Except yours, presumably?Quote:
Of course I'm not saying that is the conclusion these men would come to. Human reasoning is always clouded by biases.
I'm pointing out the intellectual truths of the matter.
Christopher Hitchens on abortion
6,156 Views |
113 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by GQaggie
It has nothing to do with my experience or what the men think or do.
I am addressing the abstract truth of the matter that exists in the reality of this hypothetical.
The 2 men DO exist. They DO have no clue why they are there or how they are there.
The island exists.
Those truths alone, absent of any empirical proof of a god, or a purpose for why they are there, are enough to establish an objective truth that neither has the default right to kill the other. Not as an absolute default right.
Now if a god exists and wants one of them to kill the other, or if we as the ones running the experiment put them there so one would kill the other, those would be truths that could put a different morality upon them, but due to the fact that they do not know any of that, they are bound to a morality based on reason and truth.
If all they have to work with is absence of any absolute proof of god or purpose, then they can establish "rights" at the very basic level.
To help you better understand what I'm talking about, let's put this island in a virtual world.
2 people find themselves in a virtual game world. All it is is an island. The 2 people know they are in a virtual game and that it is not real life. But they do not know what the purpose of the game is. They just know they are in it and can move around and interact with each other.
How do they decide the rules of the game then? How do they decide what their purpose in the game will be?
What if the two differ? One wants to go around building stuff, and one wants to kill stuff.
Who has the right to do what they want?
Neither of them created the game or set it up, so neither one has a right over the other to say what the game rules are. Therefore they both have the right to do what they want in the game and do not have the right to interfere with the other one pursuing their goal for the game.
If person A wants to build a house, person B has no right to stop person A from doing it, and has no right to do anything to destroy the house.
If person B wants to build a boat and sail around the island, he has the right to do that because person A has no inherent right to stop him from doing that.
Now if person B wants to make it a fighting game and wants to try to kill person A, then he would be violating person A's rights, if person A does not want to play that kind of game.
You could say, "well that's not fair, you are saying person A has the right to do what he wants, but person B does not." But that is only because what person B wants to do interferes with what person A wants to do.
This is the essence of rights.
I am addressing the abstract truth of the matter that exists in the reality of this hypothetical.
The 2 men DO exist. They DO have no clue why they are there or how they are there.
The island exists.
Those truths alone, absent of any empirical proof of a god, or a purpose for why they are there, are enough to establish an objective truth that neither has the default right to kill the other. Not as an absolute default right.
Now if a god exists and wants one of them to kill the other, or if we as the ones running the experiment put them there so one would kill the other, those would be truths that could put a different morality upon them, but due to the fact that they do not know any of that, they are bound to a morality based on reason and truth.
If all they have to work with is absence of any absolute proof of god or purpose, then they can establish "rights" at the very basic level.
To help you better understand what I'm talking about, let's put this island in a virtual world.
2 people find themselves in a virtual game world. All it is is an island. The 2 people know they are in a virtual game and that it is not real life. But they do not know what the purpose of the game is. They just know they are in it and can move around and interact with each other.
How do they decide the rules of the game then? How do they decide what their purpose in the game will be?
What if the two differ? One wants to go around building stuff, and one wants to kill stuff.
Who has the right to do what they want?
Neither of them created the game or set it up, so neither one has a right over the other to say what the game rules are. Therefore they both have the right to do what they want in the game and do not have the right to interfere with the other one pursuing their goal for the game.
If person A wants to build a house, person B has no right to stop person A from doing it, and has no right to do anything to destroy the house.
If person B wants to build a boat and sail around the island, he has the right to do that because person A has no inherent right to stop him from doing that.
Now if person B wants to make it a fighting game and wants to try to kill person A, then he would be violating person A's rights, if person A does not want to play that kind of game.
You could say, "well that's not fair, you are saying person A has the right to do what he wants, but person B does not." But that is only because what person B wants to do interferes with what person A wants to do.
This is the essence of rights.
7nine
I never said what conclusion the 2 men came to. What they conclude has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm pointing out the truth of the reality.ramblin_ag02 said:I think you missed my entire point. Neither Avicenna's man on an island nor your 2 men on an island are supposed to have cultural preconceptions. That's part of the basis of the thought experiment. However, somehow your men and Avicenna's men both end up with the same conclusions as the originator of the thought experiment. What I'm saying is that no matter how hard you try, you and Avicenna both are imparting your own biases and presuppositions on your thought experiement. Therefore it is no surprise that when you and Avicenna disagree, then your island men disagree in the exact same way.Quote:
2 men alone on an island and have no memory, therefore no culture have no way to say with any reason that a god in fact exists and says one has the right to kill the other. Of course I'm not saying that is the conclusion these men would come to. Human reasoning is always clouded by biases.
