ican,
Are you kidding with this thread? Do you maintain that rights are not a social cosntruct?
Craven de Kere wrote:ican,
Are you kidding with this thread? Do you maintain that rights are not a social cosntruct?
Define <social construct>.
And while you're at it, Craven, please define Ican!!
ican,
social construct = something created by society.
Craven de Kere wrote:ican,
social construct = something created by society.
Yes, I maintain that the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are not a <social construct> because they are not <something created by society>. They are intrinsic and inherent in human life.
I maintain that these rights are created by birth and maintained throughout one's life whether or not one is able to enjoy them. The security of one's right to life, liberty or pursuit of happiness so that such rights can be enjoyed, can be forfeited by someone who violates the security of that same right of another.
Failure to acknowlege what I have written here leads inevitably to tyranny and the murder of non-believers.
ican711nm wrote:Craven de Kere wrote:ican,
social construct = something created by society.
Yes, I maintain that the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are not a <social construct> because they are not <something created by society>. They are intrinsic and inherent in human life.
I maintain that these rights are created by birth and maintained throughout one's life whether or not one is able to enjoy them. The security of one's right to life, liberty or pursuit of happiness so that such rights can be enjoyed, can be forfeited by someone who violates the security of that same right of another.
Failure to acknowlege what I have written here leads inevitably to tyranny and the murder of non-believers.
Ican,
You make little sense but you've been soundly rebutted before to no avail so what's the point.
ican711nm wrote:Craven de Kere wrote:ican,
social construct = something created by society.
Yes, I maintain that the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are not a <social construct> because they are not <something created by society>. They are intrinsic and inherent in human life.
I maintain that these rights are created by birth and maintained throughout one's life whether or not one is able to enjoy them. The security of one's right to life, liberty or pursuit of happiness so that such rights can be enjoyed, can be forfeited by someone who violates the security of that same right of another.
Failure to acknowlege what I have written here leads inevitably to tyranny and the murder of non-believers.
Ican, you have fallen off the edge.
Get a grip on it, man!
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not rights at all -- they are, as someone earlier observed, a lyrical notion created by Thomas Jefferson and associates -- a political sound bite.
That's all!
There is absolutely no reason whatever to suppose that they are "rights created by birth and maintained throughout one's life whether or not one is able to enjoy them." (That little piece of fluff, by the way, reminds me of the Christian notion: "God answers all prayers, but sometimes he answers NO!")
kuvasz wrote:
I am looking here for someone to tell me not what it is upon which you disagree but that upon which you agree.
It’s the only way to start a basis for negotiation.
Yes, I maintain that the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are not a <social construct> because they are not <something created by society>. They are intrinsic and inherent in human life.
I maintain that these rights are created by birth and maintained throughout one's life whether or not one is able to enjoy them. The security of one's right to life, liberty or pursuit of happiness so that such rights can be enjoyed, can be forfeited by someone who violates the security of that same right of another.
Failure to acknowlege what I have written here leads inevitably to tyranny and the murder of non-believers.
truth
Bosc pears and five dollar bills cloud the discussion more than they clarify it. Arguing by analogy is a murky approach to persuasion. Nevertheless, we live our lives by means of metaphors. My "defense" of Ican is not intended to condone his objectivism. Reference to God, the cosmos is a way to subjectively ground his values. We all do that in some form, be it "reason," "logic", "evidence," "formal proofs, etc.--a whole range of what appear to me to be affectations. Face it, we are just struggling to make subjective sense of the world, a sense that we find peasant. Noone seeks a truth they find grotesque. HERE, to be sure, some of us are merely competing for the sake of it. Very American. Back to my presumptuous defense of Ican (I say presumptuous because he does not need my help, and--besides--it is very limited, but better than a back-handed compliment). I see too much black and white here (even though that's too be expected in a contest). Nobody seems to look for the value in Ican's argument. And he tends to ignore the value of, say, Frank's intellectual honesty, even though it is presently masked by his competitive machoism. I am essentially on the side of Joe, Cephus, Tartarin, Frank, Cere de Kere and others regarding the artificiality of human meaning. I am clearly a constructivist in the tradition of the German Idealists, Kant, Max Weber, A. Schutz,Schopenhaur, Thomas Luckmann and, on the American side Cooley, P. Berger and Hubert Blumer. I very much appreciate the pragmatist conception of truth of James and Pierce, and even tend toward the anti-foundatonalism of Nietzsche and Richard Rorty (to the extent that I understand all the above). That's where I stand. I am neither an absolutist, theist, nor foundationalist of any sort (that I am conscious of). Nevertheless, I see Ican's position as having the merit of trying to give intellectual/public strength to his personal ideological position (Maliagar does the same). Don't we all try to
validate our subjective views of life by presenting them AS IF they should be acceptable to all others? We find it very hard to admit that our constructions are ONLY constructions. Isn't that what Kant's Categorial Imperative or Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence attempt to do? My point is that whle it is fine to engage others in philosophical contest, we do ourselves harm when we make no effort to appreciate their position as it appears to them. Lest you all think me a namby pamby I exclude Maliagar's position. Actually, I was raised in the Catholic tradition, which is probably part of my aversion to his Catholic absolutism--which I see even though he'll deny it. The difference--that I see--is that unlike Maliagar's absolutism, Ican's would not lead to some kind of ideological fascism, if he were given the power. His is a purely personal existential effort; Maliagar's, like the Pope's, is both an existential AND a political one. Like Kuvasz,, I must leave town for four or five days, and will be very interested to how the process continues.
