I don’t believe in “natural” rights. Rights are a human institution; those rights that aren’t institutionalized by humans don’t exist. The only rights I, or any of us, have, are the rights that are recognized by the society in which we live.
So I don’t think — for example — that same-sex couples have a right to equal treatment under the law when it comes to marriage, in most US states. They don’t. They should, and I think they will in my lifetime. But we’re not there yet.
When people speak of having rights that aren’t recognized by society, I can’t agree. Where would rights like that come from? From God, I suppose, but I don’t believe in God. From nature, one could say, if one has never ever watched a nature show in one’s life. If you have a right to live, and the government shoots you anyway, and there are no consequences for those who shot you, then in what meaningful sense did the right to live ever exist?
Of course, it can be powerful to speak as if there are rights that exist outside of human institutions. It’s a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy; if you say “I have a right to blah, and that right is being denied to me,” then that use of the rights rhetoric makes it more likely that someday you will have the right to blah. I acknowledge that speaking of rights that way can be useful. But I don’t think it’s accurate.
Illustration via TRG’s Flickr page.
Consequences of actions (rape, murder) to the victim don’t change based on moral code. Societal or personal response to those actions does change. It doesn’t become right to you or to me but it does become right to people who live with that moral code. I agree that it sucks, but I can’t see how the fact that it’s awful changes whether it’s true or not.
I don’t have enough hubris to believe that my morals are the only valid ones nor that they are objectively correct.
I believe there can be other valid moral systems than mine; mine is one iteration of an attempt to discern and formalize natural law. Other people’s efforts may well do better.
But some parts of the natural law are now well-understood by humans, whether through divine teaching or through human moral reasoning. Whether inspired by Christ, Confucius, or Dr. Jones the philosophy PhD, there are things in my moral code that I am willing to stand up and say, this is objectively correct.
It is objectively correct that slavery is wrong. It is objectively correct that sexual violation against someone’s will is wrong.
If you disagree, fine, you disagree. Present your own moral system of understanding.
My problem is that you have twisted my words. I never said that slavery isn’t wrong. I didn’t say that a single time. What I said is that we cannot truthfully claim that slavery is objectively wrong. We cannot truthfully make that claim because it is evident that, over the course of history, an extremely large number of people didn’t believe that slavery is wrong.
I know that you can see the difference between the paragraph above and the claim that you make that “slavery is wrong” isn’t obvious to me.
This is what I mean about the shitty ways you often go about scoring points during a disagreement.
It is obvious by actions we witness and by history that this statement is untrue. We know that there have been large, vast even, numbers of people who thought that it was objectively correct that slavery was right.
When it comes to moral values, there is no objective there is only subjective. That is the difference in our beliefs. Never the twain shall meet and all of that.
At least now I have an understanding of where you’re coming from. I never expected to agree, but I hoped to understand and I thank you and Chingona for that.
My problem is that you have twisted my words. I never said that slavery isn’t wrong. I didn’t say that a single time. What I said is that we cannot truthfully claim that slavery is objectively wrong. We cannot truthfully make that claim because it is evident that, over the course of history, an extremely large number of people didn’t believe that slavery is wrong.
I understand that you personally believe slavery to be wrong.
Where did you get this frankly bizarre notion that large numbers of people failing to meet a moral standard means that the moral standard is wrong? I’m sorry that millions of people have believed that slavery was OK; millions of people were fucking idiots. We can’t say that slavery is objectively wrong because lots of people have done it?
Objectivity doesn’t mean consensus; objectivity means that something is true regardless of what people think. Something can be objectively morally right or wrong (compliant or non-compliant to a given code) regardless of what people actually do.
It’s objectively wrong to fuck little children. Lots of people have done and still do it. It’s objectively wrong to rape. Lots of people, same.
REALLY not understanding the disconnect here.
We know that there have been large, vast even, numbers of people who thought that it was objectively correct that slavery was right.
And they were wrong.
Huh?
I’m not talking about morality. I’m talking about rights. I don’t see how you can look at my argument regarding rights and expand it to a conclusion about morality–unless, that is, you ALSO want to make the proposition that “morally correct” is equivalent to “natural right.”
I’m not trying to duck the question. I will say that in theory, all sorts of things can be moral depending on the circumstances and goals. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a moral argument for the Holocaust, though. To use a more controversial example, there is significant debate about the morality of the nuclear bomb used on Hiroshima in WWII, with some people coming down on each side. No matter what your personal position, it is not hard to imagine a scenario in which it was horrifically amoral, and it is also possible (though more difficult for me, I admit) to imagine a scenario where it was clearly the most moral thing to do on the planet.
That some system of thought could theoretically if fed a precise set of inputs come to a conclusion that seems ludicrous (“killing Jews is good!”) means… well, nothing, really. Pretty much any system does that. We get it from god: is everything that god did in the bible moral? We get it fron nature: if humans begin to replicate everything in nature w/r/t each other , is that moral? you’re always going to pick and choose.
the issue isn’t Godwining, it’s that you are demanding that my structure meet a criteria which yours and everyone else’s would similarly fail.
You completely misstate my bizarre notion. My bizarre notion is that there is no objective truth morally speaking. I am far from alone in holding that belief. IMO the evidence supports that belief, IYO opinion the evidence supports objective moral truth. We each have reasons to believe that our view on morals is superior. I wouldn’t mind discussing the relative merits and pitfalls of each view of morals. I think that would be educational.
The surprising thing to me isn’t that everyone has their own moral code.
The surprising thing to me isn’t that so many people (Robert et al) think that their own moral code is good.
Rather, I am amazed at the number of people who seem to be unable to separate the objective and the subjective, and who are taking their own beliefs as proof of objective truth. We know that you believe you are right, but you’ve done shit-all to demonstrate objectively that you are right.
I don’t get why you cannot see this distinction: you are all smart and you have made it in other contexts, IIRC. Surely you can’t fail to understand that there are people out there who disagree and who hold the opposite, equally strong, viewpoint.
Perhaps a question might help: Do you hold any strong moral beliefs which you think are objectively incorrect?
You completely misstate my bizarre notion. My bizarre notion is that there is no objective truth morally speaking. I am far from alone in holding that belief.
