, 02:17:16 AM
Wikipedia has a good article on the shape of space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe
That describes the shape of our universe, not space.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 13, 2011, 02:17:16 AM
OK. I'm going to stop disagreeing with your metaphorical use of words like "rules" and "allowed" and just follow your argument and see where it leads.
Thank you, at least it give us room to progress in some kind of direction for now.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 13, 2011, 02:17:16 AM
The default rules of space (the laws of physics) allow me to club you in the head and then, as you lie on the floor unconscious, the default rules of space allow me to cut off your limbs with a chainsaw. Apparently that means I have the right to do those things. Do I? Why or why not?
Yes, the laws of physics give you the right to do that to me.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 13, 2011, 02:17:16 AM
Out in the wild, in the jungles and in the ocean depths, is there anything my body and mind can accomplish that I don't have the right to do?
Yes anywhere, any time, any place as long as it is consitent with material reality.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 13, 2011, 02:17:16 AM
I'll assume, until you tell me otherwise, that in the wild my rights are open-ended. What I can, I may. Might is right.
Here you are using a different definition of the word "right". In this sentence it is more along the lines of right and wrong. Previously we were using the word with regards to whether we are allowed to do something. If we exist in material reality and as long as the rules of material reality are not compromised then we are allowed to do what ever.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 13, 2011, 02:17:16 AM
Yet presumably I don't have the right to complain if the government won't allow me to dismember you with a chainsaw. How did I lose that right to complain? What force or fact took it away from me?
You certainly have the right to complain. The government is infringing on your rights. You should expect the government to justify why they are infringing on your rights. The government cannot answer that it is not your right to perform these acts, they must explain their infringement.
All laws infringe our rights and ought to come with a strong justification. I am not of the opinion that our rights are beyond justified infringement.
Quote from: Stevil on December 13, 2011, 06:03:05 AM
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 13, 2011, 02:17:16 AM
The default rules of space (the laws of physics) allow me to club you in the head and then, as you lie on the floor unconscious, the default rules of space allow me to cut off your limbs with a chainsaw. Apparently that means I have the right to do those things. Do I? Why or why not?
Yes, the laws of physics give you the right to do that to me.
I like it. Logically consistent. Good.
Quote from: Stevil on December 13, 2011, 06:03:05 AM
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 13, 2011, 02:17:16 AM
I'll assume, until you tell me otherwise, that in the wild my rights are open-ended. What I can, I may. Might is right.
Here you are using a different definition of the word "right". In this sentence it is more along the lines of right and wrong. Previously we were using the word with regards to whether we are allowed to do something. If we exist in material reality and as long as the rules of material reality are not compromised then we are allowed to do what ever.
Hmm. OK. I guess we're retaining our amoral universe, which I like, since a universe with no God has to be amoral at least until sapients emerge. So when we speak of rights in your line of reasoning, we're speaking of permission, which, if it isn't a morality concept, must be a power concept. I agree that amoral power can permit. Interesting, Stevil. You've been saying this all along, of course. I had a blind spot. Amoral power can permit! Cool! 8)
Quote from: Stevil on December 13, 2011, 06:03:05 AM
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 13, 2011, 02:17:16 AM
Yet presumably I don't have the right to complain if the government won't allow me to dismember you with a chainsaw. How did I lose that right to complain? What force or fact took it away from me?
You certainly have the right to complain. The government is infringing on your rights.
Magnificent! Truly. Your logical consistency is really, really good.
Quote from: Stevil on December 13, 2011, 06:03:05 AM
You should expect the government to justify why they are infringing on your rights. The government cannot answer that it is not your right to perform these acts, they must explain their infringement.
Cool! 8)
Quote from: Stevil on December 13, 2011, 06:03:05 AM
All laws infringe our rights and ought to come with a strong justification.
Cool! 8)
Quote from: Stevil on December 13, 2011, 06:03:05 AM
I am not of the opinion that our rights are beyond justified infringement.
Neat. Really, really good.
"Nature is governed by amoral power which permits whatever power can accomplish, so every living creature has the natural right to do whatever it can, and every law is an infringement, sometimes reasonable, never unquestionable."Sig-worthy! ;)
So what constitutes a justified (reasonable) infringement?