Tartarin, a brief response (we can continue the issue later). I see great value in ambiguity in the meaning of "significant forms" in my kind of abstract art. I like to do work that is suggestive, that evokes in the reader symbolic possibilities, and it is the multivocality, the possibility of diverse interpretations, even for the same viewer at different times, that I referred to as the "power" of symbols as compared to the univocality of signs.
ican711nm wrote: Failure to acknowlege what I have written here leads inevitably to tyranny and the murder of non-believers.
BS. It just means we recognize that we need to secure those rights and you think that some nebulous entity predestined them.
Kuvasz,
Here's more with which I agree.
joefromchicago wrote:I'm going to go over this one more time, very slowly, and then I'll have done with it. The notion that rights are inherent is not contradicted by the notion that people may be punished with the deprivation of their rights, or that people may be deprived of their rights by wrongdoers. As I mentioned before, "inherent" does not mean "inviolable." Never has -- and no one has ever taken that position
Kuvasz, Here's some more with which I agree.
ican711nm wrote:UNABRIDGEABLE VALUES
Treat others the way you want to be treated.
Do not treat others the way you don't want to be treated.
Love others as you love yourself.
Root for one another to live long, healthy, honorably, and prosper.
INTRINSIC AND INHERENT RIGHTS IMPLIED BY THE UNABRIDGEABLE VALUES
Life.
Liberty.
The pursuit of happiness.
None of the above is subject to editing by a majority or a minority. All of the above is subject to their security being determined by a majority or a minority.
Cephus wrote:The problem is that natural rights theorists argue from an unprovable position. They *BELIEVE*, based on philosophical or religious preconceptions, that somehow man is more than a smart ape running around on a small lump of rock in a very large universe.
What do you mean by "unprovable"? Certainly, no one claims that rights of any kind can be proven inductively (unless
you are attempting to make that claim,
Cephus). So the only way to "prove" the existence of rights is to do so by means of deduction. Now, I've already mentioned a few theorists who believe that inherent rights
can be proved deductively (e.g. Fichte, Kant). Their positions are not based upon belief (which would involve a metaphysical proof) but upon reason (which involves a deductive proof). If you believe that it is
impossible to prove the existence of inherent rights deductively, you should at least provide something more than a blanket "they can't do it."
Cephus wrote:The inherent flaw in the natural rights position is the unfounded assumption that mankind matters in the scheme of the universe, that somehow the entire universe exists simply to please humanity. That's ludicrous on the face of it. We simply evolved, we created societies, we created governments, we created laws and we created rights. You don't see cows arguing for inherent bovine right to life when we lead them off to slaughter. There simply is no functional application or demonstration of these inherent rights beyond the simple demand that they exist, so there.
Yet another strawman argument. Who exactly are these natural rights theorists who claim that the universe exists simply to please humanity? Even Locke didn't maintain that position.
Cephus wrote:The biggest problem is that there is no possible real world test for these so-called inherent rights. You can claim that an invisible, intangible gnome lives on your shoulder, but if there is no way to demonstrate that it's real, then for all intents and purposes, why should anyone think that it does? A claim which cannot be demonstrated, logically, objectively or functionally, is no different than no claim at all.
