Rights increase our chances of survival. It is a survival mechanism in human society.
I now believe you have an even worse understanding of logic than I had previously thought.
Thomas,
You are making very little sense. Just because someone thinks rights are not inherent does not mean one believes that no rights should exist.
And frankly you don't seem to comprehend the first thing about logic.
Craven de Kere wrote:Rights increase our chances of survival. It is a survival mechanism in human society.
True, but this is a reason why rights do exist. To argue that this is a reason why rights should exist, you must first show why survival of human societies is a good thing in the first place -- and you must do so without assuming that survival is a natural right.
Craven de Kere wrote:I now believe you have an even worse understanding of logic than I had previously thought.
I appreciate your sneering. People who sneer usually don't have much confidence in their own arguments.
This is extremely unfair, Craven. As far as I can see, Thomas is on the right track. I also mentioned that one of the implications of a societal rights position is that, ultimately, any talk of "rights" becomes meaningless. But then perhaps I too don't comprehend the first thing about logic.
Piece of cake. Rights exist simply because each human that has ever existed has had the desire for rights. The desire we have had is also so great so as to be nearly impossible to divest us of it. Without being inherent they are unavoidable.
Therefore the lack of rights would be an almost impossible circumstance.
Rights increase our chances of survival. It is a survival mechanism in human society.
There are a host of other logical defenses I now believe you have an even worse understanding of logic than I had previously thought.
True, but this is a reason why rights do exist. To argue that this is a reason why rights should exist, you must first show why survival of human societies is a good thing in the first place -- and you must do so without assuming that survival is a natural right.
Craven de Kere wrote:Piece of cake. Rights exist simply because each human that has ever existed has had the desire for rights. The desire we have had is also so great so as to be nearly impossible to divest us of it. Without being inherent they are unavoidable.
Then are you suggesting that the desire for rights is inherent? And if everyone has the same basic desire for rights, does that mean that they all desire the same rights?
Certainly not. If all rights proceed from society (as is posited by the societal rights theory), then presumably society could decide to issue no rights just as easily as it could issue some rights or all rights. Or are you suggesting, Craven, that some rights are, in certain sense, an absolute minimum that all persons have, regardless of society's decisions?
Craven de Kere wrote:Rights increase our chances of survival. It is a survival mechanism in human society.
More so than anything else? If society learned that some other mechanism, besides "rights," was more efficacious in guaranteeing our chances of survival, would that society be justified in nullifying all rights?
Craven de Kere wrote:There are a host of other logical defenses I now believe you have an even worse understanding of logic than I had previously thought.
You're suggesting that your defenses are logical? I think you give yourself too much credit.
Thomas wrote:True, but this is a reason why rights do exist. To argue that this is a reason why rights should exist, you must first show why survival of human societies is a good thing in the first place -- and you must do so without assuming that survival is a natural right.
I believe this is correct. Defending a notion of "rights" as a survival mechanism, and then making the leap to the notion that we should have rights, is simply confusing "is" and "ought," something that David Hume pointed out as a logical fallacy over 200 years ago. Your factual foundation is dubious, Craven, but your logical foundation is hopelessly flawed.
I most certainly do not have to illustrate why the human race SHOULD survive.
It's can also mean they are discussing something with someone who is exhibiting such foolishness that it's hard to take them seriously.
Craven de Kere wrote:I most certainly do not have to illustrate why the human race SHOULD survive.
No. You have to illustrate why the makers of laws and customs SHOULD respect the human race's wish to do so. If you choose to treat that as an axiom in your system of ethical deduction, that's fine with me. And I would view this as an alternative way of saying that the right not to be killed is a natural one. As Joe says, you're the one deriving an 'ought' from an 'is' in a logically unsound way here!
There you go again .... more sneering at the person, more insecurity revealed about the qualtiy of your argument. Go ahead, sneer again -- you're making my day over here!
-- Thomas
No, what you ask makes no sense. It would be like saying: "Everyone wants something so everyone wants the same thing." No, and that contradicts the most basic elements of logic.
No. What I'm saying is that it is unlikely and so much so that it nears impossibility, for mankind on the whole to divest themselves of all rights.
I made no comment on what is "justified". You are trying to introduce a value laden word into the argument that I have not dealt with. There already are ways to secure your individual survival that are more effective than rights. Some rights interefere with our survival but secure other things we like (such as freedom). Societies make their decisions based on what they want.
