Human Rights

Danoff · Jan 11, 2012

Wolf-M
Because I'm saying whatever the position is for your statement, it is irrelevant in determining whether human rights are objective.

Oh? You know how to determine objective human rights without this? Please explain.

I'm not aiming to prove that human rights are objective. I am aiming to derive a set of conditions that are objective and they will be titled "human rights" (this is the part I said you'd hate me for).

me
The just initiation of force between individuals requires a subjective value judgement (~~namely~~ for example, might makes right), which relies on the arbitrary definition of the ability to produce force as superior to the lack of ability to produce force. The initiation of force between individuals is therefore of an arbitrary nature, and an objectively just interaction therefore excludes forcible coercion.

Objectivity then prescribes freedom from force, which I claim is the first and most critical right. As it stands above, that right would apply to all things. The next step is to establish a requirement of reciprocity of rights which eliminates that right from anyone and everyone that that is unable to observe the freedom from force (so most things are back out of the picture). Human beings are generally biologically capable of understanding and observing rights, and should be considered equal in the freedom from force unless it is demonstrated that they cannot fulfill reciprocity.

There's your blueprint - and you see that this is not a diversion.

Wolf-M
Apologies again for appearing to you to be belligerent. No personal offence. Just my being impatient. Sorry for that.

Thank you for that. Let's keep chatting.

Wolf-M · Jan 11, 2012

Danoff
Oh? You know how to determine objective human rights without this? Please explain.

I'm not aiming to prove that human rights are objective. I am aiming to derive a set of conditions that are objective and they will be titled "human rights" (this is the part I said you'd hate me for).

Lovely. I am saying you cannot prove human rights are objective.

And because it cannot be proven, it is not objective.

---

Ok, it seems that you are obsessed with force and subjectivity.

I'll do a re-run of your argument.

P1: Might makes right is subjective.
P2: We need to avoid subjectivity.
C: If we need to avoid subjectivity, then we cannot accept might makes right.

But the fact that we cannot accept that might makes right DOES NOT mean that we have the absolute freedom from force!

It does not show that under all circumstances might makes right is wrong.

For example, if a football match, would you agree that might makes right is a correct principle in determining the champion?

You have not related whatever argument you have with we have the ABSOLUTE freedom from force.

It does not matter whether you're talking about absolute freedom from force or human rights.

The fact is that you cannot prove it.

Objectivity then prescribes freedom from force, which I claim is the first and most critical right.

It doesn't, for the reasons explicated above.

Danoff · Jan 12, 2012

Wolf-M
Lovely. I am saying you cannot prove human rights are objective.

And because it cannot be proven, it is not objective.

"Human rights" is defined as a set that only includes objective concepts - starting with the freedom from force.

Wolf-M
Ok, it seems that you are obsessed with force and subjectivity.

I'll do a re-run of your argument.

P1: Might makes right is subjective.
P2: We need to avoid subjectivity.
C: If we need to avoid subjectivity, then we cannot accept might makes right.

But the fact that we cannot accept that might makes right DOES NOT mean that we have the absolute freedom from force!

It does not show that under all circumstances might makes right is wrong.

Via some sort of subjective valuation perhaps. Regardless, the notion that might makes right is inherently subjective. I think you're claiming that might make right could be applied in a situation where even though the reasoning is subjective, the outcome is objectively acceptable. That doesn't reflect on the reasoning though.

Wolf-M
For example, if a football match, would you agree that might makes right is a correct principle in determining the champion?

Yes I would, but that's entirely subjective. Objectively I can't say that the team that scores the most points is the best.

Wolf-M
You have not related whatever argument you have with we have the ABSOLUTE freedom from force.

In fact, clearly we are not free from force. The tribal gatherer that gets eaten by a bear is certainly not free from force, nor anyone without a penis currently living in the middle east.

Yet those examples of force are based on the notion that might makes right - which is a subjective value judgement. So while interactions that include getting eaten by a bear or being forced into slavery can certainly exist, the initiation of force must be excluded from any system that wishes to claim objectivity.

Another note on the football discussion is that when I refer to the initiation of force I am precisely not talking about a voluntary transaction. Force here is used to describe the involuntary - everyone engaged in a football match is there voluntarily, and so even though blows are exchanged it is not force (in the sense I am using here).

Wolf-M · Jan 12, 2012

Danoff
"Human rights" is defined as a set that only includes objective concepts - starting with the freedom from force.

That's why I said why don't you simply define human rights as "anything which I claim as belonging to this label"?

The point, precisely, is that it cannot be so defined!

You have to prove, objectively, with a logical argument, that "absolute freedom from force" is objectively verifiable as correct as a matter of universal principle!

Via some sort of subjective valuation perhaps. Regardless, the notion that might makes right is inherently subjective. I think you're claiming that might make right could be applied in a situation where even though the reasoning is subjective, the outcome is objectively acceptable. That doesn't reflect on the reasoning though.

We are going in circles.

I am saying that I don't care whether might is right is subjective or not.

Please demonstrate either "human rights" or "absolute freedom from force" is objective.

That's what you need to do - positive proof - before you can say something is objectively the ultimate truth.

Yes I would, but that's entirely subjective. Objectively I can't say that the team that scores the most points is the best.

In fact, clearly we are not free from force. The tribal gatherer that gets eaten by a bear is certainly not free from force, nor anyone without a penis currently living in the middle east.

Yet those examples of force are based on the notion that might makes right - which is a subjective value judgement. So while interactions that include getting eaten by a bear or being forced into slavery can certainly exist, the initiation of force must be excluded from any system that wishes to claim objectivity.

Again, whether might makes right is right is irrelevant.

Construct an argument that directly proves that human rights or the "absolute freedom of truth" is objectively the ultimate truth please.

In logical terms please, ie with premises and a conclusion.

In that way we can all know whether your argument is valid or not.

Vince_Fiero · Jan 12, 2012

Famine
If laws are objective:

No two laws may contradict (they do)

No-one may make new laws (they do)

No-one may repeal laws (they do)

+1 the whole point of the thread, to see rights as something indisputable, not subjective.
However, we need to recognise in our logic where it becomes subjective.

Dapper
I don't care what you think. That is the entire point. Logic is not always right, logic is not objective!

1) If you do not care there is no point in discussion: What you state is illogical, actually stating it in itself is illogical, so it is wrong. You prove you care by stating you do not care.
2) The logical system is irrefutable and the only basis for discussion (by definition). A logical argument that follows the logical system is right. If you do not value definitions or assumptions that is subjective. If a logical reasoning does not follow the logical system = contradicts itself it is wrong.

Both your points show you do not value discussion, that is not our issue.
However that does not prove logic wrong, incoherent.

To continue with that and include:

Wolf-M
If you can't even put your argument into simple terms of logic (ie with premises and a conclusion) and must resort to a long paragraph describing your views that shows something is wrong there.

So that someone uses subjectivity to say something is wrong, is wrong in the logical system. The value of subjective elements is not an argument to make it wrong, only logical contradictions are.
The fact that we can not express something logically does not make it wrong, it just makes we do not have the know-how.
To prove something wrong you need to build a logic youself, disclose the definitions and assumptions and prove the logical system shows it as a contradiction.

Wolf-M
Value judgment, my friend, is always subjective.

Just an insight of this morning.

Yesterday I came to the logical conclusion that Good has a universal (objective) part.
What about values?

Back to Human Rights, can we say Human Rights have no value like you seem to do?

I am saying you cannot prove human rights are objective.

From the definition of rights (defendable concepts) and
Human Rights, something based on the assumption that there are things that no person can accept.

1) Value:
Out of the logic before comes that: You need to respect the human rights of others to hold the human rights.
So if you value holding human rights lower then something else, that is against the definition of human rights, you cannot defend rights if something else might invalidate them.
So Human Rights have an infinite value by definition. (Danoff your statment got a lot more value here, I will send the bill

)

2) Human Rights:
If you do not value that Human Rights have value. Is that logical?

* You seem to have accepted that Moral = rights (language is not that important)
* I provided an logical reasoning yesterday that that Moral (actually just the concept of rights) always includes a concept of Human Rights.
* If we both do not value Human Rights, I can do anything to you without you having any way to defend yourself.
* That is in contradiction with the definition of rights.

So: Not value that Human Rights have value, is against the statment Moral = rights. It is illogical, thus incorrect.

