It's really funny to me that people who are such staunch proponents of evolution, which you could legitimately rename survival theory, are so unwilling to apply the same to mankind.

Are viruses happy? Does a bacterium have a horrid existence? No one cares. They survive.

If man is not special in a metaphysical sense, the only standard for success is survival. Everything else is noise.

I think you are assuming that people are good.


Lord of the Flies disagrees with you. Humans seem to automatically look to establish hierarchy and dominance.
On your island, people would still come to the conclusion that the people who are the most useful have the most rights and are the dominant members of the new society.

Quote:

---

This is so historically tone deaf it's laughable. From a historical perspective the most likely outcome of your scenario is that that tribe of 100 people will have a supreme ruler who is the strongest, smartest, cruelest, etc. one among them.

---

Not if a list of rights based on pure logic is set from the beginning that is followed.

What you seem to want to argue for is what is best for humanity. I could give 2 craps about what is best for humanity. All that matters is objective rights. Does person B have an inherent right to enslave person A? No. There is no empirically logical way to arrive at one. No amount of strength, power, cruelness creates rights. Rights are in existence intellectually only. The deductive logic is quite basic.

Quote:

---

Those are endemic to the human condition (note that the atheist communists aren't immune to these human foibles).

---

The times where atheist rulers infringed upon rights of their people were when they ascribed meaning.

Until meaning can be empirically proven, it is meaningless and as far as rights go we must approach them from a meaningless point of view. When you do that, you arrive at logically derived rights.

Quote:

---

Your entire post doesn't begin with blank slate but accepts a massive number of preexisting premises, the very concept of a right among them.

---

The very concept of right is not in question. What exactly are rights is.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I think you are assuming that people are good.


Lord of the Flies disagrees with you. Humans seem to automatically look to establish hierarchy and dominance.
On your island, people would still come to the conclusion that the people who are the most useful have the most rights and are the dominant members of the new society.

---

It doesn't matter what the morality of people are. Rights exist outside of how people behave.

Those people you claim that would do whatever on the island are not following logic if they establish rulers who violate rights.

But the desire to respect those rights are a product of morality.

Humans aren't klingons. They are humans. Throughout history we see exactly what they do when they set up tribes,

Besides, morality aside, the best logic is to do what keeps you alive. For each person, that is going to be a different plan...but almost always establishes a caste system, a heirarchy, a chief, a balance of power.

Wait so you're arguing for an objective morality that you're calling Logic?

Again. What humans decide, how they behave, what they want, it's all moot.

Rights exist outside of any of that.

I wouldn't call it an objective morality because morality is too much of a loaded term.

Morality takes a much broader scope of things. You may have the right to do something, but that doesn't make it necessarily moral to do it.

A business owner may have the right to close down his company just because he wants to make all his employees suffer, but does that make it moral to do?


And to keep on topic. Government's concern should not be morality. Only rights.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Again. What humans decide, how they behave, what they want, it's all moot.

Rights exist outside of any of that.

---

Where did they come from?

Why don't they exist for, let's say, rats?

Quote:

---

Where did they come from?

---

Deductive reasoning.

Quote:

---

Why don't they exist for, let's say, rats?

---

Maybe they do, but can rats utilize logic to arrive at them?

You could validly argue that by killing a rat you are violating its rights, but I see no point in respecting rights of those that do not possess the capacity to comprehend them or argue for them.

Like infants or invalids, right? Edit: that was at 79

That's fine, but you still can't say that the strategy outweighs the underling imperative. If survival chance is diminished by the strategy, the strategy is bad.

Again - no one will answer the question. If genocide is better for everyone else, is it wrong?

My point is that on your island, they wouldn't follow the rules that you are saying that they would. Even if they recognized that everyone was equal (which I don't think that they would), they would quickly reject that notion in favor of more economical, efficient practices.

Respect for human "rights" are quickly discarded in case of emergency or practicality,..out of necessity, out of greed, out need, out of fear, out of survival.

k2aggie07 said:

---

That's fine, but you still can't say that the strategy outweighs the underling imperative. If survival chance is diminished by the strategy, the strategy is bad.