Pharaoh Cat, in this discussion you have referred to the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights specifically. The founders of the US believed in inherent rights in the Lockean sense; they codified that belief in the 9th Amendment:
QuoteThe enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Given that you seem to hold the position that rights can only exist if they are bestowed by an authority (rule-maker), would you agree with Judge Bork that the 9th Amendment might as well be an ink blot when it comes to interpreting rights from a Constitutional perspective?
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 13, 2011, 09:03:59 AM
"Nature is governed by amoral power which permits whatever power can accomplish, so every living creature has the natural right to do whatever it can, and every law is an infringement, sometimes reasonable, never unquestionable."
Sig-worthy! ;)
I do love the way you have put this phrase together. I am not so talented with words, it has taken me a long time to get my ideas into a comprehensible enough format for you to understand them as I do.
As I have mentioned previously this is a difficult topic to articulate clearly and concisely, especially given the limitation of the English language (or just perhaps my own limited grasp of language). I feel Atheists are on the back foot with regards to arguing about rights and morality because we are so conditioned to think in terms of objective rights and that rights mean not only having permission but that of being an absolute right that should never be violated. Reality is much more complex, we shouldn't allow ourselves to get caught up in this black and white way of thinking.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 13, 2011, 09:03:59 AM
So what constitutes a justified (reasonable) infringement?
Now that we have a common understanding, we have finally arrived at the interesting bit. Without a belief in objective morality, objective good, objective evil how do we use government to set the rules of our society?
We need to understand first the purpose of government. As a cohabitating society, we can't avoid interacting with each other and our common environment. Given that we are capable of doing anything that is physically possible, we can and often do infringe on each others' rights. We can act selfish and do things that benefit ourselves while disregarding others. For society to function we must come up with and enforce a set of common rules to enable a more functional potentially harmonious society. Without rules we could easily find ourselves in confrontation resulting in a dangerous, dysfunctional society.
So as a bear minimum we need
rules to ensure a functional society. Rules against rape and murder for example can easily be thought of as a necessity for a functional society. Yes, these infringe on people's rights to perform these actions, but for a functional and safe society we need to infringe on these rights.
Should our government aim higher than simply a bear basics functional society?
How about
rules to ensure a moral society? As an Atheist, I don't believe there is an objective standard of morality. Who would be the author? How would we know what these morals are? Can an immoral society be functional?
I don't believe that an Atheist can come up with an objective morality, certainly not one that everyone would agree with. If not everyone agrees with it then surely that means it is subjective. Even if everyone happens to agree with it, does that really mean that it is objective or have we all been conditioned based on societies many influences?
Even for Theists, should they really be enforcing their morals into law? If a Christian believes that god gave people free will and desires to use our choices and actions on earth in order to judge us in the afterlife then wouldn't enforcing morals on people be against god's plan, being contrary to free will and thus denying god's ability to judge us based on our choices? If we are to be judged, we need to be given enough rope to hang ourselves with.
Thus if we are only to aim for a functional society then the government must explain how each rule (law) is justified in this regard.
If for example they consider a rule to restrict our right to have gay sex? How could government justify this rights infringement? If a portion of the population engage in gay sex how does this prevent society from being functional?
I feel
some principles would certainly help us in defining the rules of a functional society, but ultimately
all rules must come with a justification which ties back to the goal of a functional society.
Some principles I can think of are:
- The golden rule (treat others as you would like to be treated)
- Don't discriminate (gender, age, skin colour, race, culture, belief, sexual orientation, physical disabilities etc)
Violation of the above principles can lead to oppression and conflict and hence a non functional society.
Quote from: Recusant on December 13, 2011, 10:13:24 AM
Pharaoh Cat, in this discussion you have referred to the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights specifically. The founders of the US believed in inherent rights in the Lockean sense; they codified that belief in the 9th Amendment:
QuoteThe enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Given that you seem to hold the position that rights can only exist if they are bestowed by an authority (rule-maker), would you agree with Judge Bork that the 9th Amendment might as well be an ink blot when it comes to interpreting rights from a Constitutional perspective?
I am now, as of this morning, a Stevilist! And so I proudly declare that nature endows us with the right to do whatever we can! So holy mackerel, and holy boson, that 9th Amendment packs quite a wallop! :o
Quote from: Stevil on December 13, 2011, 11:13:22 AM
We need to understand first the purpose of government. As a cohabitating society, we can't avoid interacting with each other and our common environment. Given that we are capable of doing anything that is physically possible, we can and often do infringe on each others' rights. We can act selfish and do things that benefit ourselves while disregarding others. For society to function we must come up with and enforce a set of common rules to enable a more functional potentially harmonious society. Without rules we could easily find ourselves in confrontation resulting in a dangerous, dysfunctional society.
