kuvasz wrote: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?"
"Better" is a value judgement. What I might consider "better", another person might consider "worse". Morals and ethics are likewise determined by society primarily and the individual within certain parameters.
The argument that colors cannot exist without an observer is ridiculous, just as the tree falling in the forest without an observer doesn't make a sound. However, both of these are very well understood and the effects exist regardless of the observer. In natural rights though, it assumes that these rights exist regardless of the people. So if man had never evoloved on this planet, natural human rights would still exist? Why just humans? Do natural bovine rights exist? If so, are we violating those rights by eating hamburgers?
In the end, it all comes down to word games with absolutely no application to the real world.
ican711nm wrote: 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.
Cephus wrote: 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.
It comes from the logic of enlightened self-interest.
Let's explore the inverse. Cephus, Joe, Bill, and Chuck live in West Texas.
Cephus owns a house having obtained the ownership of that house in a mutually voluntary transaction with the previous owner Chuck. Chuck and all his predecessor owners did the same thing with their previous owners. Tonto, the first owner, bought/settled the land and built the house as a consequence of a bunch of mutually voluntary transactions with others.
Joe mad at Cephus for stealing his $5 bill, causes Cephus to move out of Cephus's house involuntarily.
Who has a right to the house? Joe clearly has the house in his possession. Cephus clearly does not have the house in is possession.
Consequently, Joe has a right to the house and Cephus does not have a right to the house.
Right?
Wrong?
If wrong, why is it wrong?
I think it's wrong because it increases the probability that other such involuntary transfers will occur such that what Bill obtains via honorable work will probably not be his long. So Bill decides to steal instead of perform honorable work. Bill steals Cephus's house stolen by Joe from Joe. That seems to me to be the kind of a community that runs counter to the enlightened mutual self-interest of its members.
So Cephus ought to retain his right to the house stolen by Joe. Besides Bill might help him get it back and discourage Joe from stealing anymore houses.
Cephus wrote:
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.
Oh
Then when society takes away your right to life, because a super majority decides they don't like your face (the modern equivalent to the ostracon of some ancient Greeks), that's logical too, right?
ican711nm wrote:It comes from the logic of enlightened self-interest.
In other words, wishful thinking. Gotcha.
Quote:Cephus owns a house having obtained the ownership of that house in a mutually voluntary transaction with the previous owner Chuck. Chuck and all his predecessor owners did the same thing with their previous owners. Tonto, the first owner, bought/settled the land and built the house as a consequence of a bunch of mutually voluntary transactions with others.
Joe mad at Cephus for stealing his $5 bill, causes Cephus to move out of Cephus's house involuntarily.
Who has a right to the house? Joe clearly has the house in his possession. Cephus clearly does not have the house in is possession.
I do because I hold the legal claim to it. My name is on the deed, I can produce the payment records, etc. Of course, when I go to the police to have Joe thrown out, I'm not going to appeal to my "intrinsic rights" to the house, I'm going to prove that I own the house and Joe doesn't have my permission to be there.
Quote:Consequently, Joe has a right to the house and Cephus does not have a right to the house.
Nope, sorry.
Quote:I think it's wrong because it increases the probability that other such involuntary transfers will occur such that what Bill obtains via honorable work will probably not be his long. So Bill decides to steal instead of perform honorable work. Bill steals Cephus's house stolen by Joe from Joe. That seems to me to be the kind of a community that runs counter to the enlightened mutual self-interest of its members.
Ah, but you're not talking about inherent rights now, you're talking about theft, which runs contrary to SOCIETAL rights and laws. Theft is defined as a crime, with specific penalties for those who steal. And laws *ARE* part of the enlightened self-interest of the community.
You still haven't demonstrated that inherent rights exist. You keep arguing that societal rights exist, and I don't think anyone argues with that.
ican711nm wrote:Cephus wrote:
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.
Oh
Then when society takes away your right to life, because a super majority decides they don't like your face (the modern equivalent to the ostracon of some ancient Greeks), that's logical too, right?