My apologies for misstating your position.
I am confused as to why you brought up the fact that people in the past have held (morally objectionable) beliefs, as a counterargument to my assertion of objective truth.
Rather, I am amazed at the number of people who seem to be unable to separate the objective and the subjective, and who are taking their own beliefs as proof of objective truth. We know that you believe you are right, but you’ve done shit-all to demonstrate objectively that you are right.
??? This isn’t the Amp-invites-the-theists-to-prove-natural-law thread.
Also, I do not think that my beliefs are objectively true, across the board. I think there is a philosophy of natural law, whose axioms are true if imperfectly understood. These axioms aren’t true because I believe in them; within my limited and fallible sphere of mentality, I believe in these axioms because I think they’re true.
Yes, you’re asking me to summarize an entire discourse about human rights in the last 500 years, and without bothering to look into yourself just dismissing it. But for example, people have a natural right not to be murdered, either by other people or the government.
Sailorman:
You can, but now you are just talking about rights without using the word ‘right’. You’re just smuggling it all in the back door. Most such premises are what we call ‘rights’. You seem to want to say that ‘legal rights’ (rights already enshrined in law) are what count as rights. But that isn’t how most people use the word. If you feel the need for the distinction, call it ‘legally recognized rights’ or something. But your ‘certain premises’ are in most cases (say for example ‘right not to be murdered’) just whatever everyone else calls rights.
If you are going to embrace the ‘certain premises’ argument, why not just call them rights and join the conversation with everyone else? What are you gaining by having ‘certain premises’ and not calling them rights? What clarity do you think is gained by doing that? What pitfall do you avoid by calling them rights? I don’t see it.
I understand the resistance of calling things right if you believe there aren’t any common principles. If you take a completely relativist view, I get it. But you clearly don’t take a completely relativist view. You don’t believe that rape is ok even if legal. You don’t believe that genocide is ok even if legal. So what is calling that ‘certain principles’ but steadfastly rejecting ‘rights’ gaining?
Because it seems to me that that is proof that morality is not objectively true nor is it based on objectively true axioms. For example, there was a long, long period of European history in which it was believed people were born into a role or caste and that the abilities and desires of those casts were objectively true and known. Your belief in in objective truth in morality is no different than theirs. What you believe to be objectively moral and good, however, differs significantly from theirs. We have no objective evidence to support one moral code over another wrt to which one is right.
You will disagree vehemently with that conclusion, and I don’t think we need to argue it. I just wanted to explain my reasoning to you.
No. I’m really not. I was asking you to explain your definition because your comments were very fuzzy when it came to what a right and what a natural right are. Robert showed very clearly that we were working from the same definition with his comment at #80. You, otoh, seemed to be working from something else with your comment at #68.
Okay, now that we know what you consider to be a natural right, do you have any evidence for the existence that right? From where does that natural right derive? What is it about being human that imbues us with this right but denies that right to pigs?
The debate about what the words “right” or “rights” or “natural” or “moral” even mean is seemingly endless. A lot of the differences of opinion here seem to be based upon each person’s perspective i.e. “this is how I see it”.
But all of life’s events are circular, something coming and something going. From one side the transaction can look like a loss, from the other it can look like a gain, therefore the same objective thing can look both right and wrong. If there is a natural law it is that things out of balance do not endure, and that is how I look at life. I always try to see both sides.
In American-style slavery, nothing even close to equivalent value was returned to the workers for their efforts. That imbalance is objective and therefore I consider American-style slavery objectively wrong even if 100% of the slave population agreed with the status quo. They can say it was moral if they like, they can’t say it was fair.
Because it seems to me that that is proof that morality is not objectively true nor is it based on objectively true axioms. For example, there was a long, long period of European history in which it was believed people were born into a role or caste and that the abilities and desires of those casts were objectively true and known. Your belief in in objective truth in morality is no different than theirs. What you believe to be objectively moral and good, however, differs significantly from theirs. We have no objective evidence to support one moral code over another wrt to which one is right.
Broadly I agree with the last sentence, but that doesn’t disprove the notion of objective truth, it just disproves any notion of human infallibility in the area of morals. Yeah, those people were wrong (and I could be wrong today) – and?
That me and my species are very often wrong doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as objective right; it means that we are very fallible when it comes to seeking out objective right. Man is not the measure of the cosmos.
Jake “Because it seems to me that that is proof that morality is not objectively true nor is it based on objectively true axioms. For example, there was a long, long period of European history in which it was believed people were born into a role or caste and that the abilities and desires of those casts were objectively true and known.”
That doesn’t prove what you think it does. For a long time in Europe, people were wrong about lots of things.
Again, if you want, you can go whole hog in the moral relativism concept. If that is your axiom we can’t agree, and that is fine. We have different axioms. If you believe that marital rape can be morally ok in cultures where it isn’t frowned upon I can’t argue with you—not because I think you are right, but because we share such a radically different set of axioms. If you truly believe that beating up one’s wife to ‘discipline’ her is morally acceptable in Saudi Arabia just because their culture says so, our axioms just don’t intersect anywhere useful.
Sailorman, at least, doesn’t seem interested in doing that. If you aren’t going all out for moral relativism, I don’t really understand the objection to ‘rights’. It is part of the language we use to express the morality of certain intersections between people and governments.
Sailorman, you could talk about it without using the word ‘rights’, but it isn’t clear why you would. You aren’t evading any of the problems of figuring out which rights really should count by stepping back to “shared moral principles” or whatever. All of the objections you make to ‘rights’ show up with exactly the same force to shared moral principles or commitment to process or figuring out what is “the accepted role of government” or what “overall benefit to all citizens of an unequal society” means or why anyone should care about “an unequal society” or any of the other moral considerations you want to bring to the conversation.
I’m not saying that those things aren’t helpful to the conversation. I just don’t understand why you think THOSE things are helpful, but you’re sure that the concept of ‘rights’ is not.
Sailorman,
You can insist up and down that you are not talking about morality, but a moral subtext cannot be completely removed from rights discourse.
