|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 0/34 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: radical liberals (aka liberal commies) vs ultra conservatives (aka nutjobs) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
OK, for the sake of argument, lets say that we have natural rights. Who gave them to us? (Be specific) No one gives them. Human rights are intrinsic to being human.
quote: Examples: Wetness is intrinsic to water. Yellow color is intrinsic to gold. Flammability is intrinsic to gasoline (or petrol if you prefer).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Amnesty International simply tries to build a consensus and can confer no rights whatsoever. Human rights are never conferred, so how could Amnesty International give them to anyone? Their entire message is that all humans have rights. Period. If AI did not exist people would still have those rights. If no consensus exists within the government those rights would still exist. AI's real weapon is shame. They try to make governments look bad in the international community because of their violations of human rights. If governments can just make human rights go away, how are they able to do this? How can they claim that a government is violating human rights if governments are the ultimate authority? Stealth edit, sorry . . .
They are great evidence that no intrinsic or inalienable rights exist. How so?
Rights only exist within the context of a State, society or culture. Of course. I have never argued otherwise. You need at least two humans interacting before rights become an issue.
The speed limit does not cease to exist when you exceed it because it is still codified by a particular State, culture or society. When I exceed the speed limit I have effectively revoked the speed limit according to your argument. They cease to exist the moment I vioate them.
The speed limit though is still not related in anyway to a right. But it is related to the difference between existence and violation which is the issue at hand.
And again, teh State, culture or society that established the speed limit can change, raise, lower or abolish that particular speed limit at any time. Actually, the individual can abolish speed limits according to your own argument. The moment I violate the speed limit it has been revoked just as you claim that human rights are revoked the moment a government violates them. Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
No, as an individual you can not revoke any rights. Period. Sure I can. All I need to do is violate that right and it is revoked. That is your entire argument. Once a right is violated it ceases to exist.
Speed limits do not cease to exist as soon as you exceed them nor have I ever made such a claim or assertion. It is the unavoidable consequence of your argument.
As long as the LIMIT (not a right) is codified by some State, culture or society it exists. It ceases to exist the moment I violate the law, according to your own argument.
Amnesty International can lobby for a State, culture or society to adopt what they believe should be some right, but unless the State, culture or society agrees, it is a non-issue Violation of human rights is very much an issue. It has been for quite some time. The UN was founded on the idea that human rights are a huge issue, especially in countries that continue to violate human rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
You need to add in the additional "P5: You ought not to cause in others that which you do not wish to experience"; and then you can logically conclude "You ought not to cause fear of death in others". That seemed more like a conclusion than a premise, at least to me. I will take your suggestion to heart and rework it for future posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
No. But many people do. Yes, those suffering such intense pain (physical or emotional) that it overcomes their fear of death. That doesn't negate the fact that the vast majority of people fear death, and that fear is in all of us (except for those who have serious mental problems).
Premise 1 is false - Not everyone fears death. In fact, many people long for it. As a general rule, they do.
Premise 2 is false - Many people enjoy being scared. People go on helter-skelter rides because they like being scared by death. People would not be on those rides if there was a 10% fatality rate.
Premise 3 is false - Empathy fools you into thinking that other people feel the same way as you do. I never said that empathy was infallible. The point stands that we are able to determine that others fear death, and they do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
You know, others can actually read what I write. A speed limit is not a right . . . I would suggest that you read what I write as well. I have never said that speed limits are a right. NEVER. I was using the speed limit as an example of the difference between violation and existence.
You exceeding the speed limit does not mean that the speed limit ceases to exist. Just like human rights exist even when they are violated. Pointing to a government violating the rights of its citizens is not an example of a government revoking human rights.
And you have not shown that there are any rights except those codified by a given Sate, culture or society. I have shown that the conclusion of human rights follows from the premises.
Unless and until they are recognized by a State, culture or society they are NOT rights and do not even exist. Did the Earth only become round once humans recognized it? Or was the roundness of the Earth an intrinsic property of the planet from the very start? The same applies to human rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Rights are things that individuals/societies/cultures make up. Rights are arrived at through Reason.