Danoff
"Human rights" is defined as a set that only includes objective concepts - starting with the freedom from force.

You are smart enough to ask it to others:
It seems you have the human right: "to be free from force", Why?

However:
"Human rights" as a set that only includes objective concepts.

Is this logical?

If Human Rights only include objective concepts, they must be indisputable.
If I accept someone does X to me (e.g. spit on me), there can not be a human right that defends X. (definition Human rights)
So a person that asks to be shot, is the proof that there is no Human Right on living?

No the person has to accept that someone else decides that they should be shot, to invalidate the Human Right on Living.

OK. If a Bolshevic accepted in the Great Terror that he as an innocent man could be killed, if the party saw this as needed.

If that is a logical choice of the Bolshevic. It would invalidate the Human Right to live. So needs to be proven that the Bolshevic is illogical, not objective. That way someone is bringing in a not objective assumption (The Bolshevic choose himself) into the equation. Danoff stands if the Bolshevic is illogical, with the right to live as irrefutable.

When you prove the Bolshevic to be logical, right, objective. Then Danoff is wrong on the human right to live only. That Danoff can not express the other Human Rights does not mean they are not right or they do not exist. Logic proves they are right. A logical Bolshevic only talks about the right to live.

At this moment I can only state I value the statement the Bolshevic is illogical (would like to prove that). I can not decide on right or wrong yet. That I do not value Bolshevic ideas does not invalidate logical reasoning above. It does not make it right or wrong, it is a pure subjective value from my side.

Vince_Fiero · Jan 12, 2012

Dapper
The fact they are real makes them objective.

I do think you have a point there, but again, pure language issue.

It is objective and logical to say:
There is a possibility under restrictions for abortion under Belgian Law.

However anyone can objectively say
The laws on abortion are cultural laws they include value assessments that make them not objective.

The logic I need to use to get to your conclusion is wrong
To be proven: law is objective.

I can state a law as an objective fact. The fact is objective, not the law.

To prove the law is objective out of that I need to add:
If I can state a fact that makes that fact true.

I can objectively state: Some people think the earth is flat some people think it is not.
So it is both true the earth is flat an the earth is not flat, since they can state it.
This contradicts each other, so the "If I can state a fact that makes that fact true." is wrong.

A law is subjective. If you call it objective on the basis of "If I can state a fact that makes that fact true." you are wrong. What had to be proven.

Famine · Jan 12, 2012

Dapper
The basis, process and outcome of laws have no bearing on laws being real.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand we're back to arguing what exists rather than what is objective - and argument no-one but you is having.

Dapper
Prove it.

Been done. You just don't like the proof.

Dapper
You are so way off base on what objective is that a discussion is impossible.

Funny, I was just about to say the same thing to you.

You're the only one defining "objective" as "real". Everyone but you is defining "objective" as "uninfluenced by the thinker". Even the people who disagree that rights are innate. By your own standards of more = more right, you're striking out.

Vince_Fiero · Jan 12, 2012

Back to the trolley case; I'm ready for it I believe.

1) Throw the switch = kill one
2) Not throw the switch = not save 5

These are 2 choices.(I hope we agree on this definition, language = subjective part)

Choice 2 is the only correct choice, only logical.

Why do I say this:

I base choice on a respect of the Human Rights (proven).
Choice 2 is in line with human rights since you do not act to take a life, so you can defend your right to live after this choice. It is logical thus a correct choice.

Remains to be proven that the choice 1 is wrong, illogical.
Choice 1 is to choose against the human right to live, since you act to take a life.
Then you can not defend against an act to take your life, that would mean there is no Human Right to life and "anyone could take your life".

It is illogical that anyone can take your life.
If the other one gives himself the choice to take your life, you can give yourself the choice to take his first. Which would mean you have the choice to eliminate anyone before they take your life (don't shoot back, shoot first), so you have the choice to live. It is wrong to state that "anyone can take your life", so there is a Human Right to live. As "don't shoot back, shoot first" is illogical/wrong as well by this.

Now our Bolchevic turns up again. The choice of the Bolchevic is that he gives up his right to live and gives the right to someone else. It does not mean that he does not have the right, he acted to give the right away. So Danoff is right!

=> it is illogical to choose to kill, it is wrong.

Edit: minor clarification.

Vince_Fiero · Jan 12, 2012

Vince_Fiero
I have an essential issue with how easy people go over the fact that not switching the trolley is so much better since you did not kill.

That one is clear now, it is logical, objective. Not respecting Human Rights is illogical, wrong.
Thanks to all for the discussions.

Now back to my point that clearly was immature before (not really linked to the trolley case):

Vince_Fiero
IMHO you did kill the 5, since you made the choice and did act on that choice not to intervene. As stated before I do believe both choices have major moral issues.

For human rights: If you say you have a right not to be injured, the same is valid, you could avoid injury of 5 and did not do it, so your action does lead to injury.

Vince_Fiero
The only moral thing to do is stop the trolley, but that seems unlikely in the timeframe given.

I regret to see that we will never meet on this point. Not intervening is an act and intervening is an act, both acts can lead to legal persuits.
From a Human right perspective I remain that expecting someone to act in your favour is not a right, but also in what you call the only moral choice people act!

So lets take the essence to act or not to act that is the question:
* For human rights: If you say you have a right not to be injured, you could avoid injury of 5 and did not do it, so your inaction does lead to injury.

=> you can take a definition like Danoff proposed: Moral Choices are acts that respect Human Rights.
So even if the person has no responsibility they should act to be moral when they can stop injury of 5.

It still is not simple: Does this not invalidate my conclusion on the logical answer for the trolley case. Since you did not respect the Human Right not to be injured? No since you can defend that there is no Human Right that others should act for you, you did not injure anybody, you were just in the inability to avoid injury. Not a moral choice according to the definition above, but a logical, correct one. Only acting to injure someone would come in competition with acting to kill.

* you made the choice and did act on that choice not to intervene
=> you have to assume your choices.

Now that we can stop the killing (it is wrong in the trolley case, always), we can show why I do not value the:

Famine
The problem seems to be that you cannot see beyond 1 vs. 5. It's just a numbers game to you - 1 is less than 5, so killing 1 is better than killing 5. There is no reason to suppose that every life is equal and that 1 life is less than 5 lives, so this must be discarded. You're now left with a choice of either acting and causing death (immoral) or not acting and not causing death (moral).

Action that causes death confers responsibility on the actor. Inaction is, by its very definition, not action and confers no responsibility.

Famine
And yet you're still Acting in the knowledge that you will cause the death of an innocent is immoral. Inaction is, by definition, not an act and thus not an action that causes the death of an innocent and thus not immoral.

Famine
Only if you are the one who caused the situation in the first place. Otherwise inaction is not immoral.

Famine
You are under no moral obligation to help or save anyone if you caused them no injury. That doesn't mean you can't choose to do so, just that you are not morally required to. The act of doing so is called "kindness" - unless mandated by some law or other legally requiring you to help others, and then it's called law-abiding.

This is a cultural choice:
These statement seems to value responsibility = no one can accuse me if I did not do it = always moral (but I might have misread that)
above
Assuming your choices = inherent concepts of good an bad

Without the killing (so in a theoretical case where you can safe people) you might have the choices
1) Safe 1
2) Save 5
3) do nothing

I have an issue with Danoff (I might have misunderstood):
1 and 2 are moral, but I do not care which choice I take. => not assuming your choices, anarchism within moral choices

I have an issue with Famine (I might have misunderstood):
3 since I will not take responsibility, not acting is moral => not assuming your choices, complete anarchism (same if you say No Human rights are violated it is irrelevant what I choose) If I feel like kindness, why not!

I value most in this case to follow my definition of Moral = assuming choices; subjective with an objective part, leading to:
1) All people have the same Human Rights.
2) Since I have no way to differentiate people (no data available) they are all the same value
3) More good is better: I chose 2 and I can assume that choice.

=> I have an essential problem with any moral that:
1) Is invalid since it does not respect Human Rights (Proven)
2) Confuses assuming your choice with responsibility
3) Changes the statement if something is moral depending on the situation
4) Does not recognise there is a value part to moral
=> these are just confusing definitions and thus are not very valuable to me.

dylansan
If inaction could be immoral, you could end up in situations where, no matter what you do (or don't), you have to do something immoral. You could be held morally accountable just for being in that situation, even if someone else put you in that position. And that doesn't make sense.