As a matter of fact, if you violate the law (ie. your social contract) and the penalty called for is death, then *YES* it is logical. No one ever said laws were perfect, if they were, we wouldn't keep amending them and passing more.
Now, are you planning on actually demonstrating your "intrinsic rights" or not? We're all getting tired of waiting.
Cephus wrote:kuvasz wrote: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?"
"Better" is a value judgement. What I might consider "better", another person might consider "worse". Morals and ethics are likewise determined by society primarily and the individual within certain parameters.
The argument that colors cannot exist without an observer is ridiculous, just as the tree falling in the forest without an observer doesn't make a sound. However, both of these are very well understood and the effects exist regardless of the observer. In natural rights though, it assumes that these rights exist regardless of the people. So if man had never evoloved on this planet, natural human rights would still exist? Why just humans? Do natural bovine rights exist? If so, are we violating those rights by eating hamburgers?
In the end, it all comes down to word games with absolutely no application to the real world.
sorry, colors require the following: object, incident light, AND observer. color is defined purely as a physiological phenomena. colors do not arise without interaction. they are not intrinisically just "are."
look it up.
sound is defined as a sonic vibration and is not determined by observation.
the two examples are not in the same category. the former is not an existentialist argument. it points to the necessity of the observer to bring something into existence.
the same goes for rights, values, and ethics.
the a priori state for all of these is not merely social construct, but the existence of observational sentience. there is the a priori requirement of the mind, akin to the requirement of an observer to bring into being color, whether you debate the mind/body dichotomy or not.
how does one know if natural bovine rights exist?.......go ask a cow.
if a cow, (like my earlier example of the talking dog) can talk, it has rights?
that you can not understand what a cow is saying does not preclude its rights, just as it is for a deaf mute, infant or fetus.
so language, a social construct is not the a priori requirement for infants, deaf mutes, fetuses, or even talking cows to have rights. there is something deeper which is tied in with sentient observation.
you apparantly demand that all values are social in construct, but fail to counter what we know exists, viz., that something beyond understanding exists for acts of self-sacrifice apart from the social requirement for social stability or utility.
as to the "real world," tell me how you "know" you love someone and that love exists if you can't prove from finite measurement that it exists in the material world?
The Rights of Man... bunk, too?
Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789
The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen:
Articles:
1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.
2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.
3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.
4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.
5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.
6. Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.
7. No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.
8. The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense.
9. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law.
10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.
11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.
12. The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.
13. A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.
14. All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.
15. Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration.
16. A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all.
17. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.
--------------
Even France has it right. :wink:
Cephus wrote: I do because I hold the legal claim to it. My name is on the deed, I can produce the payment records, etc. Of course, when I go to the police to have Joe thrown out, I'm not going to appeal to my "intrinsic rights" to the house, I'm going to prove that I own the house and Joe doesn't have my permission to be there.
Oh, I forgot to mention that Joe is the law in West Texas and he doesn't give a damn about your alleged lawful rights. The law is whatever Joe says it is. Anything wrong with that?
Sofia wrote:The Rights of Man... bunk, too?
Even France has it right. :wink:
Sofia,
As has been said repeatedly, NOBODY here has argued that rights don't exist. Societal rights are evident as you have repeatedly demonstrated.
What we have been arguing is that the rights are not intristic, that these rights are the result of the hard work of our societies in creating them,
They are a work in evolution and are so obviously a social construct (you don't need rights if you are the only being) that the arguments that posit them as an intristic endowment lack validity.
When these are claimed to be human possessions that are inherent and border on religious it's often use of poetic license.
A social construct is that which was negotiated by persons to obtain a consensus whether or not it works.
A designed construct is that which was designed by persons to work whether or not it obtains a consensus.
A social designed construct is that which obtained a consensus and then was redesigned to work.
A designed social construct is that which was designed to work and then obtain a consensus.
Craven de Kere wrote:Sofia wrote:The Rights of Man... bunk, too?
