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.
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:
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.
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.
"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.