Backing up a bit, we have the rights that are legally recognized under our current system of government and these rights have expanded over the last 200 years. I think we both agree that there is overlap between our moral consensus and these rights, but not perfect concordance, and there are rights we would like to see extended that are not currently recognized. And many of our civil rights only make sense in a certain political context. It would make no sense to say that a defendant in a French court is having his rights violated because the French legal system is different than the American legal system. Rights are human constructs that vary over time and place. We’re on the same page (I think) up to there.
Where I think we are running into a problem is in discussing how rights get expanded. And if it helps move this forward or at least out of the rut we seem to be in, I am asking a question as much or more than I am asserting a position.
Your position (as I understand it) is that there is no underlying morality to pushing for an expansion of rights. There is only “I want” and “you want” and one side will win and one will lose.
My question is, how do we weigh the two competing wants? How do we argue that one is better than the other? If there are no underlying principles, then they are equal. If there are underlying principles, where do they come from? When you postulate that government should exist and its role is to maximize benefit for its citizens, where are you getting that postulation from? How is it not an appeal to some moral sense? How is it qualitatively different than me starting my argument for an expansion of rights with an appeal to, say, basic equality? Why does a belief in basic equality rely on a natural rights, but a postulation that government exists to benefit its citizens not?
If the theist argument and the natural rights argument are insufficient (and I agree they both have serious flaws), is the only basis of rights that more people with more power fall into a certain side of “I want”?
If that’s the only basis of rights, then the Nazis had every right to murder all the people they murdered. Enough people with enough guns fell into the “I want to kill Jews” camp. Presumably, the Nazis thought they were acting morally to purify and strengthen German society. On what basis do we say this is ludicrous if rights only come from “I want”?
If you think your argument relies in no way whatsoever on any moral sense, then I think you need to find a way to express it without using the word “should.” The word “should” in English implies a certain moral authority.
Or (more likely, I think) there will be some sort of compromise solution. But yes, perhaps one side will win and one side will lose.
How do we argue? Just like we’re doing now.
Of course, I am assuming that there are at least some people in both camps who are capable of changing their minds on at least some of their positions. otherwise, argument is relatively pointless. But people go through changes of belief and understanding.
They may have equal basis in underlying principles, but they aren’t equivalent. Or are you useing “equal” differently here?
If there are underlying principles, where do they come from?
I’m making it up from thin air; i thought I was pretty clear about that.
Because government is a PROCESS, not a RESULT. I suppose you can make a moral argument for process as well, but I’m not.
Saying “Government exists” does not imply that its citizens will be happy or that its citizens will be equal, or really much of anything. Even saying that government should maximize overall benefit to its citizens does not imply much about equality per se. Ten highly prosperous slave owners and 1000 slaves may be more average benefit than 1010 lower middle class citizens.
because you’re talking about a result and I’m talking about a process.
It’s like the difference between believing in God, and believing that it is functionally impossible to disprove the existence of God. the former is like “natural rights” in that it stems from nowhere but your brain. the latter is merely a conclusion that you get from a neutral process.
Not all processes are neutral, of course, but there are plenty of them. “if there is a government,look at its goals, and then add or remove legal rights to more closely match its goals” is a neutral process. It says nothing about the morality of it.
Yeah, pretty much. Of course, there’s some convincing, and arguing.
I don’t think it’s ludicrous at all. Presumably, enough Nazis were fucked up that they DID think they were acting morally, whether their moral code was protecting the gene line or whether their moral code was following authority and respecting those in power.
Are you sure? Are you positive?
Should you still disagree, I still don’t think we should have a dictionary war. I don’t think my argument relies on morality (why should I need to use morality here?) so you should read my words in that context.
Sailorman,
Ludicrous was your word @ 107.
And if you’d have quoted it in context unstead of parahrasing me, i’d not be complaining now
Here, again, is the classic break between atheists and theists. Atheists, and those who don’t believe in natural rights, need positive proof of existence to believe in those things. Theists, and those who do believe in natural rights, think that the impossibility of disproving is enough proof to justify belief. It’s a split that’s not going to be resolved and will, purposely or inadvertently, be really insulting in the attempt to debate it.
From my perspective, I can’t understand why one needs to believe in either god(s) or natural rights nor what benefits attend those beliefs wrt morals or rights.
And I think I’m seeing a sense of frustration from those who do believe in their attempts to explain why it’s important and how it benefits them.
Like I said, I think that there are benefits and drawbacks to each position. Of course I believe that my position is superior, but what else could or should be expected?
I admit to being perplexed about “should” necessarily having moral judgment attached.
You should try the dumplings.
You should see a doctor about that.
I should get some sleep.
They should pick the first house.
Which pair of shoes should I buy?
“Should” in the way that Amp used it indicated a desired outcome. That the desired outcome was in reference to morals does not attach a morality judgment to the word.
“Should” can certainly have moral judgment attached:
You should apologize.
You should never have done that.
You should treat people equally.
You should help that person.
It doesn’t have to, nor does a should statement need to be derived from a code of morals.
Jake,
Does the Earth revolve around the Sun?
Sailorman: “Because government is a PROCESS, not a RESULT. I suppose you can make a moral argument for process as well, but I’m not.”
Aren’t you? Do you believe that all processes are equally valid? If not how do you choose? Do you believe that the process of dictatorship in North Korea is every bit as valid in its own culture as the democratic structure of Sweden? If not, on what basis do you choose?
The question isn’t whether or not they believed it, the question is whether or not their belief was wrong. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be suggesting that they couldn’t have been ‘wrong’ because of the assertion that morality is just a societal artifact. That is leads to a logically self coherent position, but NOT one that is compatible with statements like “same-sex couples should be permitted to marry”. In the radically relativist postion that you *seem* to be taking, such statements are nonsense. But you also seem to shy away from that sometimes. You invoke concepts like “maximize benefit for its citizens”. But you simultaneously argue against the proposition that such statements can have any value
Jake:
I think you’re muddying the water by trying to invoke some kind of atheistic chauvanism here. Great you’re an atheist. That doesn’t impact the argument at all.
Talking about ‘rights’ doesn’t mean you have to sign off on any particular belief system about where they come from.
Yeah, it’s only the basis of the disagreement over whether natural rights exist or not. Sorry to muddy the water and all that.