7nine
It's like we are looking at this room. (presuming through a clear wall and that no part of the room exists beyond the camera)k2aggie07 said:Except yours, presumably?Quote:
Of course I'm not saying that is the conclusion these men would come to. Human reasoning is always clouded by biases.
I'm pointing out the intellectual truths of the matter.
I say, "it is an absolute truth that there is no tennis ball in this room."
You then say "well you are looking at it biased. Who's to say what a room is? What a tennis ball is? What other dimensions exist in this room that do contain tennis balls?.
When the only question being asked is, "is there a tennis ball in this room?"
Your complexities serve no purpose for practical living.
7nine
Do you really not see the problem with comparing something completely physical and tangible, something that is directly perceived by the senses (a tennis ball) with something that is completely abstract and intangible, something that is perceived only by the mind (rights)?
They both exist or they don't. They both can be described as having certain identifiable features to allow us to reason if they exist or not.
7nine
This is a tautology. You're starting with your premise, that each person has rights that shouldn't be interfered with, and then showing how this should be obvious.Quote:
Those truths alone, absent of any empirical proof of a god, or a purpose for why they are there, are enough to establish an objective truth that neither has the default right to kill the other. Not as an absolute default right.
Who has the right to do what they want?
Ok, man, now you have to say what a right is, immediately, before you can go any further. Is "right" the ability? Or is "right" an appeal to some kind of authority?
The entire rest of this is just showing that you are saying it is the latter, appeal to authority, and the authority is what is "reasonable" as you see it.
You're just going in circles.
What is the sensible feature of a right?
What does it feel like, smell like, taste like, sound like, look like?
What does it feel like, smell like, taste like, sound like, look like?
A right is established through ownership.
Ownership is established through creation or social contract.
Rights can also be established negatively, as I put forth above.
As reason capable creatures, and no proof of an ultimate creator of the universe, no ownership can be posited over any of us by another.
Ownership is established through creation or social contract.
Rights can also be established negatively, as I put forth above.
As reason capable creatures, and no proof of an ultimate creator of the universe, no ownership can be posited over any of us by another.
7nine
Nothing that you said is sensible, there are no "identifiable features" in anything you listed.
You're just word-salading your philosophy.
You're just word-salading your philosophy.
It is you who is insisting that something must be perceivable by one of the 5 senses to exist in reality. I never said such a thing.
I said it has identifiable features. Can we identify ownership if we grasp the concept? Of course. It doesn't need to smell.
I said it has identifiable features. Can we identify ownership if we grasp the concept? Of course. It doesn't need to smell.
7nine
Quote:
I never said what conclusion the 2 men came to. What they conclude has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm pointing out the truth of the reality.
Quote:
Through reason alone, with what little they know, they can establish very basic rights.
They both have the right to life because neither one has the right, by default, to kill the other one, because there is nothing based on reason giving either one that right. Of course you can add on complications of situational issues that can give way to arguments for this right. For instance, if one were trying to kill the other, then one could argue the one being attacked had a right to kill the other in defense of their own life. Or if there were a known amount of resources to survive on the island and there was only enough to support one of them. However, by default, neither can make any reasonable claim to having a right to kill the other.
Logically they both would have the right to do do whatever they wanted so long as they did not violate any known rights of the other. Again, you can add complications and "what if"s, but we are speaking of default rights. Not situational rights.
Logically, if one of them had a right to own property, so would the other. Neither would have a default claim to ownership of anything on that island, so by default they can rationally arrive at a logical conclusion that they equally have the right to own property and then they can complicate it from there on how they agree to divy it up.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Point out where I ever said what they themselves conclude.
If I say the police have everything they need to solve a crime at a given crime scene and spell out how they can do it, that doesnt mean the police will solve the crime.
If I say the police have everything they need to solve a crime at a given crime scene and spell out how they can do it, that doesnt mean the police will solve the crime.
7nine
ok - we've found the problem.
Reality exists, right? And we experience reality through sense perception, right? As far as I know, there is no other way for humans to interact with reality other than through our senses. In order for us to communicate with one another, and with reality, we have to use these senses -- at least, as far as it is up to us. I can't interact with reality any other way by my own efforts. And of course, sensory perception under-represents reality. We under-experience reality. The sum total of our experience under-defines physical reality.