Again - no one will answer the question. If genocide is better for everyone else, is it wrong?

---

There are clear evolutionary advantages to individuals willing to sacrifice their survival to assist others.

And no, a genocide would never be acceptable. That doesn't improve a society over the long run given what is lost and what is lost within the group from an ethical perspective.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Like infants or invalids, right? Edit: that was at 79

---

Leaving morality out of it, I see a hard argument to make that beings that cannot take care of themselves have an inherent right to live (meaning someone else is required to take care of them). I would vote for laws that incriminate those that take their lives though as they have no inherent right to take them.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure why you keep trying to paint me with the brush of an objective morality. I haven't argued for it once, or suggested that any morality "spoke for a god".

---

You are, and even do it again in this very post. Your entire line of attack is based on a the supposed lack of objectivity and subjective nature of rights not founded on a belief in god while simultaneously failing to note that such a belief changes none of that.

Quote:

---

I can't keep up with your train of thought because you talk out of both sides of your mouth. With one breath you assert that our ancestors were wrong, and with the next you reject the ideal in principle that there can be any standard morality of any sort. What is your standard for wrong?

---

I'm not talking out both sides. You simply cannot seem to find a way to deal with the words right and wrong when they are subjective-which is exactly what they really are. And curiously, you seem to think that a morality founded in religious reasoning is objective. Where did I once say there cannot be any standard of morality of any sort? I've never once made the claim. There certainly can, it will simply be fundamentally subjective at some point. Just because I don't appeal to a deity doesn't mean I don't have a standard for wrong. My standard for what is wrong is "does it harm unnecessarily." That statement if fundamentally subjective just like all moral claims. What's your standard for wrong?

Quote:

---

If you're going to reject a real value assigned to words, and just say they have "practical" use, then what's the point of having this discussion?

---

You are the one quoting quine. You obviously assert that they don't have an absolutely precise meaning if you are going to rely on his reasoning. Why are you speaking? The point is "practical" applications are quite important.

Quote:

---

"Practically" the word rights has a different meaning today than it did a century ago, and will a century from now. "Practically" the Constitution means something different than it did when it was written. If we can't set actual definitions on terms, it quickly just becomes a debate where everyone creates their own facts.

---

Just because definitions change doesn't mean we can't set actual definitions for use between ourselves. What on earth makes you think otherwise? You understand the words I'm using. People might read them in 3k years and it will be like an original copy of the Canterbury tales. Just because meanings change doesn't mean that definitions are so fluid as to make language unintelligible for practical application.

Quote:

---

You completely dodged the question though. If we reject right and wrong, because there is no right and wrong, how do you say that genocide is wrong? How do you say that universal suffrage (by race, sex, age, whatever) is better than limited or no suffrage at all? What constitutes a "horrid" dictatorship? How do you measure quality of life? It's just meaningless feelgoodery.

---

Nope. I addressed it already. This is literally an argument for objective morality. Or rather an argument against subjective morality. I didn't reject right and wrong. I reject the unfounded notion that right and wrong can be fully objectively grounded. You have nothing more than your subjective opinions to offer either. You only pretend you have more. Right and wrong can exist subjectively, we have all of human history to demonstrate that as you noted earlier how right and wrong have been different for each society.

What constitutes a horrid dictatorship for you? What objective standard of right and wrong can your offer? If you can't offer any what on earth are you complaining about? Subjectivity is part of the human condition. And it's only meaningless if you find your life meaningless.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

My point is that on your island, they wouldn't follow the rules that you are saying that they would. Even if they recognized that everyone was equal (which I don't think that they would), they would quickly reject that notion in favor of more economical, efficient practices.

Respect for human "rights" are quickly discarded in case of emergency or practicality,..out of necessity, out of greed, out need, out of fear, out of survival.

---

I still don't see the point of your argument.

I did not say that the 100 people on the island would end up following rights or not. I simply made the statement that they could absolutely arrive at reason based objective basic rights. Whether they would or not is not part of my argument.

k2aggie07 said:

---

It's really funny to me that people who are such staunch proponents of evolution, which you could legitimately rename survival theory, are so unwilling to apply the same to mankind.