There is not Human Right to have a moral choice. Why would there be?

dylansan
There's always an ethical solution to a problem, and in many of the ones discussed in this thread, the ethical choice is to do nothing. If that was immoral, you could be held accountable for murder every time a person dies and you don't stop it.

We need to agree on definitions of:
Ethical / immoral / accountable / responsible / act / inact

Might be a good discussion, but I probably do not value everyone's definitions.

dylansan
And it doesn't make sense to say the death of someone in unethical. An event is not a person; it can't be held accountable. Only a person's choices can be unethical.

So what is the diffidence between immoral and unethical choices, I think that can clarify a lot.

Wolf-M · Jan 12, 2012

Vince_Fiero
+1 the whole point of the thread, to see rights as something indisputable, not subjective.
However, we need to recognise in our logic where it becomes subjective.

Indisputable does not mean it's not subjective. It only means that, as a matter of hypothetical survey, most if not all people would agree with what you say. And it is far from clear that everyone accepts that killing the one person in the trolley example must be wrong in any event.

That does not make it objectively the universal truth, which is our discussion here.

So that someone uses subjectivity to say something is wrong, is wrong in the logical system. The value of subjective elements is not an argument to make it wrong, only logical contradictions are.
The fact that we can not express something logically does not make it wrong, it just makes we do not have the know-how.
To prove something wrong you need to build a logic youself, disclose the definitions and assumptions and prove the logical system shows it as a contradiction.

True! That's what I am saying - I am not saying that your values are wrong; I never attempted to contradict your beliefs!

I'm just saying that because you cannot prove that human rights are objective, you cannot prove that as a matter of universal principle, the values you hold are the absolute truth.

And because of that, you cannot say that a person who makes the switch according to his utilitarian idea of rights is wrong as a matter of universal objective truth; you can only say that what he is doing is not in accord with your values, and as a matter of your (subjective) value judgment, his actions are wrong/immoral.

Just an insight of this morning.

Yesterday I came to the logical conclusion that Good has a universal (objective) part.
What about values?

Back to Human Rights, can we say Human Rights have no value like you seem to do?

You mean God? God is not objectively the truth. I believe in God, but it is my faith - believing without seeing.

And when one talks about "values", as a matter of definition, it has to be subjective?

You can say your own values are objectively ascertainable; you can in fact say the morality of the majority of (say) Belgian citizens is objectively ascertainable, yet one cannot say that those values which are objectively ascertainable are objectively the ultimate truth - to the exclusion of contradictory values.

That's my point I think - that values inherently are subjective.

That's not to say they don't have values.

When the majority of people agree with a certain set of rules, those rules gain the force of morality, and people's actions are to be judged against those standards.

Yet whether those standards are objectively right as a matter of universal principle, I dare say they are not.

From the definition of rights (defendable concepts) and
Human Rights, something based on the assumption that there are things that no person can accept.

1) Value:
Out of the logic before comes that: You need to respect the human rights of others to hold the human rights.
So if you value holding human rights lower then something else, that is against the definition of human rights, you cannot defend rights if something else might invalidate them.
So Human Rights have an infinite value by definition. (Danoff your statment got a lot more value here, I will send the bill )

2) Human Rights:
If you do not value that Human Rights have value. Is that logical?

* You seem to have accepted that Moral = rights (language is not that important)
* I provided an logical reasoning yesterday that that Moral (actually just the concept of rights) always includes a concept of Human Rights.
* If we both do not value Human Rights, I can do anything to you without you having any way to defend yourself.
* That is in contradiction with the definition of rights.

So: Not value that Human Rights have value, is against the statment Moral = rights. It is illogical, thus incorrect.

Again, when one says "values", they are choices or standards which one deliberately accepts as correct (because maybe of lessons of history). They cannot be tested against evidence as to whether they represent the ultimate truth.

You are smart enough to ask it to others:
It seems you have the human right: "to be free from force", Why?

However:
"Human rights" as a set that only includes objective concepts.

Is this logical?

If Human Rights only include objective concepts, they must be indisputable.
If I accept someone does X to me (e.g. spit on me), there can not be a human right that defends X. (definition Human rights)
So a person that asks to be shot, is the proof that there is no Human Right on living?

No the person has to accept that someone else decides that they should be shot, to invalidate the Human Right on Living.

I am not asking why we have the (qualified/absolute) right to be free from force. Whether we have is based on the laws of the state in which you are residing. As a matter of morality, whether you have that right depends on the value judgment you make as regards the importance of a human right.

And because it involves a value judgment, it is subjective. What may be right/moral today may not be right/moral a thousand years later.

At this moment I can only state I value the statement the Bolshevic is illogical (would like to prove that). I can not decide on right or wrong yet. That I do not value Bolshevic ideas does not invalidate logical reasoning above. It does not make it right or wrong, it is a pure subjective value from my side.

If you are saying this, you would not disagree with my original proposition - there is no absolute right or wrong in the trolley example, only right or wrong according to your subjective morality.

Touring Mars · Jan 12, 2012

I'm interested in where people believe that human rights come from. I have no argument about why we should observe them, or what basic human rights are or should be, but I personally don't believe that human rights exist outwith society. I think that human rights are (and can only be) reciprocal - that they can only exist between people, and are therefore not an inherent property (or possession) of individuals, but of societies. Some believe that every individual is born with a full set of inalienable rights that exist independently of the existence of any other human beings, but I don't know how this can possibly be true (let alone verified). A common view is that laws exist to protect our rights, but could it be that human rights only really exist where there are laws in place to define them in the first place?

According to popular belief, all humans are born equal and are endowed with exactly the same full set of human rights, to the same extent, under all circumstances and with no exceptions, simply by virtue of being born human. If this is true, then we must share the same rights as our ancestors must have had too, the same rights that set us apart from non-human animals. But what then of our direct ancestors of millions of years ago who were not quite human, or indeed not human at all? Our actual evolutionary heritage poses a direct challenge to the assumption that all human beings are born endowed with a full set of inalienable rights, as we now know that our direct ancestors could not possibly have had them, or even had the first clue as to their existence. Animals are not afforded any rights at all simply because they are not human - and yet, we as a species have merely become human, and in the relatively recent past. Might it be that we claim our rights simply because we can, and not because there is any validity to the assumption that we are actually somehow more worthy of a right to life than any other species?

Wolf-M · Jan 12, 2012

Touring Mars
I'm interested in where people believe that human rights come from and why we observe them today. I have no argument about why we should observe them, or what basic human rights are or should be, but I personally don't believe that human rights exist outwith society. I think that human rights are (and can only be) reciprocal - that they can only exist between people, and are therefore not an inherent property (or possession) of individuals, but of societies. Some believe that every individual is born with a full set of inalienable rights that exist independently of the existence of any other human beings, but I don't know how this can possibly be true (let alone verified). A common view is that laws exist to protect our rights, but could it be that human rights only really exist where there are laws in place to define them in the first place?

According to popular belief, all humans are born equal and are endowed with exactly the same full set of human rights, to the same extent, under all circumstances and with no exceptions, simply by virtue of being born human. If this is true, then we must share the same rights as our ancestors must have had too, the same rights that set us apart from non-human animals. But what then of our direct ancestors of millions of years ago who were not quite human, or indeed not human at all? Our actual evolutionary heritage poses a direct challenge to the assumption that all human beings are born endowed with a full set of inalienable rights, as we now know that our direct ancestors could not possibly have had them, or even had the first clue as to their existence. Animals are not afforded any rights at all simply because they are not human - and yet, we as a species have merely become human in the relatively recent past ourselves. Might it be that we claim our rights simply because we can, and not because there is any validity to the assumption that we are actually somehow more worthy of a right to life than any other species?

I agree with the observation you have made - human rights exist as a matter of pragmatism and as a response to the undesirable natural state of chaos and conflicts.

I mentioned something similar quite some time ago in this thread, but it's more based on the philosophical notion of a human right than the legal aspect of such.

In a state of nature, there can be no rights nor obligations. A "right" is a legal concept, it connotes an entitlement which may be enforced against some other human being. Similarly, the obverse of a right, namely an obligation, connotes a duty which others may enforce upon you.

Without law and order, there can be no rights (nor obligations), unless of course you believe that they are conferred upon you by God.