There are two kinds of things we can talk about but that we can't sense. There are things we can physically sense through secondary means -- that is, we can secondarily sense radio waves by using a physical intermediary. We manipulate the physical domain to change an unsensible physical phenomena into a sensible one.
Then there are things that may exist but are unsensible by any means. These are metaphysical. They have no physical qualities, no tangible characteristics whatsoever in the physical domain. You can't make a "rights" sensor. There is nothing to measure, it is purely intelligible.
Alright, so each person is interacting with reality through and only through their sensory experiences. When we interact with each other, we also do that through, and only through, our sensory experiences.
Experience with anything that is purely intelligible (i.e., completely insensible) is by definition personal and unsharable, except as we can endeavor to express it through sensible means. It is a complete error to ever presume that anything intelligible is completely shared. It just can't be, because there is no way to fully communicate it, at all, period, because every analog, concept, or idea that you use to communicate is fundamentally and unchangeably of a different quality than the thing itself.
I can describe to you an apple, and I can talk about apples, and it is I suppose theoretically possible to physically define an apple. I mean, assuming sensors and such existed, you could completely characterize what an apple is, down to the quantum level and whatever else may physically exist. And you theorize that it is possible to take that physical information and in theory faithfully translate it to another sensible means to communicate it with no loss of information whatsoever.
But a right? How do you begin to describe a right? With physical analogs? Examples? Or abstract concepts based in physical analogs? I mean, even our concept of a law only finds meaningful expression in each implementation. A law without a use-criterion is nothing, its an uncommunicatable intelligible concept. We can all agree, firmly, on a physical instance of an abstract thing: it is illegal to murder someone with these definitions of murder and these definitions of illegal and these defined consequences. But ultimately all of the definitions go back to physical analogs. The rightness or wrongness, though, do not.
We say, it is right or wrong because of these physical analogs. But you say the right and wrong, the Truth of the matter, precedes the physical analogs, because even before the case, the Truth of the matter existed. Then what is the identifiable feature?
Reality exists, right? And we experience reality through sense perception, right? As far as I know, there is no other way for humans to interact with reality other than through our senses. In order for us to communicate with one another, and with reality, we have to use these senses -- at least, as far as it is up to us. I can't interact with reality any other way by my own efforts. And of course, sensory perception under-represents reality. We under-experience reality. The sum total of our experience under-defines physical reality.
There are two kinds of things we can talk about but that we can't sense. There are things we can physically sense through secondary means -- that is, we can secondarily sense radio waves by using a physical intermediary. We manipulate the physical domain to change an unsensible physical phenomena into a sensible one.
Then there are things that may exist but are unsensible by any means. These are metaphysical. They have no physical qualities, no tangible characteristics whatsoever in the physical domain. You can't make a "rights" sensor. There is nothing to measure, it is purely intelligible.
Alright, so each person is interacting with reality through and only through their sensory experiences. When we interact with each other, we also do that through, and only through, our sensory experiences.
Experience with anything that is purely intelligible (i.e., completely insensible) is by definition personal and unsharable, except as we can endeavor to express it through sensible means. It is a complete error to ever presume that anything intelligible is completely shared. It just can't be, because there is no way to fully communicate it, at all, period, because every analog, concept, or idea that you use to communicate is fundamentally and unchangeably of a different quality than the thing itself.
I can describe to you an apple, and I can talk about apples, and it is I suppose theoretically possible to physically define an apple. I mean, assuming sensors and such existed, you could completely characterize what an apple is, down to the quantum level and whatever else may physically exist. And you theorize that it is possible to take that physical information and in theory faithfully translate it to another sensible means to communicate it with no loss of information whatsoever.
But a right? How do you begin to describe a right? With physical analogs? Examples? Or abstract concepts based in physical analogs? I mean, even our concept of a law only finds meaningful expression in each implementation. A law without a use-criterion is nothing, its an uncommunicatable intelligible concept. We can all agree, firmly, on a physical instance of an abstract thing: it is illegal to murder someone with these definitions of murder and these definitions of illegal and these defined consequences. But ultimately all of the definitions go back to physical analogs. The rightness or wrongness, though, do not.
We say, it is right or wrong because of these physical analogs. But you say the right and wrong, the Truth of the matter, precedes the physical analogs, because even before the case, the Truth of the matter existed. Then what is the identifiable feature?