You have confused inductive proofs with deductive proofs. There can be no possible (deductive) real world test for inherent rights for the same reason that there can be no possible (deductive) real world test for societal rights.
To illustrate: the existence of an invisible gnome can be disproved inductively; given our understanding of the laws of science, we can test for the presence of "something." In the absence of that "something," we can at least state that, whatever might be there, it is not susceptible to any known laws of science. On that basis we can confidently conclude that nothing is there.
In contrast, there is no
inductive proof available for rights, of any sort whatsoever. What you're asking for,
Cephus, is that inherent rights meet a standard of proof that even societal rights cannot attain.
"Don't we all try to validate our subjective views of life by presenting them AS IF they should be acceptable to all others? We find it very hard to admit that our constructions are ONLY constructions."
JL: No. At least, I don't. I have a problem with that "should." It seems to me that if one is self-aware and yet has lived around others, one accepts that our constructions are "only" constructions precisely because we realize the extent to which others' constructions are "only" constructions. I put "only" in quotes not to be pedantic but because of my feeling that most constructions are interesting and valuable (hey, we wouldn't have creativity, invention, art, if humans didn't make and value constructions!).
"Framing" (that NLP concept which seems to dominate the current administration!) is a deliberate construct. We talk about "giving things meaning." We value inventors of all kinds. All of these depend on the human mind's ability to look at things from different, eccentric points of view.
I think Ican's construct is interesting, but it loses value for me if Ican doesn't understand that it's a construct and it ultimately becomes meaningless when it doesn't have meaning for others. In that sense, Ican's attitude towards his construct has the potential to turn him into a kind of bubble-boy, the person who lives outside human contact.
Artists? Most artists are looking for resonance, for a link to others through expression, even though the work they have done is personally so fullfilling that, up to a certain point, they don't need that connection to continue.
joe
I'll say the same thing to you that I have said to Ican on several occasions.
There is absolutely no reason to assume we humans have been "endowed" with any rights -- let alone, rights that are inherent or intrinsic.
That is a supposition pulled out of thin air.
I am not saying that it is impossible that there are rights with which we are endowed -- even by a GOD. But I am saying that there is no reason to assume that to be the case.
Ican is assuming there are. He is asserting there are.
I am saying to Ican that if he has a point to make about rights -- he ought to make that point without trying to assert that the point is confirmed by a GOD -- or by the natural order of things.
Having JL Nobody mention Schopenhauer in this discussion brings more to this discussion than constructionalism, for Schopenhauer also poses a question to the "rights are only a social construct" crew found on this thread that requires them to use social construction as the determinant for behavior that is not logical and does not conform to premises that generally are used to call rights merely social convention.
The intellectual argument of the "rights are a social construct" crew distills down to experience of life leads one to claim that which is called "rights and ethics" makes life more livable, and is not a priori, not transcendental, thus empirical.
What is not discussed is why it is considered a "better" life, or what this "better" life is. In this way the issue is skirted that is at its core transcendentalist by nature. Did the path of experience take the person to a place that was already there, as Ican has argued for his Objectivism, viz., "the ineffable," (as example: did colors exist before a blind man gains sight) and is this recognition of the ineffable translated in action as "rights and ethics?"
After all, rights and ethics only work or are relevant to relationships within a system of entities, not to an individual only itself. There is no "self-ethics." Or plainly, for rights and ethics to be present, there must be an "other."
Rights and ethics can work as a way of getting along, for self-preservation, and still be devoid of the recognition of innate natural rights as mentioned by some on this thread, or they can emanate from or derive from recognition of the "sameness" of others, i.e., that they too have a soul or are a part of the same soul.
In the former case, experience (or empiricism) is the engine of actions.
However, Schopenhauer would call the latter case the falling away, the peeling away of the Cartesian world of time and space and social construct in the mind of the individual revealing what remains, the ineffable and the "sameness" of transcendent fundamental essence of others in time and space.
Schopenhauer poses the following:
"Why is it that someone will sacrifice himself or herself for another when the very first instinct of life is self preservation?"
Schopenhauer posits that the person had arrived at a metaphysical breakthrough that allowed the person to see beyond the mere differences of duality present in time and space, literally a priori to social construct.
Early on in this thread Chicago Joe called it by another name: recognizing our common humanity.