Are viruses happy? Does a bacterium have a horrid existence? No one cares. They survive.

If man is not special in a metaphysical sense, the only standard for success is survival. Everything else is noise.

---

I'm not sure why this would seem at odds. Evolution does not provide answers to the 'should' questions.

Line of attack? I'm not attacking anything other than the idea of working within the framework a governmental system which is loosely based on the concept of rights which are considered inviolable while rejecting the premise of why those rights are inviolable. It's like saying you believe in relativity but you don't believe in c = constant. The only thing I'm "arguing" for is that its an untenable position, there's cognitive dissonance there.

I've never said anything at all about morality from a religious standpoint being objective. Humans aren't objective. But, we can play at objectivity by accepting that some things are above human opinion (the concept of Rule of Law, for example). I think we agree here.

I don't agree that I've posited an argument for objective morality -- I'm arguing against an arbitrary subjective morality masquerading as objective morality, which is exactly what the concept of inalienable rights is.

Practically speaking, I'm not sure I'm comfortable leveraging my understanding of right and wrong in judgment of previous (or current) societies. I'm also not sure I'm comfortable with accepting the concepts of right and wrong as subjective, and then broadly applying them. It seems irrational. Now, it make sense for people who agree on whatever assumed frame of reference...let's call it a moral coordinate system...to map out behavioral decisions together. But only as far as they agree on the map; the instant they disagree, the ability to define in a different space becomes useless without some type of moral transfer function, which only translates between the two subjective value judgments - it doesn't arbitrate.

I already offered my standard for right and wrong for societies - persistence. Living. Surviving. Anything else seems useless.

Dr. Watson said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

That's fine, but you still can't say that the strategy outweighs the underling imperative. If survival chance is diminished by the strategy, the strategy is bad.

Again - no one will answer the question. If genocide is better for everyone else, is it wrong?

---

There are clear evolutionary advantages to individuals willing to sacrifice their survival to assist others.

And no, a genocide would never be acceptable. That doesn't improve a society over the long run given what is lost and what is lost within the group from an ethical perspective.

---

Individuals, yes. But not societies.

From a survival or evolutionary standpoint, the only reason individuals willing to sacrifice for others is to preserve their genetic inheritance.

I think your statement is a possible truth, but I'm not sure "never acceptable" is correct. Hypotheticals abound, but it really doesn't matter. I think if you remove the idea of "men are special" you need a new statement to prevent toppling to either extreme -- namely, all killing is wrong (hyper vegan) or no killing is wrong provided its justifiable (which begs Lenin's questions - Who? Whom?).

And if you want "men are special," there should be a "why" attached to it. Not "just cuz".

That's pretty brutal. I'm not sure where the "take care of yourself" line is drawn. Can you take care of yourself?

I mean, what constitutes self-care? Being able to have a job and buy food? But are you really self-reliant?

Do you need to be able to defend yourself from those who would take your life from you?

I think self-care as a litmus test for right to life isn't so much a right as it is a reality. An ancient man only had a "right" to life as long as he could outrun other predators, avoid starvation, etc.

Again, morality isn't the debate here. Rights are. Arguing against the definition because it's not appealing or you get certain emotional responses does nothing.

Does a newborn have a right to live objectively? I would posit that only so far as no other human has the inherent right to kill it outright. But does that child have an objective right for someone to feed it and take care of it? No. I can find no right founded strictly on deductive logic without inserting subjective emotion or meaning.

Would I vote for my state to imprison a parent that doesn't take care of their child? Yes.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Would I vote for my state to imprison a parent that doesn't take care of their child? Yes.

---

I would vote for my state to imprison any person who allowed a child to needlessly suffer and/or die, regardless of the relationship between the person and the child.

Why? Because children are special, just like any other human being. We can debate about why, but they are.

Remember that crappy dinosaurs sitcom? The only episode that I watched beginning to end had to do with the paternal dino looking forward to the ritual where he gets to through his mother-in-law into the volcano, because she had outlived her usefulness.