Even France has it right. :wink:
Sofia,
As has been said repeatedly, NOBODY here has argued that rights don't exist. Societal rights are evident as you have repeatedly demonstrated.
What we have been arguing is that the rights are not intristic, that these rights are the result of the hard work of our societies in creating them,
They are a work in evolution and are so obviously a social construct (you don't need rights if you are the only being) that the arguments that posit them as an intristic endowment lack validity.
When these are claimed to be human possessions that are inherent and border on religious it's often use of poetic license.
According to the story, a big-name scientist was giving a lecture on astronomy. After the lecture, an elderly lady came up and told the scientist that he had it all wrong. 'The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist asked "And what is the turtle standing on?"
To which the lady triumphantly replied: "You're very clever, young man, but it's no use -- it's turtles all the way down."
Gee, craven, you have repeated posited that rights are derived purely from social construct without ever venturing to question from where social construction arises.
Simply declaring that social construction is the original basis for rights misses the entire point.
You point to turtles all the way down without even wondering whence come the turtles and upon that which they stand.
while i do not side with Ican's positions on this thread, at least he is willing to question what's holding up the turtles, and i find his the more honest and less dogmatic position.
If it doesn't work, fix it.
If it does work, don't fix it.
What works?
First, values determining rights;
Second, rights determining lawful rights.
kuvasz wrote:According to the story, a big-name scientist was giving a lecture on astronomy. After the lecture, an elderly lady came up and told the scientist that he had it all wrong. 'The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist asked "And what is the turtle standing on?"
To which the lady triumphantly replied: "You're very clever, young man, but it's no use -- it's turtles all the way down."
I've always liked that story.
kuvasz wrote: Gee, craven, you have repeated posited that rights are derived purely from social construct without ever venturing to question from where social construction arises.
Not so, I have been asked several times. Social contruction comes from the efforts of society. 'Twasn't too hard.
kuvasz wrote: Simply declaring that social construction is the original basis for rights misses the entire point.
Not when the point trying to be made is that social construction is the basis of rights.
kuvasz wrote: You point to turtles all the way down without even wondering whence come the turtles and upon that which they stand.
I did nothing of the sort. You spoke of turtles and spoke of layers. I simply maintained that rights are a social contruct and not some mysterious (because ican does not want to say where they came from) gift.
You took this to a level of 'going down' by trying to ask where social constructs come from. The answer is simple, they come from the efforts of society. You posed the question rhetorically and through that your argument is far closer to 'turtles all the way down' than my simple rights = social construct argument was.
kuvasz wrote: while i do not side with Ican's positions on this thread, at least he is willing to question what's holding up the turtles, and i find his the more honest and less dogmatic position.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I find it more dogmatic and therefore less intellectually honest.
I have made attempts to explore the more relevant nature of righst as I see it and as I hope most agree. Their necessity, the ones that we consider paramount etc etc.
Those who wish to remain obduarate about defining it as a mysterious gift are being far more dogmatic by their refusal to illustrate it, defend itor move on.
I LOVE that turtle story, never had heard it before! Was looking at Mars last night (it's well placed: in view when I have my head on the pillow in bed!) and thinking about the relatively new theory that the universe is, in fact, flat. Not completely flat, but kind of like a plate. A VERY big plate...
Which is harder: For people who don't believe in god to understand those who do? Or for those who do to understand those who don't?
My guess is the former. And there's a explanation. Tune in tomorrow...
Which is harder:
For people who don't believe in gnomes to understand people who do? Or for people who believe in gnomes to understand people who don't.
Is that the explanation you had in mind? :wink:
Craven, when you state that:
"Social contruction [sic] comes from the efforts of society."
You go no further than to state that rights are an affect of social construction and social construction is an affect of "efforts of society."
As with your
"You took this to a level of 'going down' by trying to ask where social constructs come from. The answer is simple, they come from the efforts of society. You posed the question rhetorically and through that your argument is far closer to 'turtles all the way down' than my simple rights = social construct argument was."