And thanks for confirming what happens when we start to debate the root cause of the split.
Have you read this thread at all? This is a thread about the (non) existence of natural rights.
Natural rights don’t depend on the existance of God. Or god. Or whatever. Quite a few of the Constitution framers didn’t even believe that. The fact that you seem to think so is confusing to me in the context of this thread.
Natural rights depend on something outside of people that has objectively determined right and wrong (or just “rights”). There is no positive evidence for this. As a result, those who need positive evidence of some extra human source of morality don’t believe that natural rights exist. OTOH, those to whom the idea of natural rights appeal see no evidence that disproves the existence of this extra human source and that is enough to confirm their belief. It is exactly the same positive/negative evidence split as that which divides atheists and theists.
So, no, one doesn’t have to be a theist to believe in natural rights, but I never said that so I’m not sure why you’re arguing this.
Those who believe in natural rights do, however, need to believe in something supernatural or undetectable/unquantifiable as the source of those rights.
As soon as you start saying “valid,” you’re trying to make a moral judgment again. Which I am not doing.
The PROCESS of dictatorship is neutral. Just because you have dictatorship doesn’t mean that you have a miserable country. It is just a structure of government.
The RESULTS of dictatorship can be good or bad, depending on what occurrences you assign to “good” or “bad.”
Certain processes will tend to produce certain results; the process of government by lottery is different than that of government by force, or government by vote. Whether those processes produce “good” or “bad” results is merely what you assign to “good” and “bad.”
I personally value things like the ability of people to influence government. So I generally think that democracies are likely to be better. But that’s just me.
To give you an example: you may think dictatorship is worse than majority rule.
Ok, then: would you rather live in a country where you (yes, you!) were dictator, or one where the minnesota socialist nazi party was the vast majority and in which majority rule was the only option? I don’t know you well enough, but I can certainly name a variety of people who I would find preferable over the alternative.
Well, I think they were wrong. Presumably you also think they were wrong. I am relatively confident that at least some of them thought they were right.
I don’t think they could have been “wrong” in the way you are using the word, because you seem to be using the word “wrong” here to mean “violating some arbitarily established supernatural moral code.” Since i don’t believe in such a moral code, I can’t apply your odd definition of “wrong.”
Thanks! I’m glad you recognize it as such. I try hard. Would you mind examining your own position for logical coherence?
Only if we get into the idiotic “should” definition argument again. What with ‘wrong” and “should” it’ll be all we talk about. If it would make you happy, I’m happy to say “I believe that gay couples should be allowed to marry.”
See above.
No I don’t. Value to me is as I define it. Value to citizens is providing individual citizens with what they value.
It’s when we get into random claims of objective value that we start doing crazy shit. Who knows what you value better than you do? If i say that you’ll be better off burned at the stake but getting a chance at sainthood, would you disagree? If i decide you should only eat cauliflower and rice and beans from now on, do you agree? Objectively, cauliflower is “better” than Hershey bars, is it not?
That shit gets ridiculous fast.
It’s funny and a bit odd that you think of that as so radical. I’m a lawyer, and it gets me lots of business. Defining value as relative is simply an acknowledgment of the fact that what YOU want isn’t the same as what I want. So rather than saying “you should sue John because you will win,” I ask “what are your goals and value with respect to your relationship with John?” Some people value money and don’t care about friendship; they sue. Some people would rather avoid conflict and lose $100,000.
Because they come from the moooooooooon!
No really, where do they come from. What with all the talking about what “should” means (we should really stop that though) and now “wrong” and Nazis and shit, I don’t seem to see a lot of actual stuff about YOUR position. You know, not the “you’re wrong*” part, but the “…because the correct answer is ____” part.
* as in “incorrect.”
As soon as you start saying “valid,” you’re trying to make a moral judgment again. Which I am not doing.
The PROCESS of dictatorship is neutral. Just because you have dictatorship doesn’t mean that you have a miserable country. It is just a structure of government.
The RESULTS of dictatorship can be good or bad, depending on what occurrences you assign to “good” or “bad.”
Certain processes will tend to produce certain results; the process of government by lottery is different than that of government by force, or government by vote. Whether those processes produce “good” or “bad” results is merely what you assign to “good” and “bad.”
To give you an example: you may think dictatorship is worse than majority rule.
Ok, then: would you rather live in a country where you (yes, you!) were dictator, or one where the minnesota socialist nazi party was the vast majority and in which majority rule was the only option? I don’t know you well enough, but I can certainly name a variety of people who I would find preferable over the alternative.
Well, I think they were wrong. Presumably you also think they were wrong. I am relatively confident that at least some of them thought they were right.
I don’t think they could have been “wrong” in the way you are using the word, because you seem to be using the word “wrong” here to mean “violating some arbitarily established supernatural moral code.” Since i don’t believe in such a moral code, I can’t apply your odd definition of “wrong.”
Thanks! I’m glad you recognize it as such. I try hard. Would you mind examining your own position for logical coherence?
Only if we get into the idiotic “should” definition argument again. What with ‘wrong” and “should” it’ll be all we talk about. If it would make you happy, I’m happy to say “I believe that gay couples should be allowed to marry.”
See above.
No I don’t. Value to me is as I define it. Value to citizens is providing individual citizens with what they value.
It’s when we get into random claims of objective value that we start doing crazy shit. Who knows what you value better than you do? If i say that you’ll be better off burned at the stake but getting a chance at sainthood, would you disagree? If i decide you should only eat cauliflower and rice and beans from now on, do you agree? Objectively, cauliflower is “better” than Hershey bars, is it not?
That shit gets ridiculous fast.
It’s funny and a bit odd that you think of that as so radical. I’m a lawyer, and it gets me lots of business. Defining value as relative is simply an acknowledgment of the fact that what YOU want isn’t the same as what I want. So rather than saying “you should sue John because you will win,” I ask “what are your goals and value with respect to your relationship with John?” Some people value money and don’t care about friendship; they sue. Some people would rather avoid conflict and lose $100,000.
Because they come from the moooooooooon!
No really, where do they come from. What with all the talking about what “should” means (we should really stop that though) and now “wrong” and Nazis and shit, I don’t seem to see a lot of actual stuff about YOUR position. You know, not the “you’re wrong*” part, but the “…because the correct answer is ____” part.