So as a bear minimum we need rules to ensure a functional society.
I wonder if you would then support my proposed Materialist Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Congress shall pass no law except it serve to protect the material well-being of the citizenry against a material threat from a material source."
I think you would. Really, what other good reason for infringement could there ever be, other than protection of a citizen's material well-being?
After all, lawmaking seems so often to be a contest between liberty (rights) on one hand and security (protection of our material well-being) on the other, the goal being a reasonable balance between the two.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 13, 2011, 01:11:58 PM
I wonder if you would then support my proposed Materialist Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Congress shall pass no law except it serve to protect the material well-being of the citizenry against a material threat from a material source."
I need to think about that one, to try and understand what it means.
Quote from: Recusant on December 09, 2011, 07:47:07 PM
I don't agree with everything that Donald says, but I do think that he makes a respectable case for the existence of natural rights.
From "Natural Law and Natural Rights" by James A Donald (http://jim.com/rights.html):
This is a fascinating read, Recusant, thanks for the link. It is taking me a while to get through it.
It seems like a complex topic and Donald is only presenting high level ideas with high level references to his proofs. To properly debate Natural Law would likely take an immense amount of research and effort.
The first thing that comes to my mind so far is that Natural Law (to me) seems to be a recognition of the behavioural culture of a species rather than a law.
Through my years of working within corporate businesses, I understand that introducing cultural change is an extremely difficult thing to do.
I will read on...
Quote from: Stevil on December 13, 2011, 07:44:12 PMThe first thing that comes to my mind so far is that Natural Law (to me) seems to be a recognition of the behavioural culture of a species rather than a law.
Through my years of working within corporate businesses, I understand that introducing cultural change is an extremely difficult thing to do.
Yet the behavioral culture of almost all species is inherited; instinct. Though
Homo sapiens sapiens has largely evolved beyond being constrained by instinct in the way that every other species is (keeping in mind that some other species exhibit the ability to transcend instinct to some extent), I think that there remains an element of instinct in the way that we interact with each other. Thus my earlier reference to what I see as the foundation of human morals. I think that in species that rely pretty much entirely on instinct, it's reasonable to call that instinct the "natural law" which governs their behavior. To the extent that we retain the instincts of a social species (and it may be greater than we generally realize) we also retain an aspect of natural law. I think that these instinctual elements in our make-up form the basis of natural rights. We are capable of ignoring our instinctive tendencies regarding morality and rights, but that doesn't mean they don't exist; I would say that they are not merely arbitrary decisions made on the basis of culture and whim, nor are they dependent upon any external authority. They are inherent in out nature.
Quote from: Recusant on December 13, 2011, 08:13:37 PM
Yet the behavioral culture of almost all species is inherited; instinct. Though Homo sapiens sapiens has largely evolved beyond being constrained by instinct in the way that every other species is
We do seem to be less hardwired, which is probably why it takes us so long to reach independance from our caregivers, whereas some animals never meet their parents.
Quote from: Recusant on December 13, 2011, 08:13:37 PM
We are capable of ignoring our instinctive tendencies regarding morality and rights, but that doesn't mean they don't exist; I would say that they are not merely arbitrary decisions made on the basis of culture and whim, nor are they dependent upon any external authority. They are inherent in out nature.
If we start with ""Nature is governed by amoral power which permits whatever power can accomplish, so every living creature has the natural right to do whatever it can, and every law is an infringement, sometimes reasonable, never unquestionable." as PC so greatly worded it. Lets term this Physical Law.
Then for humans, we could attempt to add a layer of Natural Law on top of that.
If we deem law (rules) to be a restrictive, constraining element then it makes sense to consider Natural Law to be a subset of Physical Law.
If Natural Law describe the natural constraints of the human species, then would it be accurate to suggest that humans cannot possibly perform acts that fall outside of Natural Law? If this is the case then we would not need to create Legal Law to restrict human activities that are part of Physical Law but not part of Natural Law thus I would imagine that any Legal Law must be a subset of Natural Law by its nature. It would be entirely superfluous in describing legal law against actions that are not within Natural Law, just as it would be superfluous in describing legal law against actions that are not within Physical Law.