What you do have, however, are freedoms. The freedom to do anything you like, including the freedom to murder anyone else.

It is because of this undesirable state ("a war of all against all") that, out of pragmatism and necessity, we all enter into a social contract from which certain rights and obligations stem, including human rights.

---

It is an assumption under the social contract theory that human rights form part of the rights guaranteed by the ruler and enjoyed by the subjects.

Any government that fails to carry out its contractual obligation (the obverse of the citizens' right) therefore breaches the trust which the people have displayed by conferring power upon it. Consequence? The people will be entitled to withdraw their acceptance of the government's legitimacy.

---

(Human) rights are not created by virtue of law, they are created by virtue of the social contract. Laws (or any rules) are only how the rulers implement their promise and discharge their obligations under the social contract.

When I have said that rights are a legal concept, the word "legal" is used in a loose manner, not referring to the actual laws that are promulgated by the state, but the mutually binding relationship that arises under the social contract.

Danoff · Jan 12, 2012

A strange thing happens to me when I respond to these posts. I get invigorated and energized by the responses and very passionately want to lay out my argument. As a result, I tend to respond too quickly. I'm going to try to slow down a bit.

Wolf-M
That's why I said why don't you simply define human rights as "anything which I claim as belonging to this label"?

Yea, I knew this would trip you up. You're definitely picking at something that doesn't matter here - I just need to find the right part of it to poke at to help it unravel.

Whether we call it human rights or blaaarg doesn't matter. Forget the label for a moment. What we're doing is constructing a set of objective principles that apply to our reality. In the end, what we label that set of principles doesn't matter - the only question is what those principles are. You claim that there are none, I claim that there is some objective knowledge that we can obtain from our knowledge of the system (universe) we live in.

That is the discussion we're having. Forget about what it is called - we're talking about what objective knowledge we have of our universe (assuming it exists as we perceive it blah blah). You're claiming that it doesn't exist. I'm claiming that it does.

Wolf-M
You have to prove, objectively, with a logical argument, that "absolute freedom from force" is objectively verifiable as correct as a matter of universal principle!

Freedom from the initiation of force eliminates the subjective nature of the initiation of force. (Modus Tollens with the premises that the initiation of force is based on a subjective value judgement "might makes right", and that we wish to avoid subjectivity)

You're left arguing with only a few things:
1) The initiation of force is not subjective
2) We do not wish to avoid subjectivity (<- not-starter given the premise of the conversation)
3) Adding the premise that the elimination of the initiation of force is also subjective (which would allow you to show P and not P as it were - breaking the argument)

That's really it. You can't pick number 2, so which one will it be - 1 or 3?

Wolf-M
I am saying that I don't care whether might is right is subjective or not.

It's kindof important.

Wolf-M
Please demonstrate either "human rights" or "absolute freedom from force" is objective.

See above.

Wolf-M
That's what you need to do - positive proof - before you can say something is objectively the ultimate truth.

Well... ultimate truth is not really what I'm claiming. I would claim that the only ultimate truth is that I exist as the thinker of my thoughts. A positive logical proof can't establish "ultimate truth", because you can call logic itself into question.

Vince_Fiero
Back to the trolley case; I'm ready for it I believe.

1) Throw the switch = kill one
2) Not throw the switch = not save 5

These are 2 choices.(I hope we agree on this definition, language = subjective part)

Choice 2 is the only correct choice, only logical.

Why do I say this:

I base choice on a respect of the Human Rights (proven).
Choice 2 is in line with human rights since you do not act to take a life, so you can defend your right to live after this choice. It is logical thus a correct choice.

Remains to be proven that the choice 1 is wrong, illogical.
Choice 1 is to choose against the human right to live, since you act to take a life.
Then you can not defend against an act to take your life, that would mean there is no Human Right to life and "anyone could take your life".

It is illogical that anyone can take your life.
If the other one gives himself the choice to take your life, you can give yourself the choice to take his first. Which would mean you have the choice to eliminate anyone before they take your life (don't shoot back, shoot first), so you have the choice to live. It is wrong to state that "anyone can take your life", so there is a Human Right to live. As "don't shoot back, shoot first" is illogical/wrong as well by this.

That's right, the 1 guy on the track has every right to defend himself against his murderer (you). The 5 guys on the track would not have that right because their murderer is the trolley car.

Touring Mars
I'm interested in where people believe that human rights come from. I have no argument about why we should observe them, or what basic human rights are or should be, but I personally don't believe that human rights exist outwith society. I think that human rights are (and can only be) reciprocal - that they can only exist between people,

Agreed, that's a key characteristic.

Touring Mars
and are therefore not an inherent property (or possession) of individuals, but of societies.

Consider this - you cannot violate the rights of others in order to have your own. Others, however, do not have to observe your rights in order for you to have them (attempting to murder you does not remove your right to life). So as long as you don't violate the rights of others, your rights are intact (regardless of the existence of others).

Touring Mars
According to popular belief, all humans are born equal and are endowed with exactly the same full set of human rights, to the same extent, under all circumstances and with no exceptions, simply by virtue of being born human. If this is true, then we must share the same rights as our ancestors must have had too, the same rights that set us apart from non-human animals. But what then of our direct ancestors of millions of years ago who were not quite human, or indeed not human at all? Our actual evolutionary heritage poses a direct challenge to the assumption that all human beings are born endowed with a full set of inalienable rights, as we now know that our direct ancestors could not possibly have had them, or even had the first clue as to their existence. Animals are not afforded any rights at all simply because they are not human - and yet, we as a species have merely become human, and in the relatively recent past. Might it be that we claim our rights simply because we can, and not because there is any validity to the assumption that we are actually somehow more worthy of a right to life than any other species?

I would argue that a lion has rights as well - right up until it is demonstrable that he does not or cannot observe your rights... which we have done scientifically and empirically. So there is no conflict with the fact that the line between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom is blurry.

Wolf-M · Jan 12, 2012

Danoff
Whether we call it human rights or blaaarg doesn't matter. Forget the label for a moment. What we're doing is constructing a set of objective principles that apply to our reality. In the end, what we label that set of principles doesn't matter - the only question is what those principles are. You claim that there are none, I claim that there is some objective knowledge that we can obtain from our knowledge of the system (universe) we live in.

That is the discussion we're having. Forget about what it is called - we're talking about what objective knowledge we have of our universe (assuming it exists as we perceive it blah blah). You're claiming that it doesn't exist. I'm claiming that it does.

But the only "objective knowledge" you have here is human reasoning. Human reasoning is always fallible, and can never be qualified as objective. Facts are objective, evidence is objective, reasoning is not.

Freedom from the initiation of force eliminates the subjective nature of the initiation of force. (Modus Tollens with the premises that the initiation of force is based on a subjective value judgement "might makes right", and that we wish to avoid subjectivity)

You're left arguing with only a few things:
1) The initiation of force is not subjective
2) We do not wish to avoid subjectivity (<- not-starter given the premise of the conversation)
3) Adding the premise that the elimination of the initiation of force is also subjective (which would allow you to show P and not P as it were - breaking the argument)

That's really it. You can't pick number 2, so which one will it be - 1 or 3?

Thanks for the neat argument.

My response is

1) Yes you cannot show that the initiation of force is subjective, whatever that means.

If a society is always governed by the rule that the strongest person will win the game, is that not also an objective rule? It is uninfluenced by any thinking on your part - all that matters is strength. Is not that objective enough?

2) It seems more like you are suggesting that "the initiation of force is undesirable" instead; and that, of course, is a value judgment.

Well... ultimate truth is not really what I'm claiming. I would claim that the only ultimate truth is that I exist as the thinker of my thoughts. A positive logical proof can't establish "ultimate truth", because you can call logic itself into question.

If it is not the ultimate truth, then how can one claim it to be objective (as in the sense we are talking here)?

Objectivity must be established by evidence.

What is the evidence you have here?

Self-evidence? Hypothetical survey?

In any of these cases, it still only ascertains, objectively, what most people think is right or wrong as a matter of value judgment.

Danoff · Jan 12, 2012

Wolf-M
But the only "objective knowledge" you have here is human reasoning. Human reasoning is always fallible, and can never be qualified as objective. Facts are objective, evidence is objective, reasoning is not.

Reasoning is, logic is, rationality is. It may be fallible, but only because it is incorrectly applied. The correct application is objective.

