ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Frank Apisa wrote:

What you are saying is not "strange" as you suggest -- but wrong.

I have provided argument against your assertions.

Which he promptly ignored and repeated his original assertion verbatim. You don't think Ican actually cares that he's wrong, do you?

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
What you are saying is not "strange" as you suggest -- but wrong.

I have provided argument against your assertions.

Which he promptly ignored and repeated his original assertion verbatim. You don't think Ican actually cares that he's wrong, do you?

Sometimes -- when the truth is staring you in the face and it contradicts what you want to be so -- the best course of action is to just ignore it.

Ican is not stupid -- that's for sure.

He's just underhanded.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Sometimes -- when the truth is staring you in the face and it contradicts what you want to be so -- the best course of action is to just ignore it.

Ican is not stupid -- that's for sure.

He's just underhanded.

Maybe all of this you wrote about me is actually true about you.

"Sometimes -- when the truth is staring you in the face and it contradicts what you want to be so -- the best course of action is to just ignore it.

[Frank, and Cephus are] not stupid -- that's for sure.

[They're] just underhanded."

0 Replies

You decide!

"DOES OUR GOVERNMENT ADEQUATELY "SUPPORT" OUR CONSTITUTION?"

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=347205#347205

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Sometimes -- when the truth is staring you in the face and it contradicts what you want to be so -- the best course of action is to just ignore it.

Ican is not stupid -- that's for sure.

He's just underhanded.

Maybe all of this you wrote about me is actually true about you.

"Sometimes -- when the truth is staring you in the face and it contradicts what you want to be so -- the best course of action is to just ignore it.

[Frank, and Cephus are] not stupid -- that's for sure.

[They're] just underhanded."

There are easier ways of doing this, Ican.

You can, for instance, say, "Ahhh...so's yer ole man."

But more in keeping with your recent posts, I would suggest something more in line with the Ricky and David Nelson debates from old radio days: "Oh yeah!" or "Is not!"

How about Peewee Herman: "I know what you are but what am I?"

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

How about Peewee Herman: "I know what you are but what am I?"

The proper response to that question in Ican's case would be "Immature, dishonest and utterly out of touch with reality."

0 Replies

Here's an attempt to improve and strengthen the logic of the argument.

AXIOM
An individual human's interest in survival and an individual human's interest in altruism (when such exists) is an intrinsic/inherent trait of that individual.

HYPOTHESIS
These human intrinsic/inherent traits plus the intrinsic/inherent ability of humans to think, lead many humans inexorably to the conclusion they can satisfy their intrinsic/inherent traits to survive and to be altruistic by seeking acknowledgment by all honorable humans that it is in our enligtened mutual self-interests to live by the following moral imperative:

Treat others the way you want to be treated ; don't treat others the way you don't want to be treated; love others as you love yourself; root for everyone to live long, healthy, honorably, and prosper.

IMPLICATION
This moral imperative implies that we must acknowledge every one's intrinsic and inherent right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, except for that right of a person who forfeits that right by refusing to acknowledge that same right of another.

SECURITY
None of these rights are gained or lost by government securing or not securing them. This implication is valid whether one lives in a community with or without a government. What may be gained or lost by government securing or failing to secure these rights is the opportunity to enjoy these rights.

0 Replies

The argument that rights are inalienable from humans is tautology, because we don't have factual evidences to support the argument. The room we are given in debating about this is to use language to chain a flow of ideas which, however, in essence really say nothing about legitimacy of arguments. When the word "right" is used, the whole argument is then self-explanatory.

Ican, the axiom you give which leads to the following argument is not fully exploited. The point made to allow for the possible existence of altruism does not see its manifestation in the hypothesis. Even without it, the hypothesis still works, because altruism can be predicated on interest of survival. This can't be better exemplified than by the moral imperative you mentioned in your hypothesis:

Quote:

Treat others the way you want to be treated ; don't treat others the way you don't want to be treated

0 Replies

acepoly wrote:

Ican, the axiom you give which leads to the following argument is not fully exploited. The point made to allow for the possible existence of altruism does not see its manifestation in the hypothesis. Even without it, the hypothesis still works, because altruism can be predicated on interest of survival. This can't be better exemplified than by the moral imperative you mentioned in your hypothesis:

Quote:
Treat others the way you want to be treated ; don't treat others the way you don't want to be treated

I agree that the logical structure you propose works and works well.