* as in “incorrect.”
” If it would make you happy, I’m happy to say “I believe that gay couples should be allowed to marry”
I think the best you can say and remain with your worldview is “I’d be ok if gay coulpes were permitted to marry each other”.
” Defining value as relative is simply an acknowledgment of the fact that what YOU want isn’t the same as what I want. ”
You’re using ‘relative’ in various senses in this discussion. Your discussion of whether or not to sue involves deciding what the person values most. Moral relativism denies the possibility of any moral value or system being more than any other system.
“It’s when we get into random claims of objective value that we start doing crazy shit. Who knows what you value better than you do? If i say that you’ll be better off burned at the stake but getting a chance at sainthood, would you disagree?”
This makes no sense. It is in the relativist view the fact that you say something but I say something different that we get into an undecideable problem since all morality is unmoored from anything objective. I have no trouble whatsoever saying that you are wrong about burning me at the stake.
You are confusing ‘difficult to decide between competing values’ with ‘there is no such thing as values’.
“No really, where do they come from. What with all the talking about what “should” means (we should really stop that though) and now “wrong” and Nazis and shit, I don’t seem to see a lot of actual stuff about YOUR position”
Well that is because we can’t even get to agreement that there is anything to be right about. You radically deny that there are any correct answers to moral questions.
Step 1 first, then we can try step 2.
We apparently can’t even agree that rape might be morally wrong, because you deny that ‘morally wrong’ is a category. How can I possibly try to discuss with you how to divide the right and the wrong when you don’t agree that there is such a thing? How can I fruitfully discuss how rights might weigh in against each other when you don’t think they exist.
It would be like trying to define subtle gradations in color with someone who denies that light exists and doesn’t think people’s eyes can open.
First things first.
The dictionary war.
I was imprecise. It would have been more accurate to say that in the contexts in which you were using should, it has a moral quality.
When you said:
and
you were using should in this form:
Obligation, propriety and expediency all involve value judgments. It would be better if …
So, yes, I was imprecise, but yes, I’m sure. ;)
I’m going to back up a bit in the discussion because before, I was writing in between having a shitload of stuff to do at work that I really needed to be doing instead of participating in this discussion.
Here’s what I believe is objectively true. All human beings are human beings. That certain classes of human beings are not viewed by the dominant class as fully human does not make them actually less human. When social, cultural and legal norms shift to recognize legal rights for previously marginal groups, the human quality of those people doesn’t actually change. It was always there. Black people did not suddenly sprout frontal lobes in 1865, or in 1965 for that matter. Women didn’t spend the three millennia as moral and intellectual children and then very rapidly evolve higher reasoning skills in the early 20th century.
That is what I think is objectively true. That some people didn’t always recognize it doesn’t make it not objectively true, any more than the fact that people used to think disease was caused by bilious humors makes the germ theory of disease something we can throw our hands up at and say “Sure, it seems true to us, but really, who’s to say?”
I also think this forms the moral basis for certain rights. It’s why I tell my son not to kick his cousin because he’ll hurt her, but I tell him not to kick his toy because he’ll break it. And it’s not remotely supernatural or extra-human or “some arbitarily established supernatural moral code.”
It doesn’t mean that I think that everything I believe is certainly and absolutely objectively true for all time, and there is only one moral code governing all aspects of life that is the same for everyone. It does, however, make me pretty comfortable saying that a few certain things are objectively wrong, among them arbitrarily killing someone, enslaving that person, raping that person, violently physically assaulting that person or any combination of those.
(And to say as Jake did up a ways that “it does become right to people who live with that moral code ” is to exclude the victim from the category of “people.” Slavery didn’t become wrong when white people realized it was wrong. It became wrong when the victim was harmed.)
Moving on a bit:
You didn’t just postulate that government exists. You postulated that it should exist. I’ll leave the word “moral” out of it, but I don’t really know how to understand that sentence other than that in some sense it is better if government exists than if it doesn’t. So it’s not a neutral postulation either.
Next, equality is not a “result” if we’re talking about legal rights.
Postulating that government should exist is stating a principle. Congress is a result.
Postulating that people should be equal is stating a principle. Women getting the right to vote is a result (achieved through the process of government).
This is, frankly, bullshit. First, you say you made up your postulation out of thin air (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Then you say that natural rights are made up out of thin air (“nowhere but your brain”), but your postulation (out of thin air) is the logical conclusion of a neutral process. Huh?
I realize that in my previous comment I made a natural rights argument for equality after expressing skepticism around natural rights earlier in the thread. I’m okay with that at this point in the discussion, but I did want to acknowledge that I understand the implications of what I argued in my last comment.
But presumably, if I said I made up a postulation that people should be equal out of thin air, you would be fine with that. Even prefer it as more honest and defensible than a natural rights position. Except that natural rights also are made up out of thin air.
IT’S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN!!!!!
You are stating my point exactly backwards. Try block quotes; that’s what they are designed to avoid.
Someone (sebastian, I think) said that you cannot get to rights without assuming natural rights and ther accompanying moral code.
I pointed out that (depending on the inputs to the process) you could get there by assuming a process and a set of goals related to that process, without putting any moral value on the process or the goals.
You remain unconvinced of the difference between a process and a result. I am not sure why. Assigning morality to a process which doesn’t include moral judgments in its inputs doesn’t make sense.
For example, you could say “can we agree on a goal of maximizing average benefit to every individual, as defined by each individual’s personal match between reality and their ideal?”
Now, you might say that this is merely a cover for assigning value to an individual’s happiness. And so it is. You can’t have an objective discussion without agreeing on values for things, or at least without agreeing on some method of determining relative value.
But note, however, that placing value on happiness is not at all the same as assigning an individual a right to be happy. In fact, it is certainly possible that very few individuals would end up happy, so long as other super-happy people balanced the average.
Or you could say, for example, “how could we set things up to maximize average wealth?” wth the same results.
or “how could we minimize average unhappiness (not at all the same thing), or “how could we minimize the percentage of people who consider themselves unhappy,” or pretty much anything else you want.