Wolf-M
Thanks for the neat argument.

My response is

1) Yes you cannot show that the initiation of force is subjective, whatever that means.

The notion that the ability to produce force is superior to the inability to produce force (the law of nature as it were) inherently values force. Valuing force over non-force fits (perfectly) the definition of subjectivity since it depends entirely on perception. Therefore, the law of nature, the notion that force is justice, is inherently subjective. The initiation of force to achieve a goal (the law of nature) is subjective.

This, by the way, is why it bugs you when you see it. If you see someone get beat up and his money taken you're outraged at the injustice. The reason you're outraged at the injustice is that it is an arbitrary determination that the guy with the most muscles (or weapons) gets to take money that is earned in a different way. The fact that this guy earned the money using his mind in a voluntary system is more significant to you (using your values) than the fact that the guy has the ability to forcibly extract the money (using his values). What's bugging you deep down is the subjective nature of his claim to the money.

Wolf-M
If a society is always governed by the rule that the strongest person will win the game, is that not also an objective rule?

It's a rule, and that it is a rule is objective. The rule itself is a value judgement that the strongest person should win the game.

Wolf-M
It is uninfluenced by any thinking on your part - all that matters is strength. Is not that objective enough?

That strength matters is a matter of perception.

Wolf-M
If it is not the ultimate truth, then how can one claim it to be objective (as in the sense we are talking here)?

Because it relies solely on logic and reason - even if it is not the ultimate truth. You use logic to objectively determine that 1+1=2. That is objective (given our universe). But our universe is not a given, 1+1 may not equal 2. So despite the fact that it is objective, it is not ultimate truth.

Wolf-M
Objectivity must be established by evidence.

Incorrect. Objectivity is determined by a lack of dependence on perception and interpretation.

Wolf-M · Jan 12, 2012

Danoff
Reasoning is, logic is, rationality is. It may be fallible, but only because it is incorrectly applied. The correct application is objective.

Reasoning is not objective. A rational position is determined by reference to what most people would think is reasonable.

So are you suggesting that reasonableness, in itself, is an objective matter?

It's a rule, and that it is a rule is objective. The rule itself is a value judgement that the strongest person should win the game.

That strength matters is a matter of perception.

That's exactly what you are doing here. You are saying that there is an objective rule that human beings are all born equal and are absolutely free from being subjected to force.

Yet the content of that rule is a value judgment.

It is no different from the "might makes right" rule.

That's why I asked you to construct an argument that directly proves/establishes that the absolute freedom of force does not also involve a value judgment.

The proving of "might makes right" involves a subjective evaluation is simply irrelevant.

Because it relies solely on logic and reason - even if it is not the ultimate truth. You use logic to objectively determine that 1+1=2. That is objective (given our universe). But our universe is not a given, 1+1 may not equal 2. So despite the fact that it is objective, it is not ultimate truth.

As I've stated endless times, you have derive an objective conclusion relying on logic if the premises are not being challenged.

You say that human reasoning demands that everyone must be deemed equal. I put you to strict proof of that. You provided no empirical evidence. You have made an assumption unsupported by evidence. It is not an objective conclusion unless no one disputes your assumption. I do.

Incorrect. Objectivity is determined by a lack of dependence on perception and interpretation.

But how prove a statement, or proposition, or whatever it is, is objective without having resort to unbiased evidence?

A definition of "objective" from dictionary.com

"not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:"

You claim that your proposition is unbiased and not influenced by personal feelings. I challenge that. The only way you can respond to my challenge is to prove evidence to support your conclusion.

You need proof. Evidence.

Dapper · Jan 12, 2012

Vince_Fiero
1) If you do not care there is no point in discussion: What you state is illogical, actually stating it in itself is illogical, so it is wrong. You prove you care by stating you do not care.
2) The logical system is irrefutable and the only basis for discussion (by definition). A logical argument that follows the logical system is right. If you do not value definitions or assumptions that is subjective. If a logical reasoning does not follow the logical system = contradicts itself it is wrong.

Both your points show you do not value discussion, that is not our issue.
However that does not prove logic wrong, incoherent.

Me not caring about what you think has nothing to do with caring about a discussion... what you think does not matter, what you can prove does matter.

Famine
Funny, I was just about to say the same thing to you.

You're the only one defining "objective" as "real". Everyone but you is defining "objective" as "uninfluenced by the thinker". Even the people who disagree that rights are innate. By your own standards of more = more right, you're striking out.

Thick is. I am using the definition of the word objective. You are assuming some erroneous meaning to the word. You simply do not know what the word means. Laws are real, they exist, are testable and therefore objective.

Here- http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objective , learn something today.

Danoff · Jan 12, 2012

Wolf-M
Reasoning is not objective. A rational position is determined by reference to what most people would think is reasonable.

Colloquial vs. formal definitions for rationality.

Wolf-M
That's exactly what you are doing here. You are saying that there is an objective rule that human beings are all born equal and are absolutely free from being subjected to force.

Yet the content of that rule is a value judgment.

Be specific, what is the value judgement?

Wolf-M
The proving of "might makes right" involves a subjective evaluation is simply irrelevant.

If you think that, I've been doing a bad job.

Wolf-M
As I've stated endless times, you have derive an objective conclusion relying on logic if the premises are not being challenged.

At first you claimed unsound logic. Now we've moved past that and you're claiming unsound premises (this is progress). Give me something to respond to. Take my argument on directly rather than just claiming that you're unconvinced. Tell me what your issue is with the premise.

Wolf-M
You say that human reasoning demands that everyone must be deemed equal. I put you to strict proof of that.

Stick with force, it's more central than equality. We'll get to equality eventually.

Wolf-M
You provided no empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence is not objective (I don't know why you keep claiming this). You constantly quote definitions for objective that agree with mine and which never make a mention of empirical evidence. That's because empirical evidence has nothing to do with objectivity. Empirical evidence is the cornerstone of inductive reasoning - which we both know to be faulty logic*. No amount of empirical evidence will ever help accomplish what you want, so please stop asking for it.

* Depending on the conclusion drawn from the reasoning. Inductive reasoning has its uses and is important in some aspects, even of our current discussion (for example, I use it as the basis for proceeding assuming that the universe and reality exist - but I'm careful not to claim my conclusion is "ultimate truth"). But for what you're talking about, inductive reasoning is useless.

Wolf-M
It is not an objective conclusion unless no one disputes your assumption.

We've been over this several times at this point and you have never even tried to argue with me. Agreement means nothing. If no one disputes my statement that has no bearing on its truthfulness or objectivity. As I have pointed out in the past, the Earth is approximately spherical (objectively... given a reference frame). Many people claim that the Earth is flat, yet they are objectively incorrect. Agreement is not a requisite of objectivity and has zero bearing on this discussion.

Wolf-M
But how prove a statement, or proposition, or whatever it is, is objective without having resort to unbiased evidence?

Rationality, logic, thought. Evidence has nothing to do with objectivity.

Wolf-M
You claim that your proposition is unbiased and not influenced by personal feelings. I challenge that.

I have not seen your challenge. I see you claiming that you have challenged it. I see you saying "nope, don't think so". I don't see anything substantive.

Wolf-M
You need proof. Evidence.

Evidence is not proof. Evidence is useless in a discussion of objectivity. Proof to a certain level is not possible for any aspect of reality or the existence of reality. I have provided a proof based on logic and reason. You claim it is not sufficient but offer no reason.

Wolf-M · Jan 12, 2012

Danoff
Colloquial vs. formal definitions for rationality.

Be specific, what is the value judgement?

The statement that all human beings are equal.

At first you claimed unsound logic. Now we've moved past that and you're claiming unsound premises (this is progress). Give me something to respond to. Take my argument on directly rather than just claiming that you're unconvinced. Tell me what your issue is with the premise.

You cannot fault me.

The only possible way to link [force subjectivity might makes right] etc with [human rights/absolute freedom from force etc are held correct objectively] is to deploy a denying antecedent logical argument, and that is a logical fallacy.

Your argument is focused entirely on might makes right etc etc

It is irrelevant.

Might makes right is based on subjective values (whatever that means) does NOT POSITIVELY establish that we have the absolute freedom from being subjected to force.

Stick with force, it's more central than equality. We'll get to equality eventually.