If this is true then does that make Natural Law irrelevant when considering the construction of Legal Law?
Can Legal Law force humans to perform acts outside of human nature?
e.g. If the only path within Natural Law is path A and the Legal Law makes path A illegal, well we don't have the option to go with Path B which is part of Physical Law but outside of Natural Law. Path B might be a valid option for a different species, but for the human species it is impossible as it is against our nature.
Does this seem right?
If a human is capable of an action, can that action be deemed as outside of the human version of Natural Law?
Quote from: Recusant on December 13, 2011, 08:13:37 PM
To the extent that we retain the instincts of a social species (and it may be greater than we generally realize) we also retain an aspect of natural law. I think that these instinctual elements in our make-up form the basis of natural rights.
I will remain faithful to the Stevilian tenet that every creature has the natural right to do whatever it can. But as for some natural law discernible in our animalian instincts/drives/emotions - I would have to think an instinct/drive/emotion can only be countered by another instinct/drive/emotion of greater felt urgency. For example, on any given day, driven by a "defend my dignity" instinct/emotion to pound the heck out of some moron, I am simultaneously driven by a "submit to authority" instinct/emotion to walk away so as to keep the peace. Whichever instinct/drive/emotion feels more urgent, wins, and I either pound or walk. What my power of reason does is line up my options in my imagination so my instincts/drives/emotions can make an informed choice.
Personal morality is a self-imposed infringement on my natural right to do whatever I can, and as such, it is always questionable, and may sometimes be reasonable, sometimes not. So far I've accepted two moral tenets as reasonable: (1) logical consistency; and (2) reciprocity, what I've called
Newtonian Conduct, worded as, "For every action let there be an equal and opposite reaction."
I apparently have a "submit to personal morality" instinct/drive/emotion, tempered by a "question personal morality" instinct/drive/emotion, and countered by all the other instincts/drives/emotions vying for dominance in my psyche. Felt urgency is the feedback my inner servomechanism uses to gauge what I should do next. When at equilibrium I do nothing. But I don't stay there long unless I'm sick or just very tired.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 13, 2011, 09:03:59 AM
So what constitutes a justified (reasonable) infringement?
I am still less than half way through the Natural Law document, but I think I am beginning to understand it.
I think that it can be used to help answer the questions of what is a justified infringement of our Physical Rights.
If I steal your car, you may feel the urge to get artistic with me using your chainsaw as a carving tool or punch me in the face and take your car back. An objective observer may feel that you are justified in punching me in the face, not so justified in the use of your chainsaw talents.
All of this happens, regardless of what the Legal Law states. These people have decided for themselves what "Natural" rights they think we are entitled to.
Violation of "natural" rights leads to unorganised violence.
To create Legal Law to create a functioning society a government must:
1. Not violate natural rights and thus give people an incentive to take up unorganised violence
2. Create Legal Law to protect natural rights and thus protect people from other people whom may violate their natural rights.
Quote from: Stevil link=topic=8807.msg139912#msg139912
To create Legal Law to create a functioning society a government must:
1. Not violate natural rights and thus give people an incentive to take up unorganised violence
2. Create Legal Law to protect natural rights and thus protect people from other people whom may violate their natural rights.
But, my major point is that I don't think government should go above and beyond (in relation to violating our physical rights).
Government should not create laws and thus restriction on human behaviour if that human behaviour does not result in the common situation where people will feel their natural human rights have been violated and thus resort to unorganised violence.
e.g. government should not make laws to restrict peoples' physical right to gay sex or gay marriage.
gay sex ought to be a natural human right as I would think that gay people ought to resort to unorganised violence if people try to stop them. As an objective observer I would support the gay people in this fight.
I finally got through the natural rights article.
It was very interesting, had some great food for thought.
I disagreed with quite a bit of it though.
The author refers to morality and evil but there is no such thing.
He suggest that all of human kind are the same but forgets about cultural, habitual, learned influences on the way we live and how each of us take certain rights to be worthy of fighting for.
He mentions Physical Rights but then forgets about it and states that Natural law is the top level of rights.
He is correct to say that government is not the highest authority, that the people will override government when certain rights are compromised.