Now, all of those contain an inherent value judgment. For example, some of them have an implied value judgment that the average is more important than the median, or that common good is more important than individual good. There s no question that some of those value judgments need to be agreed on in order to reach a further conclusion. But those value judgments aren’t individual rights as we have been using “rights” to mean here.
So you want to know how to get to rights without assumptions of individual rights?
First you start by having a debate about the appropriate balance between individual and common good.
Then once you come to that agreement, you come to an agreement about the appropriate way to measure individual and common benefit.
Then once you decide that, you can talk about appropriate systems to reach th previously agreed goal.
The reason that this is not equivalent to “human rights” or “natural rights” is simple: the conclusions you are reaching are general, not specific. Any particular right is neither guaranteed to exist or guaranteed not to exist under almost any system you can agree on. You can’t say that a 50% balance of individual/common good is going to result in a right to free speech; you can’t say that about most rights.
Do you see the difference between that process and aprcess by which you start with saying “free seech should b a right” and then determine a system to provide it?
I did. Nested block quotes to give context to your pithy one-liners. But let me try again.
That would be your postulation, out of thin air.
Natural rights stems from nowhere but your brain. Is this significantly different from saying natural rights are made up out of thin air? They seem functionally equivalent to me, but maybe there is a subtle difference I’m missing.
From that, I get your postulation is made up and natural rights are made up. Both made up.
In the next sentence you say that “the latter,” which, following it back to its reference point, appears to be “the postulation that government exists to benefit its citizens,” which you had just was said was made up, is “merely a conclusion that you get from a neutral process.”
That seems nonsensical. If its anything, it’s a value input, not a conclusion.
So know I’ve quoted you directly twice. If I still have it wrong, it’s a problem of either my reading comprehension or your communication. It’s certainly possible that it’s the former. But it’s not a problem of paraphrasing. You can either rephrase or give up on me, but please don’t tell me again that if I quoted you, I wouldn’t have these problems.
OK, let’s start from the beginning. And yes, I realise you and Sebastian aren’t the same. Perhaps this qill help, though.
Dude, are you even reading my posts?
(edited to add: OK, in case this isn’t crystal clear, this response is aimed at (1) providing an argument; (2) without using nebulous “rights.” That’s all it was doing. that’s all it was asked to do.)
Watch:
1) Postulate certain things about government: it should exist, and the role of government is to maximize the overall benefit to its citizens.
(Is that a nebulous definition of ‘rights?’ If so, please explain how. it might help me understand what the freak you are talking about.)
(edited to add: chingona, perhaps you would like to respond to this?)
2) Make a claim that equal treatment of certain citizens is objectively and logically required in order to achieve the accepted role of government. In particular, make a claim that the overall benefit to all citizens of an equal society is greater than the overall benefit to all citizens of an unequal society.
—-
Now, in case it wasn’t clear: the initial government postulate was made in the context of this response. It wasn’t made in the context of whatever response you and I are now discussing. I’m not trying to bac down from what I’ve said here, but I think that part of the problem is arising from the fact that you are combining what I said in response to SEBASTIAN’S SPECIFIC POST with what I am saying in response to your post. The context matters here.
you (chingona) then asked:
because you’re talking about a result and I’m talking about a process.
It’s like the difference between believing in God, and believing that it is functionally impossible to disprove the existence of God. the former is like “natural rights” in that it stems from nowhere but your brain. the latter is merely a conclusion that you get from a neutral process.
ETA: i realize wha tthe error was here. I was still referring to the previous discussino about equality, but wasn’t clear about it.
Well, that’s not quite how I see it. To the extent that I believe in natural rights, I’m talking about some really basic core things, like the right not to be arbitrarily killed.
(And I’ve been trying to think of a word other than “right” to use here because I know you want to limit rights to legal rights, and I don’t want to be confusing the matter over mere semantics (really, I don’t). But I can’t really think of a word other than right. Not to play dictionary war, but I looked up “right” and what I got was “something to which one has a just claim.” If I’m taking about a moral claim, as opposed to a legal claim, which the right to not be killed is, I’m not convinced that’s an incorrect use of right, though I’m happy to use another word if you can suggest one, just to avoid confusion.)
Anyway, I don’t see these core moral claims (maybe that’s what I should use instead of rights) as magically transforming into the civil rights that characterize the modern American legal system. I see them as providing some of the value inputs that go into determining what our legal rights are. Like the argument for due process is informed by a value judgment that assumes freedom as the default and puts the onus on government to demonstrate why it should be taken away. That doesn’t make due process a natural right, and I’m not sure anyone has made that claim here, though maybe Sebastian would. I’m really not sure.
It’s not that I think a process is a result. We seem to be not be placing the variables in the same parts of the equation. I’m not sure if you don’t believe me or think I’m wrong about my own views when I said equality is not a result, but a principle. For consistency with your terms, I could change principle to value input if you like. But I’m not making an argument that equality must be the result because we have a natural right to equality. I’m arguing that the basic sameness of all people informs the value I place on all sorts of inputs to the process.
What’s the difference between “assigning value” to an input and “includ(ing) moral judgments in its inputs”?
Agreed. My question is … how do you discuss relative value or agree on value in your system? Personally, I have a pretty hard time doing it without reaching for those core moral claims. I’m interested in how you assign value and weigh competing values without relying on any moral claims about individuals or the community. If you only had one goal, like “maximizing benefit,” I suppose you could say you’re assigning value to some definition of “benefit” that doesn’t have a moral quality, but if you define “benefit” as, say, wealth, you’re making one type of value judgment and if you define it as, say, health, you’re making another, and pretty quickly you’re applying some moral calculus to the thing. Also, we almost never have just one goal and one input. We’re almost always weighing various inputs and various goals against each other. So again, I’m interested in how you do this.
Agreed. I don’t think I’ve made that argument.
Sure. In this system, you’re getting rights as a result, which I thought you didn’t like, but maybe what you don’t like is having rights as the starting point and working backwards.
Agreed. I said several times that it doesn’t make sense to describe the vast majority of our legal rights as “natural rights.”
I see the difference, but who is making the argument that we start with “free speech should be a right” and work backwards?