The logical structure I used above intentionally starts with two instincts which themselves are established scientifically to be inalienable from humans: survival and altruism. Scientists have also observed that these two instincts are not unique to humans, but are generally found in living organisms. Especially worth mentioning is that they are more easily detected among the more intelligent living organisms. That's not to say they are stronger among the more intelligent. That is too difficult to determine.

If we were to agree that those two instincts imply that intrinsically/inherently intelligent living organisms can more likely satisfy those instincts by acknowledging and securing each other's rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, then the logical effect is that our inalienable instincts imply our inalienable rights.

Even with such agreement, the question will generally not rest there. Why did such intrinsic/inherent instincts repeatedly evolve along with intelligence? Evolution encountered environmental disasters that repeatedly eliminated the more intelligent living organisms from major geological epochs. The more intelligent stubbornly reappeared and evolved in later epocs until the next environmental disaster. Why? Natural Selection? Not likely! Periodically, Natural Selection under the auspices of natural disasters killed off the more intelligent! Cockroaches had a better survival record!

0 Replies

Quote:

If we were to agree that those two instincts imply that intrinsically/inherently intelligent living organisms can more likely satisfy those instincts by acknowledging and securing each other's rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, then the logical effect is that our inalienable instincts imply our inalienable rights.

Ican, I see an analogy between your argument and Hume's example. According to Hume, it is unlikely to lead any conclusion with respect to value from a premise which is merely factual. The proposition, for example, that people have the right to have enough food (which is a factual premise) because people need food for survival (which is a value-laden conclusion), is false in that the premise of this argument is a factual while the conclusion concerns value. There exists no bridge, maintains Hume, linking a factual premise to a value-laden conclusion. You argument, however, seems to have fallen in fallacy of this sort. The intrinsic and inherent attributes like altruism and survival, if they have been scientifically established, are then factual premise upon which your argument stands. But the following conclusion with regard to the inalienable rights from humans is nevertheless tinged with value orientation, and hence a fallacy.

0 Replies

acepoly wrote:

There exists no bridge, maintains Hume, linking a factual premise to a value-laden conclusion.

I want to understand why you think Hume is correct.

I'm a retired engineer and an active aviator. I have and do go from practical premises to value-laden conclusions as a matter of course in solving the problems I seek to solve. I work like this. I form a hypothesis regarding how to achieve what I consider a desireable outcome. My initial hypotheses are usually wrong but I learn much from those discoveries.

In the context of this forum, my desireable (value-laden) outcome is the viability of our republic for my posterity. How to most probably achieve that viability is my standing question. My hypotheses are selected on the basis of what has and has not worked in the past for republics, and also is based on what appears logically to least likely contribute to our republic's failure.

0 Replies

I expected you would ask this question. Laughing

But sorry, Ican, that I am able to answer why I think Hume is correct. I have to give more thought on this point. But are you so sure to say that he is not?

Anyway, better leave this point for the time being.

Quote:

Even with such agreement, the question will generally not rest there. Why did such intrinsic/inherent instincts repeatedly evolve along with intelligence? Evolution encountered environmental disasters that repeatedly eliminated the more intelligent living organisms from major geological epochs. The more intelligent stubbornly reappeared and evolved in later epocs until the next environmental disaster. Why? Natural Selection? Not likely! Periodically, Natural Selection under the auspices of natural disasters killed off the more intelligent! Cockroaches had a better survival record!

I am not quite sure what you mean by this paragraph? Is it intended to refute the scientific establishment of the inherent and intrinsic attributes of humans?

0 Replies

acepoly wrote:

But are you so sure to say that he is not?

No! I'm not so sure! In fact I'm quite uncertain about my ability to prove anything to a certainty much less prove Hume is wrong. All I claim at the moment is personal anecdotal evidence that he is probably wrong. That's not enough for me. That's why I asked the question I did.

acepoly wrote:

I am not quite sure what you mean by this paragraph? Is it intended to refute the scientific establishment of the inherent and intrinsic attributes of humans?

Sorry for my lack of clarity. My paragraph represents only my open questions about how not whether the survival and altruistic instincts evolved.