Sure, we make them up because they benefit our own society. But different societies make up different rights. There is no global consensus. I will agree that not everyone has adopted the idea of human rights. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. Surely you would not argue that the Earth can not be 4.55 billion years old because some societies do not accept it.
Rights seem to simply be an emergent property of having laws. Rights are an emergent property of Reason when applied to human cultures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
But I can show that speed limits exist, they are codified into law. If, as you argue, violations result in a revocation, then they cease to exist the moment I break the speed limit. You argue that governments revoke human rights when they violate them.
And no, you have not shown that "human rights" follows from some premise. Could you go into more depth?
The earth is kinda round, and that can be definitely established. As I established human rights in the argument above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
But since it is not 100% true, it undermines your claims of human rights being intrinsic.
It is intrinsic. It is still there even in those suffering pain. If they felt there was another option to end their pain I am sure they would take that option instead of death.
But there is a fatality rate and people still go on those rides. There is not a 10% fatality rate, and the death rate is about the same as driving down the freeway.
We can also tell that people don't fear death. Then you seem to agree with me that empathy works.
Causing people to be scared of death may or may not be an ok thing to do. It depends. There is no human right pertinent to deciding which is correct. How did you determine this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
But I have never made such a claim; in fact I have said repeatedly that there is no evidence that any "human or natural" rights even exist except within the context of specific State, cultures or societies. In message 63 you stated:
quote: It is the continual conflation of an is with an ought that makes the claim for you. What we ought to do is not defined by what we do. They are two different things. Human rights are not defined by what a government does. They are defined by what a government ought to do. In this, no government can revoke a person's human rights. No matter what they do it does not exempt them from what they ought to do. Violating a person's human rights does not prove that human rights do not exist. Pointing to governments who do not recognize human rights does not prove that they don't exist. Human rights are based on Reason, not on what governments, societies, or cultures actually do.
They exist ONLY within a specified context codified into law by some State, culture or society and even then have very proscribed limits. You can drive 55 in an area where the speed limit is 55 or higher but not in an area where it is lower. You can drive faster than the speed limit. I've done it. According to your argument, this negates the existence of the speed limit because an is negates an ought.
Other States, cultures and societies have codified actual rights. No "ought" needed. If they didn't codify those rights they would still exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I have never made such a claim. Just to make sure we are on the same page, you are agreeing that human rights, IF they exist, are not disproven by what a government actually does?
Oughts do not exist in reality. Empirically, neither do legal laws. Legal laws are abstract entities as well. Writing them down does not make them any more real than human rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I have seen no evidence that human rights exist except within the context of a State, culture or society. I presented that evidence outside of the context of a state, culture, or society. You flatly dismissed it without explaining why. I was hoping that you could explain why you reject the conclusion drawn from the premises.
And of course laws exist and are not abstract entities. Then I will take the jar tack. I have seen no evidence that laws exist outside of being abstract entities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Yeah, but I can see a real effect from legal rights - I'll get a fine if I'm speeding. There are also real effects from human rights violations, such as economic sanctions and being convicted in international courts (e.g. the Hague). South Africa suffered economic sanctions in the mid 1980's in response to human rights violations. This sanction was not based on codified US law. It was based on the argument that violating human rights is wrong.
But telling that african slave that's starving in the desert that he has rights and ought not be treated like that doesn't do him a goddamned thing. The fact that we can point to injustices is evidence that human rights do exist. How can we say that something is wrong unless we have a set of human rights to compare them to?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Maybe this discussion deserves to have a thread dedicated to it. I know this is Free For All, so this is just a suggestion.
Liberalism has its roots in Enlightenment philosophy as it relates to natural rights and equality. Human rights form the very foundation of liberalism.
quote: Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Until South Africa decided that blacks had rights, the blacks did not have rights. Blacks had human rights the entire time. The government was violating those rights.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024