Cross-posted with you. Yes, I think we are definitely having some communication issues that, if resolved, wouldn’t necessarily lead us to agreement, but could result in less frustration.
In fairness to you, I think I was responding to you and Jake together as if you were making the same argument, exacerbated by Jake saying you were making his argument but better, when I don’t know that you’re making exactly the same argument.
Chingona,
I had a discussion about this with a friend last night and the FtF made what you’re saying more clear to me. The problem I’m having with this thread is the difference in definition of “natural rights” between Sebastian and yourself. Sebastian is using what I understand to be the classic definition of natural rights.
You, otoh, are using a definition more along the lines of what my friend came to. She best described it to me as, “the one or two things that everybody in the world would agree that they have the right to, if asked.” For example, everybody would say that they, personally, have the right to live and the right to control over their own body. This is true even if, within the same culture or society, that some don’t believe it is true of some other class of people.
While I understand that definition and am prone to agree that it’s true, I find it meaningless. The reason that I find it meaningless is that, as Sailorman has said, a right can’t exist without some kind of framework to enable or guarantee it. This is why I find Robert & Sebastian’s definition to be worthwhile discussing and why my responses to you didn’t make sense to you.
The only argument I can provide to your use of the term “natural rights” is to say that I don’t understand how that kind of right is useful in any concrete way.
So, I do think that Sailorman and I have been making the same argument. It’s just that he responded more appropriately to your understanding of the term than I did.
(Unless, of course, I’m currently wrong in interpreting your position/definition)
yes–the “rights as starting point” concept is pretty much the same thing as the “natural rights” concept, which I was arguing against and is what (I think) is the post topic, perhaps long since lost.
i’m not sure it’s been made about free speech in particular, but I believe it’s been made about other rights.
Agreed.
Argument and debate; perhaps some kind of vote if those fail; perhaps war if the vote fails. Just like we’ve always done.
Well, I do that as a part of my job, so I’m used to it. I do plenty of things for clients which I would not personally choose to do for myself, and some which I would consider “wrong” in a moral sense. To use the most obvious example, I would hope that I would not commit a crime, and that if i did, I would plead guilty and make it up to society. But that’s ME. What am I supposed to do: refuse to represent criminal defendants?
You are? I’m not getting this jump.
I can define benefit however I like without regard to you. You can define benefit however you like without regard to me.
those may work together: you and I may both describe wealth as a benefit, in which case we can do business. or they may work in opposition: you may describe Christianity as a benefit, in which case attempting to “remove” my “cost ” of being nonchristian, and/or attempting to “grant” me the “benefit” of christianity is going to result in some disagreement.
But why does “I like what I like” have to be a moral issue?
Well, sure. I do it just like everyone else, i assume. What do you mean by this question?
chingona: We’re almost always weighing various inputs and various goals against each other. So again, I’m interested in how you do this.
Personally I weigh our inputs on the basis of whatever puts concerns about survival furthest to our rear. The one universal goal we all share is survival and it is only after our survival is assured that the various goals you refer to are at all important.
It takes work to obtain and maintain the necessities, and we each have finite time and energy available. The more support we have, the more potential we have to pursue our personal goals. The less support we have the more we are obliged to spend our finite potential surviving.
Since our freedom to pursue all other goals both individually and communally comes from the potential left over after the needs of survival are met, the most effective and all-encompassing communal goal is to promote that which increases the quality, quantity or duration of support that we receive, and prevent that which decreases the quantity, quality or duration of support we receive.
Ahh…I just sigh when I read things about natural rights and it’s obvious that people literally don’t know what they are talking about.
1. Natural rights are DIFFERENT from LEGAL Rights.
2. Natural rights were LOGICALLY derived. The “self evident truth” part that Jefferson stated is based upon the LOGICAL PROOF that that these rights (which are all EQUAL ,one cannot exist without the other natural rights) were not created by man but must exist due to logic which in turn man used to find them and thus was given by the creator. So, logically natural rights are endowed by the creator or if you don’t believe in God then Nature as defined as that which IS existence and the universe.
Most people get tripped up by the word “Rights”. Replace “Natural” with “Moral” and it might make more sense. Also, in order to understand these Natural “Moral” rights you MUST use the definition of words used to describe them as was used and commonly agreed upon during the late 18th century.
Always remember that when having a a debate or argument where you really are trying to find common ground it usually boils down to disagreements on the meanings of words. Try to start from a common understanding of terms. This also applies to understanding text before dissing it.
Doug, you need to think critically about some of these concepts rather than repeat mantras you heard on the interwebs. Let’s go through your post.
Okay.
No, they weren’t. The impossibility of deriving a workable morality from logic alone will be detailed later down on this post, but for now, suffice to say the following. Morality isn’t always logical – unless you’re arguing from a utilitarian framework, which wouldn’t make sense from a natural rights framework. (Utilitarianism and natural rights absolutism are naturally incompatible. Utilitarianism is also quite simplistic and incomplete, but it’s less so than “natural rights”.)
This is just a jumble of words that’s trying to cover all possible bases while communicating nothing. Rights exist due to logic so we used logic to find rights and this proves they were given to us by the creator? There’s more holes in that statement than there are words.
Jefferson explicitly stated that rights are endowed to us by our Creator. This statement is as non-“logical” as it gets; it amounts to “God did it”. That’s perfectly well and good if you’re religious – indeed, natural rights remains a perfectly valid viewpoint if you believe in God. If you believe in God. Otherwise, the concept doesn’t make much sense.
A straw-grasping equivocation. Nature (or “the Universe”) is not at all like God. It doesn’t have intent and makes no value judgments. Prehistoric man committing infanticide on a wide scale to remove his genetic competition is perfectly natural. You see it all the time with other animals. Prehistoric man caring for his children to preserve his own genetic legacy is also natural and logical. You also see this all the time with animals, though only those that have evolved a necessity for paternal care. (Somewhat a rarity among mammals, but arose in humans most likely due to the unique vulnerability and helplessness of newborn human infants.) Both are equally natural, only one is moral and should be commended by society. What is natural and what is moral are often quite different. Folk these days who want to push the idea of “natural rights” have to commit a lot of post hoc redefinition fallacies on the word “natural” to achieve the rhetorical result they want. The rest of us see that as just a waste, because we don’t need the language of natural rights anymore, in our mostly post-religious world.