Sidebar to say - several Church fathers talk about this, that the intellect or the mind has a special ability that is completely different from sense perception. St Augustine talks about the numbers of judgment, St Maximos calls it a capacity to supranonknow. A way to perceive the metaphysical directly, without any physical intermediary...a way to beyond-know something that is beyond knowledge, because knowledge is gained through physical sense perception. I would hazard that our ability to operate in the metaphysical domain, purely in the abstract, is kind of evidence of this.Quote:
As far as I know, there is no other way for humans to interact with reality other than through our senses...at least, as far as it is up to us.
Seriously?Quote:
Point out where I ever said what they themselves conclude.
Quote:
Through reason alone, with what little they know, they can establish very basic rights.
They both have the right to life because neither one has the right, by default, to kill the other one, because there is nothing based on reason giving either one that right. Of course you can add on complications of situational issues that can give way to arguments for this right. For instance, if one were trying to kill the other, then one could argue the one being attacked had a right to kill the other in defense of their own life. Or if there were a known amount of resources to survive on the island and there was only enough to support one of them. However, by default, neither can make any reasonable claim to having a right to kill the other.
Logically they both would have the right to do do whatever they wanted so long as they did not violate any known rights of the other. Again, you can add complications and "what if"s, but we are speaking of default rights. Not situational rights.
Logically, if one of them had a right to own property, so would the other. Neither would have a default claim to ownership of anything on that island, so by default they can rationally arrive at a logical conclusion that they equally have the right to own property and then they can complicate it from there on how they agree to divy it up.
You literally said they made a conclusion. The rest of the quote is in the exact same vein, despite not using the actual word
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
The identifiable feature is the idea. The concept.
Look, I fully realize that the very intellect and reasoning that our brains are capable of are direct results of our interaction with a physical world. However we can now imagine a scenario where our brains were put into a vat and sent out into a paralell universe where we know nothing of the physical reality and only that our brains are existing in it. All senses gone. All we have is thought and the ability to directly communicate with each other's brains through language as thought.
Within that reality, we could still establish reasoned truth of what we have access to, thoughts and concepts.
Look, I fully realize that the very intellect and reasoning that our brains are capable of are direct results of our interaction with a physical world. However we can now imagine a scenario where our brains were put into a vat and sent out into a paralell universe where we know nothing of the physical reality and only that our brains are existing in it. All senses gone. All we have is thought and the ability to directly communicate with each other's brains through language as thought.
Within that reality, we could still establish reasoned truth of what we have access to, thoughts and concepts.
7nine
ramblin_ag02 said:
You literally said they made a conclusion. The rest of the quote is in the exact same vein, despite not using the actual word
So if in the Police crime scene scenario I stated, that by the evidence available the police will be ABLE to conclude, does that mean that they will? The police might have been paid off and not even look at all the evidence. The police might know the suspect and like him and assume he couldn't have done it.
I'm speaking to what is actual truth. Not what the men in the scenario actually think.
7nine
All you're doing is setting up a concept, calling it reason or actual truth, and then saying that everyone can know what it is but if they don't agree with you on it then they're wrong.
And you think this is somehow different than grounding morality in a religion?
And you think this is somehow different than grounding morality in a religion?
I didn't say its it's different or better than grounding it on religion per se. I'm arguing against the idea that without religion or a God, there is no objective way to get basic morality or rights.
Give me one good reason based truth that would give person a the right to kill person b by default.
Give me one good reason based truth that would give person a the right to kill person b by default.
7nine
Because he can. Or because he's hungry and he thinks the only way for him to survive is to kill the other guy. Or because he wants to and it will make him happy.
Now prove that it's objectively wrong for him to do it.
PS you're still using a religion, it's just humanism and you're the high priest.
Now prove that it's objectively wrong for him to do it.
PS you're still using a religion, it's just humanism and you're the high priest.
None of those work. I'm not giving some appointed value to human life like humanism. I'm simply stating truth.
There is no higher power that puts one human in charge of the other. There is no higher power that puts one more valuable than the other.
So one cannot have a right to kill the other.
There is no higher power that puts one human in charge of the other. There is no higher power that puts one more valuable than the other.
So one cannot have a right to kill the other.
7nine
I don't agree. I think you're wrong and your reasoning is wrong. It is logical that the better person has dominion over the lesser, the lesser should serve the stronger. Don't need a god to determine that, either.
No with no higher power there is no objective measure to judge 'better' by. Sorry, your reason fails basic logic.
7nine
That is dumb. Of course there is. Objectively better can be stronger, faster, better looking. The better humans should be in charge of the lesser. Doesn't that make sense? Why should the stupid one be in charge? Better yet, why shouldn't the smarter one?
Neither have the right to be in charge. That's the point. They each have the right to do as they wish so long as they don't violate the other's rights.