Since you are disagreeing with me it's obvious that you'd want to think that. It does not make your agument logical. I do not expect you to take my word for anything. Illustrate that I'm wrong.
joe, you make silly traps for yourself.
a wants B
x is a logical means to acheive B.
Whether it is logical to even want B or not has no implication on whether it is logical to use x to acheive B.
Your logic is flawed, very much so. But not hopeless. "Hopelessly flawed" is a silly rhetorical ploy. Use it as icing. Focus on making a cood cake first.
If collective survival is the goal, and rights are a logical means to collective survival then whether it's logical or not to want to survive does not change the fact that rights are a logical means to help ensure collective survival.
I do think the side that Craven and I are arguing is in a one-up position in this discussion, though.
Craven de Kere wrote:No, what you ask makes no sense. It would be like saying: "Everyone wants something so everyone wants the same thing." No, and that contradicts the most basic elements of logic.
Well, I'm not exactly sure how that contradicts the most basic elements of logic, but then it wasn't my position to begin with. I merely ask these questions to get a better sense of what you are trying to say.
Craven de Kere wrote:No. What I'm saying is that it is unlikely and so much so that it nears impossibility, for mankind on the whole to divest themselves of all rights.
Why is that? As you yourself suggested, the only reason to adopt rights in the first place is because they are an efficient survival mechanism.
Presumably, society only maintains those rights because they remain viable as means of survival.
Are you, therefore, willing to predict that those conditions will obtain forever? Because if you're not, then you cannot make a prediction about the "near impossibility" of divesting rights beyond today.
If there are other "ways to secure your individual survival that are more effective than rights," then why aren't those things "rights"? For instance, if clothing is more efficacious in guaranteeing our survival than freedom of speech, why isn't there a "right" to clothing?
Craven de Kere wrote:Since you are disagreeing with me it's obvious that you'd want to think that. It does not make your agument logical. I do not expect you to take my word for anything. Illustrate that I'm wrong.
I'm still trying to figure out what your position is, Craven. I wouldn't presume to say that your position is wrong until I had some understanding of your position. And I would add that this notion of rights as a survival mechanism has, to my knowledge, never been proposed by anyone before. So you must be patient with me; I am learning as I go.
Craven de Kere wrote:Whether it is logical to even want B or not has no implication on whether it is logical to use x to acheive B.
Your example does not represent your position accurately.
In other words, we have rights because they increase our chances of survival, and we should have rights because they increase our chances of survival.
It is not: "a wants B, x is a logical means to achieve B" (you omitted a conclusion to this quasi-syllogism, but never mind). Rather, it is: a wants b, therefore a should have b. That's equivalent to saying: "I want chocolate cake, therefore I should have chocolate cake." That, I submit, is simply deriving an "ought" from an "is," which is a classic logical fallacy.
Frank Apisa wrote:I do think the side that Craven and I are arguing is in a one-up position in this discussion, though.
You are far too optimistic, Frank.
Please remember that this sub-thread emerged after I challenged you to argue why people should have the right not to be killed.
...I claimed that, as a matter of principle, it is virtuous to kill as many people as possible, and that the victims had no right whatsoever to complain about it, would you say there is no rational way of refuting this opinion? I agree this position is correct as an excercise in formal logic, but I also think it's quite pointless.
That was an 'ought' question. You answered that this right exists because it helps ensure humanity's survival, which is a (correct) 'is' statement. But however correct it is, it doesn't answer my 'ought' question -- just because rights do help humanity survive, it doesn't follow that we ought to have them.
As a matter of pure logic, it ain't necessarily so. I won't accept unconditionally your premise that collective survival is the goal. You'll either have to explain that, or admit that this is an axiom in your system of ethics.
I did not say that everyone shares the same desires.
[Joe, please read what I say if you are going to comment on it. I did not say that the only reason rights exist are as a survival mechanism. There are many reasons rights are created and as I mentioned some go directly against the survival factor.
No, like I said earlier survival is just one reason.
Again you break the most simple rules of logic.
right to clothing != clothing
Killing everone that can possibly threaten your survival might be a way to secure your survival. That doesn't make it a right. It can be made a right. But there is no automatic connection.
To use language to make it clearer how is this: it is possible to increase ones chances of survival by denying the rights of others.
That should clearly illustrate that not all methods of survival are rights.
I do see where you were taking it and if you get abstract enough it's possible to defend for a long while. The comeback to my argument would be "but can't taking away righst be a right?"