Natural rights and moral rights are not the same thing. No one here is going to argue that there’s no such thing as moral rights (which overlap with but are separate from legal rights). I believe in moral rights – because the idea of moral rights is superior to the idea of natural rights.
The definition of the words “moral” or “natural”? I’m pretty sure those have remained the same, at least for our purposes. So why the need to specify the late 18th century?
Except, of course, when late 18th century philosophers invoked the word “natural”, there was always a faint whiff of appealing to a deity’s design. So taking an 18th century view would take us backward, not forward.
The main word that seems to be misunderstood is the word “logical”, for which the primary culprit has been you. “Logical”, in common parlance, is simply used as a synonym for “correct”. That’s plain misuse of the word. Logic is a process, and a proposition is “logical” if it is derived following that process.
Every logical system needs a set of formal rules and starting assumptions. So, for instance, if one tries to “prove” that murder is wrong by saying “because it hurts people” – I can easily reply with, where are you getting the starting assumption that hurting people is wrong? Because hurting people disrupts the functioning of communities? So if I could hurt someone on a whim without hurting the functioning of my community, it would be okay? Does the very essence of hurting someone hurt the community just a bit, even if that’s not visible, or even theoretically observable, or verifiable, or falsifiable? Now we’re getting into quasi-religious pseudoscience here. So what else is there? Hurting people is wrong because it makes people unhappy? So what if it gladdens the many to hurt and maim one innocent village scapegoat? You can see how ridiculous this becomes.
Once we’ve arrived at an ethically acceptable set of starting assumptions, then logic can be a useful moral tool. It can ask, for instance, why, among two very similar acts, one is abhorred and the other condoned. But the starting assumptions (such as “people shouldn’t be hurt”, “people should have general peace of mind about their lives”) must be simply be, well, assumed. They cannot be arrived at logically, because no logic string can be looped back to prove the soundness of the set of rules it’s governed by. Only our most basic sense of morality, which I do believe is largely universal (and to an extent objective, as far as humans are concerned), can provide us with those assumptions.
sylphhead,
Without going into detail (as you did by rambling on and on and on). You’ve selectively taken quotes to support your argument (like the one Jefferson).
You’ve completely skipped over “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Note that Jefferson also says “Nature” in addition to Nature’s God. The acceptance of Natural rights don’t have to depend on your believe in God but only your recognition of Nature.
To quote from a friend who responded to a question I had about Natural rights.
“The idea of “natural rights” came about first with Thomas Hobbes, who argued that humans have natural rights, but they can (and should) be given up in a social contract with the government (who Hobbes argued should be a monarch). Hobbes derived this because he believe that the state of nature was constant war, based on the idea that nature existed of particles pushing and pulling against each other. Thus, human desires also pushed and pulled against each other (i.e. war).
Locke redefined this idea, and argued that the state of nature is inherently good because it is an inconvenient for mankind to police one another, as Hobbes argued. He went on to argue that humans have no purpose to form a government except to protect them, so the idea was born that government is formed, first and foremost, to protect the property of its participants.
Therefore, the idea of natural rights varies depending on what one believes the state of nature to be. In a Hobbesian view of the world, the only natural right man has is the right to defend his own life. In a Lockeian world, man has the right to “life, liberty, and property.” Needless to say, Jefferson was influenced more by Locke than Hobbes. I mention only Hobbes and Locke, but there were many contributions to the debate over natural rights. Another notable philosopher is Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Just as you complain of my use of words, you don’t give sufficient detail or site proof to your claims other than making the statements that they are true.
Morally speaking I believe it’s wrong to force anybody to do something without their consent or to force them by proxy by asking somebody else to do something.
Forcing somebody to do something they don’t want to do by physical means or by threat of physical means is called slavery. I own myself and everything that stems from my labor that was not created entirely by me.
Watch yourself, Doug.
I agree with the concept of natural rights more than I disagree, but this is sliding into a type of personal snark I would rather see avoided. You’re not there yet, so this is just a warning: this site will not host a flamewar.
—Myca
You may not be able to see this, but “nature” (as in “the natural universe and all within it,” not “what is on the nature channel”) includes almost everything.
Killing your kids. Killing your mate. Hell, EATING your kids, or your mate, with or without killing them nicely first. Slavery (or at least mind control, in the case of some species); matriarchal power and patriarchal power; collective and individual behavior, etc.
In order to make the relatively chaotic thing called “nature” match up to your personal morals, you have to do a lot of picking and choosing. At that point those aren’t accurately attributed to “nature” any more than is the Hallelujah chorus. (because hey, we all make noises in nature, so that particular arrangement and selection of them is natural, right? Right? not.)
Actually I agree with you on your definition of “Nature” so I’ll chalk up that to my own mistake in words. As the idea of Natural Rights came out of philosophers during the Enlightenment I don’t think that all of them (or even the Majority of them) considered that the belief in God (as defined by the Church) was necessary to accept the universal condition of inalienable rights. Reason (and SOME logic) were used by these philosophers to derive Natural Rights that they considered to be a result of man’s existence. Of course these for the most part are A Priori in nature, but then again I take that the world exists around me with no way to disprove that my brain is not sitting in a tray somewhere with wires sticking out of it (kinda like in the Matrix). Thus the idea of Natural Rights also comes from an A Priori argument that can neither be proved or not with evidence outside of what comes from self evident truths.
My point is that belief or non belief in Natural Rights is DEPENDENT on self-evident truths. The assertion that they could not exist is irrelevant since arguments to disprove another’s A Priori self evident truth are basically worthless to that person.
Those that believe in them; both believers in God and non-believers who can attribute Natural Rights to a fundamental belief that man’s existence in and of itself proves their existence (and is self-evident) can have a constructive argument about the nature of these rights but those who don’t are about as likely to convince them that they are wrong as trying to tell the pope that God does not exist.
Although reason and logic don’t always go hand in hand Immanual Kant DID believe that Natural Rights could be derived through reason alone.
Apologies for accusing you of rambling but I think it a bit unfair for you to accuse me of “repeat mantras you heard on the interwebs.”.