Can you please provide us with a neat argument like your previous post instead of resorting to the tactic of "come on, talk about force first, forget about human rights for the moment" etc.

In debating terms, it is unfair because I have laid out my argument as to why human rights are subjective, how it involves value judgments and how it is generally thought to be the lowest common denominator of people's subjective views.

You say that I am relying on something subjective, and you can use an alternative, objective, way of establishing that human rights are objective.

Prove it, from the beginning to the end, with premises and conclusion, please!! I don't know how many times this need be repeated - your last post was very nice, short and neat and everyone knows precisely what you're talking about.

Empirical evidence is not objective

Sigh. What else could I say?

Empirical evidence establishes, objectively, that a proposition is true so far as the evidence is concerned.

You don't even have any evidence, how could you claim what you are claiming is an objective statement rather than a mere personal assertion?

* Depending on the conclusion drawn from the reasoning. Inductive reasoning has its uses and is important in some aspects, even of our current discussion (for example, I use it as the basis for proceeding assuming that the universe and reality exist - but I'm careful not to claim my conclusion is "ultimate truth"). But for what you're talking about, inductive reasoning is useless.

If you're not claiming that what you are claiming is the universal, ultimate, eternal truth, then you can only say that as a matter of past human experience, we generally agree that certain rules are to be regarded as "human rights".

If you're not claiming that an utilitarianist who kills one to save two is wrong as a matter of ultimate truth, then you can only say that as according to the morality prevalent in today's society, we generally do not agree with his actions and we deem inaction to be the more approrpiate response.

But that involves evidence to show what in general people agree with.

We've been over this several times at this point and you have never even tried to argue with me. Agreement means nothing. If no one disputes my statement that has no bearing on its truthfulness or objectivity.

So that's why I ask you to PROVE IT.

As I have pointed out in the past, the Earth is approximately spherical (objectively... given a reference frame). Many people claim that the Earth is flat, yet they are objectively incorrect. Agreement is not a requisite of objectivity and has zero bearing on this discussion.

That;s established by evidence. Your claim is not established by evidence. In any event, whether the Earth is round or flat is a fact.

The statement that human rights are equal involves making value judgments - how important is a human right vis a vis other members of the society, whether it is absolute or qualified etc.

Rationality, logic, thought. Evidence has nothing to do with objectivity.

It does. Objectivity involves reference to facts and not opinions. I am saying that the fact, ie the premise, on which you are relying is false. Which you have constantly failed to rebut.

Evidence is not proof. Evidence is useless in a discussion of objectivity. Proof to a certain level is not possible for any aspect of reality or the existence of reality. I have provided a proof based on logic and reason. You claim it is not sufficient but offer no reason.

Evidence is proof. If you make no reference to evidence in advancing your argument, then you are making assumptions.

You can construct whatever you like on top of your assumptions, but at the end of the day it is no more than an assumption. Which is contradicted by popular views (ie the many conflicting views).

Famine · Jan 12, 2012

Dapper
Thick is. I am using the definition of the word objective.

Nope. You're using a definition - one that is flawed in the context of the discussion (particularly your own). You may as well be claiming we're all wrong because "objective" means the focussing eyepiece of an optical instrument

Dapper
You are assuming some erroneous meaning to the word. You simply do not know what the word means.

Your own link
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

Dapper
Laws are real, they exist, are testable and therefore objective.

Laws are intangible, they are mutable according to whim, prejudice and emotion and therefore not objective.

You're having your own argument while everyone else discusses objectivity (the characteristic of being uninfluenced by emotion and prejudice) vs. subjectivity (the characteristic of being influenced by emotion and prejudice). Here, learn something today.

Dapper · Jan 12, 2012

Danoff
Empirical evidence is not objective

I can't believe it.

Danoff
Rationality, logic, thought. Evidence has nothing to do with objectivity.

I see. You have clearly mixed up subjective and objective.
http://www.englishbiz.co.uk/popups/objectivity.htm

The difference between these two important ideas is the difference between fact and opinion. Facts are objective and provably true; however, if no clear facts exist about a topic, then a series of balanced opinions needs to be produced to allow the reader to make up his or her mind; opinions are subjective ideas held by individuals and so are always biased. If unbalanced opinions are presented as if they are facts, they act as propaganda or persuasion...

Famine
Laws are intangible, they are mutable according to whim, prejudice and emotion and therefore not objective.

How is something inanimate (laws) going to use emotion to influence? Explain how something can be real, not alive and still uses emotion to influence.

Famine
You're having your own argument while everyone else discusses objectivity (the characteristic of being uninfluenced by emotion and prejudice) vs. subjectivity (the characteristic of being influenced by emotion and prejudice).

Laws have no emotion or prejudice, they are inanimate! What are you talking about? :lol:

Danoff · Jan 12, 2012

Wolf-M
The statement that all human beings are equal.

....is not there (look again). This portion of the discussion precedes it.

Wolf-M
The only possible way to link [force subjectivity might makes right] etc with [human rights/absolute freedom from force etc are held correct objectively] is to deploy a denying antecedent logical argument, and that is a logical fallacy.

You have definitely not shown that. You claimed denying the antecedent earlier and I showed you why you had mischaracterized my argument. Now you're claiming that one of my premises is false, but there is no denying of the antecedent involved. Let's keep the issue straight.

Wolf-M
Your argument is focused entirely on might makes right etc etc

It is irrelevant.

Explain.

Wolf-M
Might makes right is based on subjective values (whatever that means) does NOT POSITIVELY establish that we have the absolute freedom from being subjected to force.

No, it doesn't, because we may be subjected to someone else's subjective value judgement.... except that's irrelevant. Perhaps that sounds confusing.

The fact that might makes right is subjective does not prevent someone from hitting you in the face. They can still do it, and they are justifying that action via subjective reasoning. An objective view of reality reveals their error, but it is not a force field that gets in the way.

Wolf-M
Can you please provide us with a neat argument like your previous post instead of resorting to the tactic of "come on, talk about force first, forget about human rights for the moment" etc.

I did... in the post you refer to here. Go look for human rights or everyone being equal or anything like that in that post. It's not there. Freedom from force is the basis of human rights and equality, so it doesn't show up until after.

Wolf-M
In debating terms, it is unfair because I have laid out my argument as to why human rights are subjective, how it involves value judgments and how it is generally thought to be the lowest common denominator of people's subjective views.

You say that I am relying on something subjective, and you can use an alternative, objective, way of establishing that human rights are objective.

Prove it, from the beginning to the end, with premises and conclusion, please!! I don't know how many times this need be repeated - your last post was very nice, short and neat and everyone knows precisely what you're talking about.

Thanks. Now do me the courtesy of explaining what you think the problem is with my premise.

Wolf-M
Sigh. What else could I say?

Empirical evidence establishes, objectively, that a proposition is true so far as the evidence is concerned.

Empirical evidence can only be used in inductive reasoning which is not particularly useful for human rights.

Wolf-M
You don't even have any evidence, how could you claim what you are claiming is an objective statement rather than a mere personal assertion?

Logic.

Wolf-M
If you're not claiming that what you are claiming is the universal, ultimate, eternal truth, then you can only say that as a matter of past human experience, we generally agree that certain rules are to be regarded as "human rights".

How many times do we have to do this dance? Can you not predict what I will say at this point?

me
Because it relies solely on logic and reason - even if it is not the ultimate truth. You use logic to objectively determine that 1+1=2. That is objective (given our universe). But our universe is not a given, 1+1 may not equal 2. So despite the fact that it is objective, it is not ultimate truth.

me
Well... ultimate truth is not really what I'm claiming. I would claim that the only ultimate truth is that I exist as the thinker of my thoughts. A positive logical proof can't establish "ultimate truth", because you can call logic itself into question.

This is objectivity contingent upon the universe existing as we perceive it. That's not ultimate truth, but it is objective. It is objective with an assumption - a rational assumption.

Wolf-M
If you're not claiming that an utilitarianist who kills one to save two is wrong as a matter of ultimate truth, then you can only say that as according to the morality prevalent in today's society, we generally do not agree with his actions and we deem inaction to be the more approrpiate response.

I can say that you are initiating force against someone for a subjective purpose, and that this is not an objectively justifiable action. Taking this action removes you from an objective view of the situation and makes any number of faulty, subjective value assessments (including utilitarianism).

Wolf-M
So that's why I ask you to PROVE IT.