Then why did you claim logical flaw? I want to know what the flaw is. That's how I learn.
Actually it does. The example IS my position. See, we can go on in endless loops. We can ask if it's logical to want to survive (easy to argue) but then we'll get into silly arguments about whether it is "logical" to exist at all.
We have rights because we create them. We create them because we want (or as Frank says, demand) them.
ONE logical reason we demand certain rights is because of the collective survival issue.
I do get the greater point you are alluding to. If what's desired is illogical then you seek to portray logical means to an illogical goal as illogical.
But I'm not with you in that the goal is illogical. I think it IS logical. I simply don't defend it because until now Thomas and yourself have never articulated your qualm with the proposed logic in a way that would make this relevant.
You are asking "what if the desire for the yellow submarine is not logical".
My answer is that first of all it makes no difference to the logical evaluation of the means. What it suggests is a greater logic. A greater goal.
Our side definitely is one up -- insofar as all supposed rights we have -- we have because of demand, desire, and laws. That we can see!
I defy you to show one right we have that we have because some god gave it to us -- or because nature gave it to us.
Craven de Kere wrote:I did not say that everyone shares the same desires.
Then how can everyone share the same rights, if rights are the product of the desire for rights? Or are you suggesting that everyone has a different set of rights, depending upon their various desires?
Initially, you wrote: "Rights exist simply because each human that has ever existed has had the desire for rights." You later wrote: "We have a goal: to survive. Rights are logical toward that goal." I'm not exactly sure these two statements can be reconciled, except to posit a connection between the "desire for rights" and "the goal of survival." Perhaps it can be done in this fashion:
1. People have a goal of survival.
2. People desire the means to attain that goal.
3. Rights are a means to that goal.
4. Therefore, people desire rights.
Is that what you're trying to get at?
Craven de Kere wrote:No, like I said earlier survival is just one reason.
Well, this is confusing. If societal rights are based on a societal goal (i.e. survival) and on something else (still unidentified), then how can we evaluate what qualifies as a "right" and what doesn't? If something does not advance the goal of survival, but does advance some other societal goal, can that something be a "right"?
Craven de Kere wrote:Again you break the most simple rules of logic.
right to clothing != clothing
No. I merely asked a question. Your response did not address the question, so I'll pose it again: If there are other "ways to secure your individual survival that are more effective than rights," then why aren't those things "rights"? For instance, if clothing is more efficacious in guaranteeing our survival than freedom of speech, why isn't there a "right" to clothing?
Craven de Kere wrote:Killing everone that can possibly threaten your survival might be a way to secure your survival. That doesn't make it a right. It can be made a right. But there is no automatic connection.
Then what is the connection?
Craven de Kere wrote:To use language to make it clearer how is this: it is possible to increase ones chances of survival by denying the rights of others.
This doesn't make any sense at all. Are you saying that the goal of survival, in some sense, trumps rights?
Craven de Kere wrote:That should clearly illustrate that not all methods of survival are rights.
And, as you pointed out above, not all rights are means to the end of survival. So what exactly are these things you call "rights," which are sometimes consistent with, and sometimes antithetical to, survival? And how do we know one when we see one?
Craven de Kere wrote:I do see where you were taking it and if you get abstract enough it's possible to defend for a long while. The comeback to my argument would be "but can't taking away righst be a right?"
We're still very far from that point.
Craven de Kere wrote:Then why did you claim logical flaw? I want to know what the flaw is. That's how I learn.
Your flaw was in suggesting that people should have rights because they do have rights. I think you're backing away from that position. So, in that respect, you are learning -- at least in an operant conditioning sort of way.
Craven de Kere wrote:Actually it does. The example IS my position. See, we can go on in endless loops. We can ask if it's logical to want to survive (easy to argue) but then we'll get into silly arguments about whether it is "logical" to exist at all.
In truth, I posited something very similar to this -- that everyone has an interest in preserving themselves. I did not make the mistake, however, of stating that it was "logical" to want to survive.
I see. But then are you saying that people create rights for the benefit of society's survival, or is each person interested primarily in his/her own individual survival? In other words, are you proposing a classic utilitarian model of rights?
Craven de Kere wrote:I do get the greater point you are alluding to. If what's desired is illogical then you seek to portray logical means to an illogical goal as illogical.
I never said any such thing. I never mentioned a "logical" connection between ends and means, only your illogical connection between "is" and "ought."