Just as you imply that social construction originate from somewhere; that somewhere comes from somewhere else too. It is not the turtle argument. You turn the turtle on its shell by that attitude. Turtles are turtles, a priori is not posteriori, and as a lake that flows outward produces a river, the river is not the lake (even if turtles swin in both). That which is derivative from itself is not itself.
Efforts of social origin come from somewhere. An effort is a force that acts upon something and all forces have origins. One would think that the force of the "efforts of society" come from decisions based upon evaluations of social situations where states of existence of the entities contained by the society are considered in the formulation of the direction and strength of the force.
When this is done there is a differentiated valuation placed on the modes of existence of the contained parties and their consequent weight as a component of the force, or efforts of society.
The analysis of what is more important or less is based on examining the properties of the entities.
Fundamental to any analysis is what is measured and how is it measured. One must also decide what is important and why it is important.
So when you say
"Those who wish to remain obduarate about defining it [rights] as a mysterious gift are being far more dogmatic by their refusal to illustrate it, defend itor move on."
You are ignoring the basic and mysterious fact that we have self-consciousness itself.
And are in the same place as Ican and those who "get" their religion because it works symbolically within their reference system. It helps them through the act of self-awareness and through the wonder of life and the universe.
They are fish swimming in the water. They do not see or feel the water. For the religionist, they do not understand it as merely a set of metaphors working on them thru the symbolism of their cultural language of imagery.
Those who declare that rights are entirely derived from social constructs are solely living in society which obscures the uniqueness of sentience itself and it is sentience which is the fulcrum upon which valuations are made for matters of efforts of society, which lead to social construction, which lead to rights.
You see craven, when you insist on the rights from social construct, from social efforts approach, you are still dealing with the turtles of society.
Ican is talking about moving beyond turtles towards something else.
Admittedly, that while he may well be using his own elephants all the way down, his argument towards his antithesis admits an agnosticism in philosophy expounded by the Bard, where Hamlet suggests that human knowledge is limited.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5.
So regardless of the way Ican has presented his views, he is avowing an attitude more of Hamlet than of the dogmatist Horatio.
kuvaz,
Lots of text and little in way of arguments. ican asserted that the rights were intristic, not social contructs.
You have said nothing to support ican's argument except a long winded wordplay trying to suggest that I miss a greater 'point'.
Like I said, what your point is does not have to be what mine is. In this thread I have dealt with the simple notion of rights being a social contruct as opposed to intristic endowment. THAT was my point, don't fault me for not adopting yours. I had no plans to.
Whatever your point may be (you meander between possible points and throw in volume for good measure), the fact that I do not share your focus is not a rebuttal of what I have posited. Which is simply that rights are a social construct and not a nebulous gift.
Quote:As has been said repeatedly, NOBODY here has argued that rights don't exist. Societal rights are evident as you have repeatedly demonstrated.
yes. I've been following the conversation. I am not focusing on the societal rights. I'm focusing on the natural rights of man, which were
recognised by society in these documents.
Right/s (n)-- A just and proper claim to a title to anything. I think possibly you and others are so tied to your description of rights and inalienable and how you think religion plays into the wording--you can't see the other side of the argument.
Quote:What we have been arguing is that the rights are not intristic, that these rights are the result of the hard work of our societies in creating them,
And, I say society recognised existing rights. Existing proper claims to life, liberty, etc.
Quote:They are a work in evolution and are so obviously a social construct (you don't need rights if you are the only being) that the arguments that posit them as an intristic endowment lack validity.
You don't need rights if you are the only being--but, you have them. It is the nature of man to strive for freedom from oppression. You stick his head underwater--does he happily breathe in water, or does he fight for life? The Terrible Twos aren't a battle for submission--but a natural, human rite of passage toward independance--self-determination. These heavily instilled qualities are the nature of man. It would be against Natural Law and the law of man to subvert these basic foundations of mankind. Therefore the right, the just and proper claim, to life, liberty and self determination is born in, and with each of us.
Quote:When these are claimed to be human possessions that are inherent and border on religious it's often use of poetic license.
