Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   radical liberals (aka liberal commies) vs ultra conservatives (aka nutjobs)
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 76 of 300 (659080)
04-12-2012 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by jar
04-12-2012 11:24 AM


Re: Human Rights
The evidence is that even in the US the State has the right to take away someone's life or liberty.
They have the ability to, yes. A government could even have laws that state they have the right to. However, they would still be violating human rights.
You are once again confusing an is with an ought. It is an important distinction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 04-12-2012 11:24 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 77 of 300 (659081)
04-12-2012 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Taq
04-12-2012 11:32 AM


Re: A statist by any other name...
I never doubted you were drawing from others. In fact these very same questions were heated discussion on the porch on warm evening back when I was in about the 9th grade.
But reality seldom pays much attention to philosophy except through building a consensus in a particular society.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Taq, posted 04-12-2012 11:32 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Taq, posted 04-12-2012 11:52 AM jar has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 78 of 300 (659082)
04-12-2012 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by New Cat's Eye
04-12-2012 10:03 AM


Re: Human Rights
That african slave from 1000 years ago? yeah, he had all the rights a modern day american has, he was just chained up starving in the desert... but he still had his rights!
He did. Others violated those rights. Along with jar, you are confusing an is with an ought.
Again, human rights are not a list of things that humans are physically incapabe of doing. Natural rights can be violated. No one is disagreeing with this.
And by "being there", you mean that you pretend that they are there.
As much as we pretend that reason and morality exist.
That's oddly religious...
No, it is reason and morality, two things often missing from religion.
These rights seem to stem from rationalism or, fuck it, pull out the big card: they were just endowed by our Creator!
In the deist or pantheist sense, yes. In this school of thought, the Creator can be nature and the argument is unaffected. Natural rights are not derived from infallible proclamations of a supernatural deity. They are derived from reason and empathy.
Euthyphro's Dilemma is a good example of what I am talking about. Socrates once asked, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?". IOW, is morality separate from the supernatural? Is morality something we have access to independently of the supernatural? I would argue that we judge for ourselves whether the commandments of a god are moral or not. Morality is not obedience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2012 10:03 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Straggler, posted 04-12-2012 12:01 PM Taq has replied
 Message 101 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2012 4:33 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 79 of 300 (659084)
04-12-2012 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by jar
04-12-2012 11:36 AM


Re: A statist by any other name...
But reality seldom pays much attention to philosophy except through building a consensus in a particular society.
Hence the Is/Ought problem.
Playing the Godwin card . . . many Nazi officers used what is now famously called the Nuremburg defense ("I was just following orders"). This was not accepted as an excuse for violating human rights. Just because you are allowed to do something, or in fact ORDERED to do something, does not acquit you of acting morally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 04-12-2012 11:36 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 04-12-2012 12:01 PM Taq has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 80 of 300 (659087)
04-12-2012 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Taq
04-12-2012 11:52 AM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Again, they were found guilty based on what the victors believed and under the rights endowed by the victors system.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Taq, posted 04-12-2012 11:52 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 04-12-2012 12:06 PM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 81 of 300 (659088)
04-12-2012 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Taq
04-12-2012 11:47 AM


Re: Human Rights
I like the idea that there could be a "universal" set of human rights that we might all be able to agree to but I'm not sure how "universal" they really are.
Aren't such things highly subject to cultural world views and thus not really "universal" at all? How do we decide what these rights are? How do we decide who or what these rights apply to?
It seems that these things change according to time and place. Can we really identify a set of rights that transcend such temporal considerations?
If so - What are these timeless rights which are independent of culture?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Taq, posted 04-12-2012 11:47 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Taq, posted 04-12-2012 12:10 PM Straggler has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 82 of 300 (659089)
04-12-2012 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by jar
04-12-2012 12:01 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Again, they were found guilty based on what the victors believed and under the rights endowed by the victors system.
They were guilty of violating human rights regardless of any court.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 04-12-2012 12:01 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 04-12-2012 12:10 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 83 of 300 (659092)
04-12-2012 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Straggler
04-12-2012 12:01 PM


Re: Human Rights
Aren't such things highly subject to cultural world views and thus not really "universal" at all? How do we decide what these rights are? How do we decide who or what these rights apply to?
That has been the topic of philosophy for quite some time now. Locke proposed three basic rights: life, liberty, and estate (property). Natural rights have been debated for centuries, and no complete and final list has been produced. Codifying morality has always been problematic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Straggler, posted 04-12-2012 12:01 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Straggler, posted 04-12-2012 12:12 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 104 by Panda, posted 04-13-2012 10:00 AM Taq has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 84 of 300 (659093)
04-12-2012 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Taq
04-12-2012 12:06 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Really. Had Germany won would they even have been charged?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 04-12-2012 12:06 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Taq, posted 04-12-2012 12:15 PM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 85 of 300 (659094)
04-12-2012 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Taq
04-12-2012 12:10 PM


Re: Human Rights
So you think that there are a set of inalienable, incontrovertible, timeless and culture-independent rights out there waiting to be discovered - But that no-one yet knows what these are.......?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Taq, posted 04-12-2012 12:10 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 86 of 300 (659095)
04-12-2012 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by jar
04-12-2012 12:10 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Really. Had Germany won would they even have been charged?
That has nothing to do with whether or not they were guilty of violating human rights. A government ought not violate human rights. The Nazis did. They are guilty of violating human rights. Whether or not someone is punished has nothing to do with whether or not they violated those rights. Again, the Is/Ought problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 04-12-2012 12:10 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 04-12-2012 12:20 PM Taq has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 87 of 300 (659097)
04-12-2012 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Taq
04-12-2012 12:15 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
You may think they "ought not" or "ought", but what does that have to do with reality? Other groups may and do hold other beliefs.
Rights only exist within the consensus of a state, culture, community. You are free to argue for what you believe should be "human rights" but it is only through building consensus or through force that you can impose those rights.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Taq, posted 04-12-2012 12:15 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Straggler, posted 04-12-2012 12:28 PM jar has seen this message but not replied
 Message 91 by Taq, posted 04-12-2012 12:56 PM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 88 of 300 (659099)
04-12-2012 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by jar
04-12-2012 12:20 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
I think The Golden Rule is about as close as there is to an objective reasoned moral position.
But to codify even this (if it is even accepted) into a set of rights would seem to be largely a cultural endeavour.
jar writes:
Rights only exist within the consensus of a state, culture, community.
I think I agree. I'm not sure how it could be otherwise in any practical sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 04-12-2012 12:20 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Huntard, posted 04-12-2012 12:44 PM Straggler has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 89 of 300 (659101)
04-12-2012 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Straggler
04-12-2012 12:28 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Straggler writes:
I think I agree. I'm not sure how it could be otherwise in any practical sense.
I think this can largely be mirrored by the "are we living in the matrix" thing.
Factually, it might be correct to say that we live in the matrix, yet, practically, this is completely irrelevant. As long as no one is aware of this, the matrix is our reality
So, factually, it might be correct to say that some rights are unalienable. but practically that is completely irrelevant. As long as people violate those rights, it doesn't matter whether you have them or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Straggler, posted 04-12-2012 12:28 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Straggler, posted 04-12-2012 12:48 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 90 of 300 (659103)
04-12-2012 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Huntard
04-12-2012 12:44 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Huntard writes:
I think this can largely be mirrored by the "are we living in the matrix" thing.
Neo: "I know my rights. I want my phone call."
Agent Smith: "Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is a phone call if you are unable to speak?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Huntard, posted 04-12-2012 12:44 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024