Craven de Kere wrote:But I'm not with you in that the goal is illogical. I think it IS logical. I simply don't defend it because until now Thomas and yourself have never articulated your qualm with the proposed logic in a way that would make this relevant.
I never said the goal is illogical. I don't even understand the notion of an "illogical" goal.
Craven de Kere wrote:You are asking "what if the desire for the yellow submarine is not logical".
Nonsense. I offered no opinion on the logic or illogic of any desire that you may have posited.
Craven de Kere wrote:My answer is that first of all it makes no difference to the logical evaluation of the means. What it suggests is a greater logic. A greater goal.
And in so doing you responded to a strawman, not to me. And thus there is no need to comment on the remainder of your post.
In other words, we have rights because they increase our chances of survival, and we should have rights because they increase our chances of survival. It is not: "a wants B, x is a logical means to achieve B" (you omitted a conclusion to this quasi-syllogism, but never mind). Rather, it is: a wants b, therefore a should have b. That's equivalent to saying: "I want chocolate cake, therefore I should have chocolate cake." That, I submit, is simply deriving an "ought" from an "is," which is a classic logical fallacy.
Frank Apisa wrote:Our side definitely is one up -- insofar as all supposed rights we have -- we have because of demand, desire, and laws. That we can see!
Of course, if you define "societal rights" as "the rights granted by society," and you further define "the rights granted by society" as "all of our rights," then even a blind man could see those rights. But the same blind man could just as easily see that such a definition is an example of question begging.
Â…all supposed rights we have -- we have because of demand, desire, and laws. That we can see!
I defy you to show one right we have that we have because some god gave it to us -- or because nature gave it to us.
All of the rights that can presently be identified as rights (without conjecture) are rights that have been conferred by law.
We can say that governments conferred them by law because the right already existed inherently - but that is not an observable event.
To illustrate: I have in my hand a Bleen. I define Bleen as: "that thing which I have in my hand." Therefore, I can confidently state, without fear of contradiction, that Bleens exist.
To the same extent, Frank, you argue that societal rights exist because we have societal rights, and if anyone doubts that we have societal rights, all he need do is look around.
Frank Apisa wrote:I defy you to show one right we have that we have because some god gave it to us -- or because nature gave it to us.
Easily. Following your example, I hereby define all rights as natural rights. Thus, if you see a right, then you see a natural right. And if you doubt that, look around you! And if you can't see them, then they're hiding behind the Bleens!
Neither. Rights are codified by societies. They are a social construct. How a society determines its rights is where you will find the answer to your question.
It's not true that we all have the same rights. Go to different places and you will experience what it's like to live with different rights.
Rights are not a direct product of our desires. They are a social construct and our desires factor into them only insofar as we are able to influence the society in which we live.
Incidentally the fisrt statement you quoted of mine there is fallacious. Nobody called me on it so I will. It's not relevant to our discussion but it's untrue that ALL humans have desired rights.
It's actually quite simple. Societies do not have only one goal. If you have as a goal to survive does that preclude any other goals? Of course not. Again, not all rights are based on the goal for survival. Some are based on the desire and subsequent goal for freedoms etc.
I live in a place where I have the "right" to wear clothing should I desire it. Don't you? Do you think this "right" might fall under some other rights or do you think every way a right can manefest itself is articulated somewhere?
You tried to make a connection between desire and right in a way that would make desires automatically become rights. I disagreed. The connection is a weak association of arguments. I disagreed with the link you attempted to forge and you are now asking me to articulate it for you?
Get it? Survival is just one goal that rights address. They are not inalienably connected.
I posited neither generalization. I proposed no class of rights. I did say that it can be logically argued that rights are a boon because through securing collective survival we help secure individual survival.
I simply made no comment on what class of rights I would suggest. I never opined on the notion that everyone acts in unison and has the same motives for the rights they seek to secure. I think it's absurd to make such a statement as people tend not to work in uniform groups. Where do you get this stuff?
Yes you did. You did so when you created your pet "ought/is". I said rights are a logical means to secure our goal of survival. You said that this was a logical fallacy. Your statement is only true if our desire is irrational or illogical.
I said that a logical defense of the existence of rights includes the fact that rights help secure our survival. It is a goal we have. You tried to make this a "a wants b, therefore a should have b" fallacy. Therein you implied that the fact that we want to secure our survival is questionable logically. I responded that even if it were (and it isn't) it would not change the fact that once the goal is established there are logical means to that end and rights are one of them.