I've laid it out clearly enough. You claim to have a problem with one of my premises but you have no substantive argument. I'll ask again for you to do me the courtesy of telling me what bothers you about the premise.

Wolf-M
That;s established by evidence. Your claim is not established by evidence. In any event, whether the Earth is round or flat is a fact.

Assuming we had no evidence, it would still be objective.

Wolf-M
It does. Objectivity involves reference to facts and not opinions. I am saying that the fact, ie the premise, on which you are relying is false. Which you have constantly failed to rebut.

Rebut what? You've made no substantive claim other than that you think it's false.... for some reason... which you will not give.... so I cannot rebut.

Wolf-M
Evidence is proof. If you make no reference to evidence in advancing your argument, then you are making assumptions.

Evidence is definitely not proof. I have no idea how you can possibly hope to stand by that position (other than with a colloquial definition of proof). Evidence is the basis for inductive reasoning. Evidence is the basis for science, which is entirely built upon inductive reasoning. You cannot use evidence as proof in a purely logical sense, whatever conclusions you draw from it are contingent upon induction. All of science is this way, and it exists nicely this way because it is a rational approach to reality, but science is not strictly proven simply because it has supporting evidence - this is why science changes over time as better theories exist that fit the same evidence.

Science is based on (logically flawed) inductive reasoning (which can never be strictly proven), assumes the universe exists, etc., changes constantly as new theories are developed to fit the evidence, and yet.... somehow... people (rightly) consider it objective. There is a reason for that and the reason is not specific to evidence - it's specific to the fact that science is the only rational approach to an unknowable reality.

Dapper
I can't believe it.

If evidence were proof, it would be called proof.

Wolf-M · Jan 12, 2012

Danoff
The fact that might makes right is subjective does not prevent someone from hitting you in the face. They can still do it, and they are justifying that action via subjective reasoning. An objective view of reality reveals their error, but it is not a force field that gets in the way.

An objective view of reality tells you that someone hit me in my face.

It does not tell me or you or anyone else whether the violence inflicted on me is right or wrong.

How many times do we have to do this dance? Can you not predict what I will say at this point?

Because that's how one debates. You do not hide the critical part of your argument, lure your opponent into accepting something that looks uncontroversial, and then say your opponent has conceded the whole proposition.

The reason against this practice is simple: when we use the same words, we may mean different things. It's only when you give the complete picture that I can properly respond to your argument.

Otherwise I can only keep asking for a proof.

This is objectivity contingent upon the universe existing as we perceive it. That's not ultimate truth, but it is objective. It is objective with an assumption - a rational assumption.

If an assumption is involved, how can you claim it being objective....

Assuming we had no evidence, it would still be objective.

Evidence is definitely not proof. I have no idea how you can possibly hope to stand by that position (other than with a colloquial definition of proof). Evidence is the basis for inductive reasoning. Evidence is the basis for science, which is entirely built upon inductive reasoning. You cannot use evidence as proof in a purely logical sense, whatever conclusions you draw from it are contingent upon induction. All of science is this way, and it exists nicely this way because it is a rational approach to reality, but science is not strictly proven simply because it has supporting evidence - this is why science changes over time as better theories exist that fit the same evidence.

If evidence were proof, it would be called proof.

Would

en.wikipedia.org/evidence

end our discussion?

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

As regards "assumptions"

In logic an assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts. An assumption that is considered to be self-evident or otherwise fundamental is called an axiom.

The assumption you're making here does not qualify as being "self-evident" (since you denied it yourself) or an axiom.

It's not an axiom because

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proven or demonstrated but considered either to be self-evident or to define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true

(i) it is not self evident; (ii) you could not use this to define or delimit the realm of analysis, because I am precisely challenging your definition.

Otherwise you can just define human rights as anything you like and end the discussion.

GTsail · Jan 13, 2012

Dapper
.....Laws are real, they exist, are testable and therefore objective.

Laws are real and they exist, but so many are not objective that there's no way you can make a blanket statement like "Laws are objective".

Think about the example that Famine mentioned in regard to alcohol levels for drunk driving.

The purpose of the law is to set a marker at which point one is considered to be intoxicated and should not be driving.

But is everyone actually intoxicated with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or 0.05 or whatever? No. Some people are, some people are not. It depends upon many factors (length of time since their last meal, their age, their weight, genetic predisposition, etc, etc).

This is one reason that different jurisdictions have differing blood alcohol levels (just one of the many reasons).

Does everyone get treated the same if they get pulled over for drunk driving? No, (for example: if the police officer knows you I suspect that you are allowed to continue on home, if its not too far and you promise to be careful, etc,etc).

So these drunk driving laws can't be considered "objective" in the fullest sense of the word.

I was going to give you an example of an "objective law" to compare against, but its not that easy. My first thought was Newton's Laws of Motion, but I checked wikipedia, and it says that "Newton's laws only hold with respect to a certain set of frames of reference", and then it gets into Euler's laws of motion (and my head started spinning and I got lost).

So even Newton's Laws seem to slide away from being completely objective.

Anyway, my point is that its actually hard to find laws that are completely objective, and not subject to some subjectivity in their design, application or result.

Maybe you or Famine can suggest one.

Respectfully,
GTsail

Danoff · Jan 13, 2012

Wolf-M
An objective view of reality tells you that someone hit me in my face.

It does not tell me or you or anyone else whether the violence inflicted on me is right or wrong.

It tells you that the motivation/justification is subjective (if he initiated).

Wolf-M
If an assumption is involved, how can you claim it being objective....

The exact same assumption is made in all of science - that reality exists as we perceive it. Science is objective for the same reason - it is the only rational approach to an unknowable reality.

Wolf-M
Would

en.wikipedia.org/evidence

end our discussion?

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

If your definition of evidence is consistent with the only one that can make the above true, then we have no argument. Empirical evidence (which a term you have used) is not the kind of evidence referred to above. A logical argument would be considered "evidence" by the above. Basically anything used to decipher the truth of anything would be considered "evidence" by the above. I do not believe that is what you intend. Inductive reasoning upon "empirical evidence" has almost no place in our discussion, but it is what you have called for as "proof", even though it cannot "prove" anything.

Wolf-M
As regards "assumptions"

In logic an assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts. An assumption that is considered to be self-evident or otherwise fundamental is called an axiom.

The assumption you're making here does not qualify as being "self-evident" (since you denied it yourself) or an axiom.

It's not an axiom because

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proven or demonstrated but considered either to be self-evident or to define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true

(i) it is not self evident; (ii) you could not use this to define or delimit the realm of analysis, because I am precisely challenging your definition.

Otherwise you can just define human rights as anything you like and end the discussion.

Is this the substantive response I asked for? I'll try it. No, might makes right being subjective is not an axiom, and it's also not an assumption mean to be taken at face value. I suppose I would call it proof by definition? Might makes right simply fits the definition of subjective - that it is a value that relies on perception and interpretation to be considered correct.

Are you really arguing that might makes right not subjective? Or is there some other issue? You don't like the idea that might-makes-right being subjective leads to an elimination of force via the desire to eliminate subjectivity? Is your problem that you don't think an objective set of rules should eliminate subjectivity? You see why I'm having trouble proceeding with the discussion, I have no idea what you're getting tripped up on.

Wolf-M · Jan 13, 2012

Danoff
The exact same assumption is made in all of science - that reality exists as we perceive it. Science is objective for the same reason - it is the only rational approach to an unknowable reality.

Science theories are predictions. They are not objective statements. Famine raised this some time ago - that the Sun will rise tomorrow. But whether the Sun will indeed rise tomorrow cannot be tested with reference to any evidence. What, say, if the Sun explodes tomorrow due to some reasons unknown to mankind?

So it is not an objective statement; it is only a prediction.

Only what has indeed happened (ie the Sun rose yesterday) can be considered an objective observation.

As you see, it being a reasonable prediction is only your subjective evaluation (because the same phenomenon happened in the past).

It has nothing to do with objectivity.

If your definition of evidence is consistent with the only one that can make the above true, then we have no argument. Empirical evidence (which a term you have used) is not the kind of evidence referred to above. A logical argument would be considered "evidence" by the above. Basically anything used to decipher the truth of anything would be considered "evidence" by the above. I do not believe that is what you intend. Inductive reasoning upon "empirical evidence" has almost no place in our discussion.