0 Replies

Here we've got no problems with the question of how survival instinct evolved. The doubt lies in how the altruistic instinct ever came about.

For some reasons, altruistic instinct can be developed with some rational reasoning on the survival instinct. Survival can't be better guaranteed than by everybody having altruistic instinct to some extent. But if so, this altruistic aspect of highly intelligent creatures, humans included, is by no means to be termed as instinct, but rather, as intended action which is derived from the instinct of suvival. So I guess that there must be bunches of difficulties distinguishing instinct of survival from the intended action which embodies that instinct.

0 Replies

acepoly wrote:

For some reasons, altruistic instinct can be developed with some rational reasoning on the survival instinct. Survival can't be better guaranteed than by everybody having altruistic instinct to some extent. But if so, this altruistic aspect of highly intelligent creatures, humans included, is by no means to be termed as instinct, but rather, as intended action which is derived from the instinct of suvival. So I guess that there must be bunches of difficulties distinguishing instinct of survival from the intended action which embodies that instinct.

But how do we explain the altruistic instinct among organisms whose behavior is all instinct?

Yes, we allegedly intelligent humans can deduce altruism from the instinct for survival, but do other less intelligent organisms reason the same implied altruistic behavior. I think not.

Back to humans for example: A child has just fallen through thin ice way out in the lake. An unrelated adult witnessing the event risks his own life in the process and proceeds to the rescue, drowning himself in the attempt.

Another example: Terrorists take over a passenger jet. Some passengers attempt to prevent the terrorists from flying the plane into a distant building containing hundreds of people. They succeed and the jet flies into a Pennsylvanian pasture instead, killing all aboard immediately.

0 Replies

Quote:

A child has just fallen through thin ice way out in the lake. An unrelated adult witnessing the event risks his own life in the process and proceeds to the rescue, drowning himself in the attempt.

In this example, moral force may at work which impels him to rush to the rescue of the drowning child. The altruistic action required by morality is well distinct in motivation from that required by instinct.

Quote:

Another example: Terrorists take over a passenger jet. Some passengers attempt to prevent the terrorists from flying the plane into a distant building containing hundreds of people. They succeed and the jet flies into a Pennsylvanian pasture instead, killing all aboard immediately.

Again, morality takes hold in this example as well.

Quote:

we allegedly intelligent humans can deduce altruism from the instinct for survival, but do other less intelligent organisms reason the same implied altruistic behavior. I think not.

I accept this but only in part, because it really depends on how intelligent those less intelligent organisms are.

0 Replies

acepoly wrote:

In this example, moral force may at work which impels him to rush to the rescue of the drowning child. The altruistic action required by morality is well distinct in motivation from that required by instinct.

What is the source or genesis of this "moral force"? Isn't it our altruistic instinct coupled to our intrinsic/inherent ability to think?

acepoly wrote:

I accept this but only in part, because it really depends on how intelligent those less intelligent organisms are.

These kinds of phenomena are allegedly witnessed among bugs as well as single celled life. I, unfortunately, am unable to verify or refute these allegations.

Let's suppose that in humans the cause of this kind of behavior is an attribute of our intelligence such that we can generally reason that such behavior is essential to the survival of our species. Those capable of reasoning that behave consistent with that; those not capable or who have not yet reasoned that do not behave altruistically.

What if any action should be taken?

0 Replies

We KNOW what everyone said, now do you KNOW how annoying it is to see quotes of quotes with millenial extradicetron without finding a single vending machine? Stop quoting. You know who you all are.

0 Replies

acepoly wrote:

In this example, moral force may at work which impels him to rush to the rescue of the drowning child. The altruistic action required by morality is well distinct in motivation from that required by instinct.

There really is no such thing as true altruism. Everyone does things for a reason, whether it is for personal gain, emotional satisfaction or social training. Ican is just inventing nonsense out of empty air to justify his views.

0 Replies

NNY wrote:

We KNOW what everyone said, now do you KNOW how annoying it is to see quotes of quotes with millenial extradicetron without finding a single vending machine? Stop quoting. You know who you all are.

Quoting is one of the techniques used in effective debating.

Would you really prefer that people paraphrase -- and then rebut?

What is your problem with quoting?

0 Replies

ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know