He mentions that Authoritarians and Unitarians want to redefine language to suit them but does not mention that theists have already bastardised our language. e.g. the term "rights" includes a morality aspect which is only appropriate to theists.
There is no magical Natural Rights, our rights are defined by Physical Rights, each individual then prioritises these rights and accepts that some of them must be compromised in order to create a functional society. Government cannot work for themselves and impose on the people. Government must be representative of society and work for them. Government must stay in touch with the people to understand their understanding and priorities on which rights matter most, government must provide law to protect us not to arbitrarily constrain us. Society wants freedom but within the confines of a safe and functional society.
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. as wiki states
when in rome act as a roman
do not bow but break
etc. whatever you fancy in any particular theatre play of lives
other than that
I understand human rights which link directly to basic human needs and are expected in modern homo sapiens behaviours and social conduct. BIOLOGY 101
Quote from: pytheas on January 20, 2012, 07:31:17 PM
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. as wiki states
I disagree with this.
Especially "rights are the fundamental normative rules"
Rights are not rules. Rules are constraints that are used to frame "rights".
Ethical principles of freedom are worthless. There is no objective ethical standard.
Quote from: Stevil on January 21, 2012, 10:00:33 PM
Quote from: pytheas on January 20, 2012, 07:31:17 PM
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. as wiki states
I disagree with this.
Especially "rights are the fundamental normative rules"
Rights are not rules. Rules are constraints that are used to frame "rights".
Ethical principles of freedom are worthless. There is no objective ethical standard.
the freedom of choice is worthless? the principle of consciousness is "voting" in a neuronal coordinated firing level
Who cares about universal because that is what you mean. objective? you breath air of specific composition and require specific amounts of oxygen water food (company, sex, cigarretes)
the frame, the field of operation, the perspective is part of our function. Within each instant there can be objectivity.
Within particular frames thereupon, specific situations a consensus good or bad is reached with astonishing uniformity.
As you change the rules , theframe so does the voting adapt. Differences in shifting perspectives can be attributed to poor uniform recognition of the new set of parameters. as always clarity of information is part of the solution
everything flows and everchanges in the cosmic backdrop
---------------------------------------------------------------------
i can not press the argument with the vague notion of "rights"
I fold to your indication and retreat in the frame I am familiar and interested in, Human Rights
Quote from: pytheas on January 22, 2012, 08:52:41 AM
I fold to your indication and retreat in the frame I am familiar and interested in, Human Rights
Human rights would be great for discussion.
It seems this would be a difficult set of rights to frame. Rights in general is difficult enough.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) seems to be a pretty good attempt.
But some of these seem quite vague, for example in the quote below what is meant by dignity, rights, or spirit of brotherhood?
Quote
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
It is interesting to me that these are a list of perceived rights, rather than a rule to frame them.
Quote from: Stevil on January 22, 2012, 10:41:09 AM
Quote from: pytheas on January 22, 2012, 08:52:41 AM
I fold to your indication and retreat in the frame I am familiar and interested in, Human Rights
Human rights would be great for discussion.
It seems this would be a difficult set of rights to frame. Rights in general is difficult enough.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) seems to be a pretty good attempt.
But some of these seem quite vague, for example in the quote below what is meant by dignity, rights, or spirit of brotherhood?
Quote
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
It is interesting to me that these are a list of perceived rights, rather than a rule to frame them.
dignity as an answer to human need of self-respect, self-determination, self-confidence
likewise a need for the social animal, to belong and identify to a group is represented in spirits of brotherhood( with a lots of sisters in as well, preferably)
i wrote an eloquent agreed furthemore, but my 1 year old crawled onto and pressed Esc on the keyboard so it was lost
not only interesting but we actively participate in defining the width of moral good and bad in a uniform way, if one normalises for the specific inputs and cultural peculiarities. that is the slippery "normative" range of what we refer back to as healthy
kids acquire this sense of good and bad before they can be taught to remember formal rules and before they have a discipline according to reason to disagree with their emotion and grudgingly do the "right" thing
life gives ample evidence of what bullshit religion is if used for living, persiring, paining morals
1) (dont)do to others what you (dont) want done to yourself, which is base mirror neurons and oxytocin bonds
2) Live and let live, which is transcedental intelligence
3) while everything is allowed, certain things are not accepted, which is Albert Camus in Sisiphus and an outcome of knowthyself and social wisdom progression