Because you have no other evidence other than to rely on empirical evidence.

A logical argument only tests whether your argument is valid or not. It does not show whether your argument is true as a matter of fact.

As we are talking about objectivity here, we are referring to facts. Not opinions.

And evidence is the only way to fulfil your burden of proof - ie establish that your statement is in fact objectively true as a matter of fact.

Is this the substantive response I asked for? No, might makes right being subjective is not an axiom, and it's also not an assumption mean to be taken at face value. I suppose I would call it proof by definition? Might makes right simply fits the definition of subjective - that it is a value that relies on perception and interpretation to be considered correct.

Are you making that up? "Proof by definition"?

If that's the case, there won't be any Field Medal winners. Anyone can prove a proposition by defining it to mean what he/she wants it to mean.

Are you really arguing that might makes right not subjective? Or is there some other issue? You don't like the idea that might-makes-right being subjective leads to an elimination of force via the desire to eliminate subjectivity. Is your problem that you don't think an objective set of rules should eliminate subjectivity? You see why I'm having trouble proceeding with the discussion, I have no idea what you're getting tripped up on.

"Might makes right" is subjective as regards its correctness but not its application. Whether it is right is a matter of subjective opinion; its application is purely objective.

"Human rights are all equal" is also subjective as regards its correctness. It may be a very reasonable opinion to hold. But still it is subjective. Its application, however, is objective.

Solved your queries?

Danoff · Jan 13, 2012

Wolf-M
Science theories are predictions. They are not objective statements.

Don't just pull the other way. Scientific theories are objective theories that fit the data available. They're certainty not subject to perception or interpretation! It is an objective description of the facts based on pure rationality - sometimes incorrectly applied rationality, but incorrect as it is, it's still objective.

1+1 = 3 is an objective statement, it is an incorrect objective statement. It is independent of perception or interpretation.

Wolf-M
Famine raised this some time ago - that the Sun will rise tomorrow. But whether the Sun will indeed rise tomorrow cannot be tested with reference to any evidence. What, say, if the Sun explodes tomorrow due to some reasons unknown to mankind?

Then the scientific models that predicted that the sun would not explode tomorrow are wrong. That does not make them less objective.

A->B
not A
------
not B

Is not a subjective statement. It is objective, and objectively wrong. Invalid logic is not subjective, it's wrong.

Wolf-M
Because you have no other evidence other than to rely on empirical evidence.

You kinda dodged the notion that empirical evidence is meaningless in this discussion. Am I to take this as an admission? I'd still like to see you admit that your requests for empirical evidence are misguided.

Wolf-M
A logical argument only tests whether your argument is valid or not. It does not show whether your argument is true as a matter of fact.

Logical validity is what we're going for here.

Wolf-M
And evidence is the only way to fulfil your burden of proof - ie establish that your statement is in fact objectively true as a matter of fact.

Done.... or were you looking for empirical evidence?

Wolf-M
Are you making that up? "Proof by definition"?

If that's the case, there won't be any Field Medal winners. Anyone can prove a proposition by defining it to mean what he/she wants it to mean.

Intentionally missing the point?

By the definition of subjectivity (dependent on perception/interpretation), might makes right is subjective (because it depends on perception/interpretation).

Wolf-M
"Might makes right" is subjective as regards its correctness

HEY!!!! We're getting somewhere after all!! :cheers:

Wolf-M
but not its application. Whether it is right is a matter of subjective opinion; its application is purely objective.

What does it's application have to do with it. I already said this:

me
The fact that might makes right is subjective does not prevent someone from hitting you in the face.

The objective fact that you were hit in the face is not in dispute.

Wolf-M
"Human rights are all equal" is also subjective as regards its correctness. It may be a very reasonable opinion to hold. But still it is subjective. Its application, however, is objective.

We'll hopefully get to that.

Wolf-M · Jan 13, 2012

-double posted-

Wolf-M · Jan 13, 2012

Danoff
Don't just pull the other way. Scientific theories are objective theories that fit the data available. They're certainty not subject to perception or interpretation! It is an objective description of the facts based on pure rationality - sometimes incorrectly applied rationality, but incorrect as it is, it's still objective.

Scientific theories are not "objective theories" as regards their correctness.

The way they were arrived at may be objective, but certainly not their correctness.

We are going back to the starting point. Why?

Your argument is that human rights are objective,

Your argument may be stating the right thing so long as you are referring to how your statement is arrived at, ie how the morality of a given society is defined.

It may be established by objective means, ie via a hypothetical survey. Purely objective. Uninfluenced by bias.

But the correctness of the conclusion of survey is subjective.

Isn't it the same with scientific theories?

It is!

Objective as regards the way they were arrived at; but a subjective prediction (because you think it's reasonable/rational position to adopt) it truly is.

1+1 = 3 is an objective statement, it is an incorrect objective statement. It is independent of perception or interpretation.

I am shocked by what you have said.

I'm sure many others are too.

"Your mum is a man". Objective statement? :ouch:

You kinda dodged the notion that empirical evidence is meaningless in this discussion. Am I to take this as an admission? I'd still like to see you admit that your requests for empirical evidence are misguided.

Empirical evidence is relevant so far as I am acting as the devil's advocate, ie showing how morality can embrace a notion that we have absolute freedom from force.

Logically validity is what we're going for here.

Sigh. Might makes right is also logically valid here.

By the definition of subjectivity (dependent on perception/interpretation), might makes right is subjective (because it depends on perception/interpretation).

What's the point in this? YES its correctness is subjective; I never ever argued otherwise!!!

My whole point was that morality is entirely subjective - from beginning till end?

Why is it that you are obsessed with this?

Dapper · Jan 13, 2012

GTsail290
Think about the example that Famine mentioned in regard to alcohol levels for drunk driving.

The purpose of the law is to set a marker at which point one is considered to be intoxicated and should not be driving.

But is everyone actually intoxicated with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or 0.05 or whatever? No. Some people are, some people are not. It depends upon many factors (length of time since their last meal, their age, their weight, genetic predisposition, etc, etc).

This is one reason that different jurisdictions have differing blood alcohol levels (just one of the many reasons).

Does everyone get treated the same if they get pulled over for drunk driving? No, (for example: if the police officer knows you I suspect that you are allowed to continue on home, if its not too far and you promise to be careful, etc,etc).

So these drunk driving laws can't be considered "objective" in the fullest sense of the word.

You described factors that could be used to create laws and the way people interpret the law. Neither are relevant to a law being objective. The same can be said for anything objective like a material object to the universe.

I was going to give you an example of an "objective law" to compare against, but its not that easy. My first thought was Newton's Laws of Motion, but I checked wikipedia, and it says that "Newton's laws only hold with respect to a certain set of frames of reference", and then it gets into Euler's laws of motion (and my head started spinning and I got lost).

So even Newton's Laws seem to slide away from being completely objective.

Anyway, my point is that its actually hard to find laws that are completely objective, and not subject to some subjectivity in their design, application or result.

Every law is objective. The interpretation is subjective because legislation can not make decisions. That is the whole point! That is why laws work and the notion of human rights does not.

...and not subject to some subjectivity in their design, application or result.

Considering anything objective from objects to the universe, how does any of those three things affect something being objective? You said, "Laws are real and they exist" and it is clear they, the laws, don't make personal decisions (I hope it's understood legislation has no psyche).The term, "Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" doesn't apply to inanimate things, or entities, which laws are (and you said they exist remember), it applies to reporters, or critics is what the dictionary uses as an example. "Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" requires emotions and prejudices. By every definition relating to existence and being undistorted (not a goal or lens) I am privy to, laws are objective.

Operating under the assumption everything is fact or opinion, in other words objective or subjective- Laws are not opinions. It is a fact driving with a +.08 BAC is illegal in WV. A different BAC level in another state doesn't make anything less factual. If a cop lets his buddy go after catching him doing something illegal, the law didn't do anything different than if he arrested his buddy. The law showed no emotional influence either way.

Human Rights

Wolf on wheels

Wolf on wheels

Off the track driver

Off the track driver

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Off the track driver

Off the track driver

Wolf on wheels

ツーリング マルス

Wolf on wheels

Wolf on wheels

Wolf on wheels

Wolf on wheels

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Wolf on wheels

Wolf on wheels

Wolf on wheels

Wolf on wheels

Similar threads

ツーリングマルス