Can you lose your right to live once you can no longer take care of yourself?

Quote:

---

Can you lose your right to live once you can no longer take care of yourself?

---

This misunderstanding of what a right is, is a big reason our political system is such crap.

If you have a right to live, that means you have a right to not be killed. Not that you are entitled to have someone take care of you if you get disabled, or sick, or whatever.

Think of it this way. I have a right to own a car in this country. Does that mean that if I can't afford one that I'm entitled to have someone provide one for me?

And saying something is "special" just because is just silly.

Why does anyone have a right not to be killed? Why does this right only apply to humans and not cows?

Quote:

---

Why does anyone have a right not to be killed? Why does this right only apply to humans and not cows?

---

Because there is no inherently logical right for another human to kill you. If you add in a scenario of you violating his rights by trying to kill the other person, then you can make a logically sound argument for it.

Think of the 100 people on the island. There is no reason based objective right you can find to say by default one of them has the right to kill another.

Thereby, through deductive reasoning, every person there has the right to live.

If a cow comes up and argues that they have that right too, then I'll listen. Until then I will ignore any rights they may have.

If I cannot enter into a cognitive intelligent agreement based on logic with a cow, it's pointless to argue their rights.

Why is there a right for anyone to kill anything?

Quote:

---

Why is there a right for anyone to kill anything?

---

The only time one could arrive at an actual right to kill something would be if that something was violating their rights or trying to. For example if it was trying to kill you so it could eat.

So does an animal you are trying to kill for food have a right to kill you? Sure. But, again, they cannot enter into any kind of intelligent legal contract with you so who cares if you kill it.

Quote:

---

Texaggie7nine
So does an animal you are trying to kill for food have a right to kill you? Sure. But, again, they cannot enter into any kind of intelligent legal contract with you so who cares if you kill it.

---

Enjoying reading this thread. Going to jump in...


Tying this into the invalid/child point, this path of logic says that if a cannibal wants to kill and eat said individuals that would be within his rights or at least, not a violation of the invalid/child's rights. Does it not?

Did you see this?

Quote:

---

The only time one could arrive at an actual right to kill something would be if that something was violating their rights or trying to. For example if it was trying to kill you so it could eat.

---

Maybe I worded it in a misleading way.

In other words I'm saying that if a living creature A was trying to kill and eat living creature B then Creature B would be within its rights to kill A in defense because A had no inherent objective right to kill creature B.

So does that mean that humans have no inherent right to kill and eat cows? Absolutely. But I still eat em.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Did you see this?

Quote:

---

The only time one could arrive at an actual right to kill something would be if that something was violating their rights or trying to. For example if it was trying to kill you so it could eat.

---

Maybe I worded it in a misleading way.

In other words I'm saying that if a living creature A was trying to kill and eat living creature B then Creature B would be within its rights to kill A in defense because A had no inherent objective right to kill creature B.

So does that mean that humans have no inherent right to kill and eat cows? Absolutely. But I still eat em.

---

I did, but the second part seemed contrary. I think I understand where you're coming from.

In other words, you would vote against a law that enforces veganism for the reason that we have no rights to procure food products from animals - however you would agree that the law is based in sound logic.

Quote:

---

In other words, you would vote against a law that enforces veganism for the reason that we have no rights to procure food products from animals - however you would agree that the law is based in sound logic.

---

Yes. As I said. I think the only really important creatures we respect logically derived rights for are those that are capable of logically understanding their existence in the first place.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Yes. As I said. I think the only really important creatures we respect logically derived rights for are those that are capable of logically understanding their existence in the first place.

---

Ok, this I can generally get behind. Humans are special because we have the ability to think rationally and have a special consciousnesses.

I would extend natural rights to any being who is, could be, could have been, or once was a rational being. I choose to believe that special consciousness and divinity are related, but YMMV.

The problem here is that the separation of church and state, left to its own designs, the state will freely choose abortion, homosexual marriage, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and assisted suicide. All very great sins in the eyes of the church. This will set up a collision course between church and state where the church will either go along to get along or will stand up for its beliefs.

I choose the latter...