I say it is not poetic license--but fact. Man is more than an orderly lump of flesh and goo. You don't have to buy religion or God to believe that man comes into this world with more than biology can explain.
This may be my last rant on the subject. I can already hear someone saying, "If there is no one to extend rights, there are no rights." I will go ahead and disagree.
Sofia wrote:
I think possibly you and others are so tied to your description of rights and inalienable and how you think religion plays into the wording--you can't see the other side of the argument.
That's hogwash. There are atheists arguing in favor of the inherent argument. I'm not even sure if ican is agnostic or theist.
The reason I consider it important to question whether something is 'natural' or 'intristic' is because such wording implies pre-destiny and therefore less flexibility for change.
I see the advancements in the rights a society recognizes and grants its citizens as a painstaking progress that has taken much effort, revolution and education to come about.
We are still far from perfect, on a larger scale (i.e. the global community) these ideals have not propagated to every corner and there is much societal change to be made.
It's not a religious qualm for me. But if it is spiritual or inherent, a gift from a higher power, etc there is an implication of sanctity to these ideals that I welcome (helps us meet the ideal) but a downside that I consider more prominent.
If the rights are deemed pre-destined and untouchable it defies change and belittles the weary struggle mankind has endured to get us where we are. It was pointed out that at various stages these eloquent declarations have been made while glaring inadequacy in the rights granted to some were not addressed. What really bothers me is that humans have shown themselves to be willing to distribute and grant basic rights in a way that was simply, wrong.
To make this short, I care that we recognize the rights are a product of mankind's efforts and advancement because to sanctify it as inherent impedes social change and minimizes the relevance of our efforts.
Sofia wrote:And, I say society recognised existing rights. Existing proper claims to life, liberty, etc.
And that's a step that takes the power out of our hands to me. I think that an extension of the existing rights might one day be granted and that if that is to happen it is more likely to come about from the effort of mankind to make it so than a future recognition of additional inherent rights.
Sofia wrote:
You don't need rights if you are the only being--but, you have them. It is the nature of man to strive for freedom from oppression. You stick his head underwater--does he happily breathe in water, or does he fight for life? The Terrible Twos aren't a battle for submission--but a natural, human rite of passage toward independance--self-determination. These heavily instilled qualities are the nature of man. It would be against Natural Law and the law of man to subvert these basic foundations of mankind. Therefore the right, the just and proper claim, to life, liberty and self determination is born in, and with each of us.
I agree that there is, in us, an inherent nature and to fight certain aspects of our nature is foolish (try to stop people from using their survival instinct for e.g.). I think our inherent nature is directly related to the rights we established. If our nature were to feature less self-determination I bet our rights would be very different. No argument from me on that.
Sofia wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:When these are claimed to be human possessions that are inherent and border on religious it's often use of poetic license.
I say it is not poetic license--but fact. Man is more than an orderly lump of flesh and goo. You don't have to buy religion or God to believe that man comes into this world with more than biology can explain.
I agree that there is much that biology doesn't explain. But to base our reasoning in regard to human rights on one of the many alternatives to the as of yet unexplained realms of science would be,
if the chosen explanation were not true, a mistake IMO. A mistake that impedes society's progress in the recognition of fundamental human rights.
This is all absurd.
Ican is making a specific assertion.
He is asserting that rights are endowed upon us -- and he is asserting that an INTELLIGENCE of some sort (an INTELLIGENCE that guides the evolution of humanity and reality) is the endower. And he is asserting that our "rights" are inherent and intrinsic.
Ican came to all this when his initial assertion that we "have unalienable rights which have been endowed upon us by our Creator" was shown to be indefensible.
Ican's argument is an attempt to backdoor his "belief" that there is a God -- and that the God has endowed us with rights that humans cannot abrogate.
All this is being done so that he can claim divine justification for his conservative screed that it is somehow wrong that the government dare tax people and give portions of that tax to maintain a safety net for people needing assistance.
Anyone who does not see this in its complete picture by now is blind.
Ican's argument is a joke -- here for a neferious purpose.