They can objectively measure qualities but their is no objective measure to say what are the important qualities.
Think of the guys in a game. Neither know the point of the game so neither can claim any measure they are better in makes them better at the game.
They can objectively measure qualities but their is no objective measure to say what are the important qualities.
Think of the guys in a game. Neither know the point of the game so neither can claim any measure they are better in makes them better at the game.
7nine
Your rules are arbitrary. The strong one says the objective is to win, by domination. The weaker one agrees because he doesn't want to die. The end.
You're aware that you're setting an arbitrary personal standard and calling it absolute, right? Like.. you see this, don't you? It's not "objective" just because you say so.
You're aware that you're setting an arbitrary personal standard and calling it absolute, right? Like.. you see this, don't you? It's not "objective" just because you say so.
The measurements are arbitrary yes, but the objective part is that no one has ultimate say because no one created the world.
We aren't talking about who can force their will. We aren't talking about who is better at something or more worthy. We are talking about a stone cold hard fact. If you have no absolute proof of a purpose or creator then you have no ultimate right to enforce your will on another.
I'm not saying you have no ultimate right because something forbids it. I'm saying you have none because none exists. None exists because in order for it to exist you would need proof of a higher purpose or creator.
We aren't talking about who can force their will. We aren't talking about who is better at something or more worthy. We are talking about a stone cold hard fact. If you have no absolute proof of a purpose or creator then you have no ultimate right to enforce your will on another.
I'm not saying you have no ultimate right because something forbids it. I'm saying you have none because none exists. None exists because in order for it to exist you would need proof of a higher purpose or creator.
7nine
You don't need to appeal to any metaphysical construct to say that. You just need to say - nobody has any rights, because rights aren't real. And so everyone just controls themselves, because they don't have the right to do anything else. The problem is, this isn't true for only people. You said it's about reason and this and that. But animals don't have any right to do anything other than be themselves either. Why does a lion have the right to hunt a deer? What objective standard makes it ok for me to eat a carrot? Or a cow?
And it doesn't extend to property rights. The fact that I have no right to anything other than myself, and only because I happen to find myself animating a body that is mine, doesn't mean I deserve or have any "right" to ownership. Stuff near me is just near me. I don't have a right to stop you from taking it.
I really don't understand this idea that only appealing to a deity gives humans the right to hurt other humans. Seems to me this is just a quirky way to denigrate religions in general as the Source Of All Evil. But if reason is real and true, and people can come to know it, there's no reason that reason can't dictate a knowable, objective means to judge the quality of person. You may not agree with what that is, but you're just appealing to your own authority over reason at the end of the day.
Bowing out, have the last word if you like.
And it doesn't extend to property rights. The fact that I have no right to anything other than myself, and only because I happen to find myself animating a body that is mine, doesn't mean I deserve or have any "right" to ownership. Stuff near me is just near me. I don't have a right to stop you from taking it.
I really don't understand this idea that only appealing to a deity gives humans the right to hurt other humans. Seems to me this is just a quirky way to denigrate religions in general as the Source Of All Evil. But if reason is real and true, and people can come to know it, there's no reason that reason can't dictate a knowable, objective means to judge the quality of person. You may not agree with what that is, but you're just appealing to your own authority over reason at the end of the day.
Bowing out, have the last word if you like.
Well you have to establish rights. That is the game. So you start from the fact that there is no proof of a god or a purpose to this world. So no one has any inherent rights. We are all equally "rightless". So how do we start giving rights? We have to do that to live together peacefully.Quote:
You just need to say - nobody has any rights, because rights aren't real. And so everyone just controls themselves, because they don't have the right to do anything else.
So everyone has the right to do anything except interfere with other people and their rights. They have that right because there is no right forbidding them that. There is a right forbidding them interfering with others because others have to have the same rights as you by default.
Animals do not get to play this game because they are incapable of reason, and therefore comprehending it.
Sort of like the 2 guys in a VR game that have no clue what the game rules or purpose is. Animals are like NPCs in that game because they do not have the ability to know they are in a game like the 2 people do. So they don't get any rights because they cannot enter social contract to establish further rights.
Property rights are not inherent from the start, true. However, to play this game we have to have property rights. Otherwise we are all stuck with no right to do anything with any property. So property rights must be established. For the 2 guys on the island, they would need to equally divy up the property of the island according to how they agree is most equal.Quote:
And it doesn't extend to property rights. The fact that I have no right to anything other than myself, and only because I happen to find myself animating a body that is mine, doesn't mean I deserve or have any "right" to ownership. Stuff near me is just near me. I don't have a right to stop you from taking it.
