|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: radical liberals (aka liberal commies) vs ultra conservatives (aka nutjobs) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Did Pluto only exist once we discovered it, or did it exist prior to its discovery? Human rights are the same. Enlightenment philosophers like Locke discovered human rights. They did not invent them. Rules for social behavior can only ever be a human invention. There is no objective law of the Universe that says "torture is evil." The Universe doesn't care. Only people care, only we give moral meaning to the Universe, not the other way around, and so we are the ones who decide what rights we have by common agreement.
Secondly, how does a society take away human rights? A society that pretends human rights don't exist looks curiously identical to a world where human rights don't exist. The Nazis decided that human rights were not universal...and the only thing that stopped them in the end was military force from others who disagreed. That would seem to suggest that human rights only exist as long as we choose to keep them.
We always have them. What the agreement allows for is a State that protects those rights. Why? Because you say so? A foreign power or tyrant could only violate our human rights, not take them away. Only from the perspective of an idealist who for some irrational reason believes that morality is objective. Taq, morality (and thus human rights) can only ever be subjective, because it can only ever exist in the minds of people. Guidelines for interpersonal behavior are not written in stone, nor are they numbered among the laws of physics alongside gravity. Moral conclusions like human rights only appear to be self-evident when sufficient people have a sufficiently similar ethical goal system. If we all believe that morality is guided by human empathy, then yes, we'll tend to wind up with nearly identical conclusions, and if enough of us think that way then such conclusions will appear to be self-evident. But if a person believes that morality is dictated by an authority figure, for an example, that person can wind up with entirely different moral conclusions and thus believe something entirely different about human rights. We can probably agree on which point of view creates a better society, but that doesn't mean that our moral conclusions are somehow objectively true. Rights only exist in the human mind. Just like all other aspects of morality.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds ofvariously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The issue is YOU confusing does with should.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Of course it was the State, society or culture that wrote the agreement.
It really is that simple.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Of course it was the State, society or culture that wrote the agreement. I never argued otherwise. They wrote the agreement based on human rights that exist outside of the state, society, or culture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The issue is YOU confusing does with should.
Could you go into more depth on this one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It is really very simple.
You seem to think that something that "should be" really is. The very fact that the word "should" can be asserted proves that it does not exist. Rights exist only when recognized by a State, culture or society. There is no such thing as a universal or inalienable right except within the consensus of that State, culture or society. Rights are simply a construct of a given State, culture or society an even then are usually limited in context and extent, and are created through a consensus within that State, culture or society and have no existence outside that State, culture or society and are not even universal or inalienable within that State, culture or society. It is only when that State, culture or society removes the term "should" and substitutes the term "is" through either building consensus or imposition by force, compulsion, intimidation or coercion that the rights have any existence.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Rules for social behavior can only ever be a human invention. But what do we base the rules on? I have argued in this thread that the rules should be based on human rights that can be objectively determined through empathy and reason.
There is no objective law of the Universe that says "torture is evil." The Universe doesn't care. Throughout this thread I have argued that we can objectively determine what human rights are. The Golden Rule is a decent approximation.
A society that pretends human rights don't exist looks curiously identical to a world where human rights don't exist. Human rights are not a list of actions that humans are physically incapable of doing. I have never pretended that they are. This comes down to Hume's Is/Ought problem. We don't derive what a society ought to do by what a society is doing.
Why? Because you say so? I have said so with the backing of what I consider to be a compelling argument. Do you want your stuff stolen? Probably not. Are you able to determine that another person is sentient like you are and would feel the same emotions as you if their stuff was stolen? Yes. Therefore, you should not steal other peoples stuff because it is something that you do not want done to you.
Taq, morality (and thus human rights) can only ever be subjective, because it can only ever exist in the minds of people. I am arguing that it can be objective because we share the same fundamental emotions and are capable of using empathy and reason.
But if a person believes that morality is dictated by an authority figure, for an example, that person can wind up with entirely different moral conclusions and thus believe something entirely different about human rights. This would be a case of someone ignoring empathy and reason, therefore leading to subjective conclusions on human rights.
Rights only exist in the human mind. As much as any objective scientific model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You seem to think that something that "should be" really is. No, I am arguing that empathy and reason are real. Using these two things we can arrive at the objective conclusion of human rights.
Rights exist only when recognized by a State, culture or society. There is no such thing as a universal or inalienable right except within the consensus of that State, culture or society.
It is my stance that these rights exist whether or not a state, culture, or society recognizes them. They have always existed as long as humans have been sentient. A state, culture, or society does not need to recognize these rights in order for them to exist. Violating a person's human rights does not make those rights go away.
It is only when that State, culture or society removes the term "should" and substitutes the term "is" through either building consensus or imposition by force, compulsion, intimidation or coercion that the rights have any existence. What you are talking about is the decision to punish those who violate human rights. This is different than determining if these rights exist in the first place. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I fully understand your stance but so far you have not provided any support for that position.
It really is that simple. Reason and empathy are not rights, nor are they universal nor are they inalienable. Until and unless you can provide some testable evidence to support your assertion, you have nothing but your opinions. AbE: nor am I just talking about punishment. Read what I write fully, what you even quoted.
jar writes: It is only when that State, culture or society removes the term "should" and substitutes the term "is" through either building consensus or imposition by force, compulsion, intimidation or coercion that the rights have any existence. Note the term "consensus". Edited by jar, : see AbE:Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
I fully understand your stance but so far you have not provided any support for that position. You could at least acknowledge that I have put forward an argument for human rights, and then show why that argument fails. That would seem to be more productive than pretending that I never put an argument forward.
Reason and empathy are not rights, nor are they universal nor are they inalienable.
I never said that they were. I said that one can use reason and empathy to arrive at human rights.
Until and unless you can provide some testable evidence to support your assertion, you have nothing but your opinions. Here is the test. I say that not having your stuff taken away for no reason is a human right. We test this by determining if a vast majority of sane people do not like to have their stuff stolen from them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Whether someone likes or dislikes something is not a matter of rights nor does it show that any rights exist.
I will acknowledge that you have put forward an argument that you believe human rights should exist, but so far I have seen no argument that shows that human rights exist except where they are implemented and accepted by a State, culture or society.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4258 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
Taq writes: At least I attempt to add something of substance to the thread. Perhaps you could give that a try? since when is moving the goalposts adding substance? your delusions of you adding substance is funnier than Dr. Semantics!!! ROFL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
since when is moving the goalposts adding substance? your delusions of you adding substance is funnier than Dr. Semantics!!!
Where did I move the goalposts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Whether someone likes or dislikes something is not a matter of rights nor does it show that any rights exist. Why not?
I will acknowledge that you have put forward an argument that you believe human rights should exist, but so far I have seen no argument that shows that human rights exist except where they are implemented and accepted by a State, culture or society. In that argument I argue that they do exist outside of any state, culture, or society. My argument is based on the idea of empathy and reason, not the sovereignty of a state or the consensus of a culture. The idea is that we are sentient, we are capable of empathy, and we are able to understand the pain we cause in others. If you think it is wrong for people to kill you without cause, take your stuff without cause, or imprison you without cause then it is wrong for you to do the same to someone else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
What I think is totally irrelevant to the issue of rights.
It really is that simple.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024