Self-sacrifice, especially for one who is unknown to the sacrificed appears more than socially constructed behavior in a system where rights and ethics are contended to be derived from social interaction that delineates differences between social entities.
That there is personal sacrifice for a cause, nation, or family and it appears to be socially based is not contested here, because they are in fact originating from socially driven understandings. But some instances of instantaneous self-sacrifice fly in the face of the assumptions found in the "rights are purely a social construct" argument because it points to an additional factor not answered fully by calling them merely socially driven factors for preservation of socially accepted community needs of friends, families and nations.
There is no reason to sacrifice oneself for another which is not socially driven, yet there it is. It cannot be denied, and yet it cannot be explained.
So, there must be something else going on.
ican711nm wrote:Please define <natural law> and <natural rights>. I don't recall using these terms explicitly or implicitly.
Actually, you didn't, someone else did. Natural Law is usually what one uses to declare that inherent rights exist however. If you're really interested, you can read about it
here among many other places.
Quote:Cephus wrote: What you're really doing is saying "Joe has a $5 bill. Even if you take away his $5 bill, he still has it. No matter what you do, he'll have that bill because it's inherently his.
Wrong again. What I am really saying is "Joe has a $5 bill. Even if Cephus takes away his $5 bill, Joe still has a right to it. While he doesn't still physically have it, he nonetheless has a right to it.
Please demonstrate that he has this right. Simply stating it doesn't make it so. To make this a closer analogy to your inherent rights, what you're saying is that even if Joe buys something with his $5 bill, he has a right to have the bill. If he tears it up and throws it away or gives it to someone else, he still retains the right to have it.
Where does this right come from? Demonstrate the source.
Yes, my view is a construct. But it is not a social construct. It is a designed construct, not a chance construct, and not a legislated construct. It is a configuration of ideas constructed by me and/or others before me to accomplish something. While it may not be the only construct that accomplishes the same thing, it nonetheless looks to me that this construct I favor, if voluntarily adopted by a community, will probably accomplish what I want for that community.
First, I want for my community, your community, all communities freedom from tyrants who seek power to direct their communities, and to murder or to place non-believers into the involuntary servitude of believers.
Second, I want for my community, your community, all communities the freedom for each member of the community to more probably live long, healthy, honorably and prosper.
Third, I want for the community called the United States of America to secure that which will accomplish the first two.
Fourth, I want for the world community to secure that which will also accomplish the first two.
I long for a debate genuinely seeking the design construct most likely to accomplish all four.
joefromchicago wrote:What do you mean by "unprovable"?
One cannot demonstrate that these inherent rights have any existence in the real world. For societal rights, you can point to a system of laws and penalties for those who violate the social contract. Your inherent rights are not defined anywhere, carry no penalty for violating them and vary from person to person.
What you have is an individual claiming that these rights exist with absolutely nothing to back them up.
Quote:To illustrate: the existence of an invisible gnome can be disproved inductively; given our understanding of the laws of science, we can test for the presence of "something." In the absence of that "something," we can at least state that, whatever might be there, it is not susceptible to any known laws of science. On that basis we can confidently conclude that nothing is there.
That's basically true, although we'd have to apply the principles of falsifiability to determine that the most rational, logical position to take is the non-existence of the gnome. To falsify that proposition, one would simply have to provide a single instance of the gnome's existence.
Quote:In contrast, there is no inductive proof available for rights, of any sort whatsoever. What you're asking for, Cephus, is that inherent rights meet a standard of proof that even societal rights cannot attain.
But that's where you're wrong. Societal rights exist because society grants them. There are laws which define them in great detail, that state that people in a given society are given a specific right, bearing specific penalties should someone violate that right. There are even provisions for having that right taken away. Those rights exist only within a given society, you can't take your 'right to free speech' elsewhere and expect it to be protected.
Natural rights, on the other hand, have no form, no definition, no support beyond "I say they exist". They are based in large part on an overestimation of the importance of humanity on this small chunk of rock. They state that mankind is so wonderful that the universe (or some farsical deity) has given him rights over everything else. That's not logic, that's religion. Worse yet, the claimed source of these rights hasn't been demonstrated to have the authority, ability or even REALITY to do so, depending on your definition of said source.
So again, how does one determine the actual existence of these natural rights without making a lot of illogical assumptions about their supposed source?