This is at the core of the entire understanding of objective rights from reason alone. It is not saying that all religion must be evil. If there is a god that gives us empirical evidence that it created the world and what our purpose is, then sure, it can establish what is right and wrong objectively. But without that proof, we must fall back to the basic reason founded rights.Quote:
I really don't understand this idea that only appealing to a deity gives humans the right to hurt other humans. Seems to me this is just a quirky way to denigrate religions in general as the Source Of All Evil.
If we cannot attribute our existence to a creator then by default, no one person can have a right to hurt or kill another human. If a creator created us and told us, hey, you are supposed to kill that person, then you could argue for that right.
Also if a person tries to harm you, you would of course have the right to defend yourself and harm them. Their action would give you the right, because their action was without right.
Again, like with the 2 players in the game. If they do not know what the purpose of the game is, then they have no way to objectively argue that any ability is better than another.Quote:
But if reason is real and true, and people can come to know it, there's no reason that reason can't dictate a knowable, objective means to judge the quality of person. You may not agree with what that is, but you're just appealing to your own authority over reason at the end of the day.
So to this applies to real life. The ONLY attribute that would give cause to lose your right would be if you are not able to reason, and therefore comprehend basic rights.
Just because someone is stronger or smarter or faster or whatever ability, does not mean they are better at the "Purpose" of life. Without a known purpose, anything could be the purpose of life, and that leaves everyone to decide for themselves what that is.
If you decide your purpose is to kill others, you are then going to be violating those people's rights, therefor you have no right to pursue that purpose.
Sorry if you are done discussing this. I admit I am not that great at explaining all of this and that is annoying to me because it is so easy to see how objective it actually is.
7nine
I am curious to know why you start with the idea that we have certain rights or even a lack of rights as axiomatic. From where does the idea of rights stem? Why do I need a right to kill if I am the strongest? Why do I need anymore justification than a desire to kill?
You have mentioned that numbers actually exist as metaphysical realities. Is it your belief that rights also exist in the same way? If so, does the existence of these rights extend to the eternal past or at least to the beginning of the universe? Were these rights just existing in a state of uselessness for 14 billion years waiting for creatures of reason to evolve? What if no creatures of reason had ever evolved? Would the rights still exist?
Sorry for playing 20 Questions, but I'm trying to figure out your exact starting point.
You have mentioned that numbers actually exist as metaphysical realities. Is it your belief that rights also exist in the same way? If so, does the existence of these rights extend to the eternal past or at least to the beginning of the universe? Were these rights just existing in a state of uselessness for 14 billion years waiting for creatures of reason to evolve? What if no creatures of reason had ever evolved? Would the rights still exist?
Sorry for playing 20 Questions, but I'm trying to figure out your exact starting point.
Well the right can't exist for a person until that person exists, can it?
You could look at it like saying it is a statement that is and always has been true, even before it was stated. It doesn't mean that the statement existed in the either of physical existence, but in this universe, it would have always been true if stated.
For instance. 2,233,345,234.023 plus .5 always has equaled 2,233,345,234.523 even before that equation was ever stated before. It didn't exist as a concept, per se. It just would have and will have always been true in the universe we know.
Just as the universal law we know where an object with a certain momentum in the vacuum of space will keep that momentum unless another force is applied to it. So you could say that if there were an object X with Y momentum in the vacuum of space and it had Z force applied to it, its new momentum would be A. And you could do the math to show it is true to prove the statement out. You would be able to say then, that that statement was true a million years ago, before the exact concept was ever brought into existence in any mind or reality. That doesn't mean the concept was floating around in the either of existence all that time.
So to, a right does not exist as an actual physical object. It is a concept. It is either a true thing or a false thing.
You don't need a right to kill to physically kill. Right has nothing to do with ability. Right has to do with what is proper. What is ultimately justifiable to logic alone.
If you reduce the world down to its most basic form from the human point of view, it is a realm where we have no provable evidence of why we are ultimately here, or what purpose we have, if any. So then who has the right to decide what our lives should be about? All humans that are capable of reason have no claim above any other human on what life should be, because none have proof of a creator, which would be the only thing that could objectively give a purpose to this realm. Every human's take on what life should be can only be subjective. So then, the only objective view can be that no one has the right to define anyone else's purpose or life. We all start at 0.
Therefore, the only objectively right thing could be that each individual define, for their own selves, what their life's purpose is and what they can do with it and when you interfere with someone else's life by taking it or harming it, you violate their right.
You could look at it like saying it is a statement that is and always has been true, even before it was stated. It doesn't mean that the statement existed in the either of physical existence, but in this universe, it would have always been true if stated.
For instance. 2,233,345,234.023 plus .5 always has equaled 2,233,345,234.523 even before that equation was ever stated before. It didn't exist as a concept, per se. It just would have and will have always been true in the universe we know.
Just as the universal law we know where an object with a certain momentum in the vacuum of space will keep that momentum unless another force is applied to it. So you could say that if there were an object X with Y momentum in the vacuum of space and it had Z force applied to it, its new momentum would be A. And you could do the math to show it is true to prove the statement out. You would be able to say then, that that statement was true a million years ago, before the exact concept was ever brought into existence in any mind or reality. That doesn't mean the concept was floating around in the either of existence all that time.
So to, a right does not exist as an actual physical object. It is a concept. It is either a true thing or a false thing.
You don't need a right to kill to physically kill. Right has nothing to do with ability. Right has to do with what is proper. What is ultimately justifiable to logic alone.
If you reduce the world down to its most basic form from the human point of view, it is a realm where we have no provable evidence of why we are ultimately here, or what purpose we have, if any. So then who has the right to decide what our lives should be about? All humans that are capable of reason have no claim above any other human on what life should be, because none have proof of a creator, which would be the only thing that could objectively give a purpose to this realm. Every human's take on what life should be can only be subjective. So then, the only objective view can be that no one has the right to define anyone else's purpose or life. We all start at 0.
Therefore, the only objectively right thing could be that each individual define, for their own selves, what their life's purpose is and what they can do with it and when you interfere with someone else's life by taking it or harming it, you violate their right.
7nine
Natural laws are not self-evident, in fact, people can't even agree on what they are. They are not immutable, as I demonstrated clearly earlier. And the notion that there is no evidence that maximizing utility for a few is nonsense on its face. Unless you purport to guarantee yourself a permanent spot amongst the lucky ruling few it's not hard to dismiss.k2aggie07 said:
If natural laws are only good insofar as they are efficacious they are not self evident and are not immutable. They're just strictly utilitarian. And further, there is no evidence whatsoever that maximizing utility should be done with consideration to all versus a few.
Again, you are using the word "human" in the same sense that I'm using personhood. It's a category that's not even remotely limited in concept to the human race. And whatever criteria you pick, DNA won't have much to do with it I'd guess.Quote:
No, Logos is not the same as person. It is a property, it is an activity that is evidence of the nature. We know that a human is a human because humans exhibit these properties. We can discuss what is the best arbiter of what is human, and I would certainly argue that the ability to reason is not a good one (kids are dumb and bad at reasoning but they're definitely still humans).
Quote:
And no, you've got this pretty well fouled up. Person is not a category. We don't say, how do you know it's a human? Because it's a person. We say, how do you know it's a person? Because it's human.
We don't say either. Being human confirmed genetically, being a person is a matter of definition. Data from star trek is a person, he's definitely not human.
Quote:
A person is a specific instance of humanity. It is not a category of being, it is a specific unique physical instance of humanity.
A human is a specific instance of humanity. It's also a category of being. Personhood is a category of being. In less sophisticated times slaves were denied personhood, but not humanity. This was not an error in not identifying their genetics, it was an error in not seeing their personhood.
Quote:
Now, we could say that other things besides homosapiens can have personhood. I'm fine with that.
Of course, that's the point. But we can't say that other things besides homo sapiens are human, and that's a problem. You can't account for neanderthal, smart aliens, data from star trek ect. with this as your category.
Quote:
I think dogs have personhood. I know which dog is mine. She is particular and I could pick her out by her unique mode of being a dog, and no other dog is quite like her. But her personhood is in accordance with what she is, which is a dog. Just like my person hood is an instance of human-ness, provided you believe that I am a human and not AI. Which you probably do. Sucker.
You are using a different definition of personhood that is used in these debates. You can say your dog is an individual, but not a person as I'm defining it.
///
And?Quote:
You're not following. I didn't say "a" social contract. I said "social contract," short hand for "the philosophical concept termed social contract."
Quote:
Your system has no foundation, at least not one you've defined other than simple utility.
It has every bit the foundation as yours, you've simply pretended there is another step above your foundation where god says so. There is no objective morality, you've nothing to offer here.
Yea, we have to think about this whether or not we pretend we are doing god's bidding. Or else we substitute the dictates of a religion for these questions and dismiss them out of hand. Subjective morality is all there is and so we make due by agreeing to standards. No pretense of objectivity changes anything at a practical level at all.Quote:
As in, "the best government is that which governs best." But that just opens up to questions. What is best? And Lenin's famous "who? Whom?" Utility needs a reference in itself, and so we're back to even "what does happiness mean?" Because if it just means personal pleasure as defined by the individual, and our entire framework of what is right and moral and true is rooted in that, then in no way can we make categorical statements about "best" or "just" or even "utility."
I believe I am following you here. I believe in a Creator, but for the sake of this discussion, assuming no evidence of one, I think I can agree with the idea that we all "start at 0."Quote:
If you reduce the world down to its most basic form from the human point of view, it is a realm where we have no provable evidence of why we are ultimately here, or what purpose we have, if any. So then who has the right to decide what our lives should be about? All humans that are capable of reason have no claim above any other human on what life should be, because none have proof of a creator, which would be the only thing that could objectively give a purpose to this realm. Every human's take on what life should be can only be subjective. So then, the only objective view can be that no one has the right to define anyone else's purpose or life. We all start at 0.
I don't agree with this conclusion however:
I would say in the scenario you described above, there are no rights. I don't have the right to kill you, but neither do you have the right to expect that I will not kill you. Your scenario imposes no moral obligation upon any of the participants, and a right entails some sort of moral obligation. If you truly have the right to live, then I am morally obligated to allow you to do that. What in your scenario imposes such an obligation upon me?Quote:
Therefore, the only objectively right thing could be that each individual define, for their own selves, what their life's purpose is and what they can do with it and when you interfere with someone else's life by taking it or harming it, you violate their right.
I don't want to insert myself into the discussion you and k2 are having, so it is not my intention to reply to anything specific in your last post. Instead I'll violate Godwin's Law and make a WWII alternate outcome illustration.
Imagine Germany wins WWII. Once all formidable foes have been destroyed, they then go on to kill all people who disagree with their ideology. All accounted for existing people now believe in the superiority of the Aryan race and believe that it is right to kill Jews, should anymore be found to exist. Do these tenets now form a legitimate new morality? Have right and wrong changed since the agreed upon standards are now vastly different than they were prior to the war? Can one society actually even judge the morality of another society that existed in a different place and time in any meaningful way?
There is something in me and, I suspect, you that screams, "No!" to the first two questions. I absolutely believe it would still be wrong even if no existing person held that same belief. I am as sure about the wrongness of that as I am that the sky is blue, chocolate tastes good, and roses smell nice. That intuition seems as strong, natural, and reliable as any of my physical senses. If I axiomatically accept that the physical world objectively exists as a result of my empirical experience through my physical senses, why would I be any less justified in believing that objective morality exists as a result of my experience through this innate intuition.
It seems your subjective morality makes "good" and "evil" just emotionally charged words for "not taboo" and "taboo." The serial rapist is not objectively worse than the upstanding citizen. Society merely prefers him less. I realize that an unbeliever must hold to this subjective nature of morality to remain consistent with his worldview, but I believe the vast majority of people, including atheists find this view to be inconsistent with their internal experience.
Imagine Germany wins WWII. Once all formidable foes have been destroyed, they then go on to kill all people who disagree with their ideology. All accounted for existing people now believe in the superiority of the Aryan race and believe that it is right to kill Jews, should anymore be found to exist. Do these tenets now form a legitimate new morality? Have right and wrong changed since the agreed upon standards are now vastly different than they were prior to the war? Can one society actually even judge the morality of another society that existed in a different place and time in any meaningful way?
There is something in me and, I suspect, you that screams, "No!" to the first two questions. I absolutely believe it would still be wrong even if no existing person held that same belief. I am as sure about the wrongness of that as I am that the sky is blue, chocolate tastes good, and roses smell nice. That intuition seems as strong, natural, and reliable as any of my physical senses. If I axiomatically accept that the physical world objectively exists as a result of my empirical experience through my physical senses, why would I be any less justified in believing that objective morality exists as a result of my experience through this innate intuition.
It seems your subjective morality makes "good" and "evil" just emotionally charged words for "not taboo" and "taboo." The serial rapist is not objectively worse than the upstanding citizen. Society merely prefers him less. I realize that an unbeliever must hold to this subjective nature of morality to remain consistent with his worldview, but I believe the vast majority of people, including atheists find this view to be inconsistent with their internal experience.
ConfidentAg
Watching the Duke vs FSU game and this graphic pops up.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
45
coastag227
Watching the Duke vs FSU game and this graphic pops up.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
35