Human Rights

Vince_Fiero · Jan 13, 2012

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

I have proven that there is a Human Right to live 1 2

It is your turn to refute that.
You tried it this way.

Wolf-M
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.

I saw value in my argument as a definition, I did not put a value. There was no subjective point in my reasoning that I see at this moment.

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

issues with definitions

Logic is the only way to reason. Take a rational position.
Something logical is correct. Something illogical is incorrect.

Subjective is what I think/believe.

"There are Human Rights" is objective since there is a logic (see above) that proves it is correct.
"The Human Right to live" is objective since there is a logic (see above) that proves it is correct.
That a person can not express their argument does not make it incorrect, if you want to show it is incorrect you need to use logic and show it is contradictory.

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.

We agree that stating the fact "Someone hit me in the face" is objective.

Now you can state why "hitting you in the face" is right or wrong objectively, depending on the situation.

The person that "hit you in the face to hurt" does not want to be "hit in the face to hurt" by you.
By hitting you in the face that person gives up his right to not be hit by you.
Thus hitting you in the face is illogical.
It is objectively proven that "hitting someone in the face to hurt" is illogical thus wrong.

Now the subjective part comes in. Hitting you in the face can be a means of communication. Not meant to harm you.
There is no Human Right that states that people can not communicate with physical gestures. Why would there be? That in no means states that it is correct and logical to hurt someone by hitting them in the face.

Now we come back to self-defence.

Vince_Fiero
In the case of killing the others win, you do not have a choice but to let them win:
1) Or they convinced you into their logic
2) Or they kill you

My conclusion was you can see people as bad and then exercise self-defence, but that makes you bad as well. From what point you see people as bad is subjective. This thread has as aim to remove the subjective.
Actually in the self defence discussion I showed that bad is illogical, a wrong decision.

So any culture that defends to "Not respect Human Rights" of others is wrong, since it loses its Human Rights, it is illogical not to respect the Human Right.
Now everybody seems to think you can kill someone to protect your own life.
Logic states that the bady needs to kill someone (prove no respect for the Human Right to live) before this is defendable. But even then, if you accept that under certain circumstances "you decided that you can take someone´s life" you give up the right to live yourself. So that was proven to be illogical, wrong.

Everybody that defends themselves by shooting an attacker is illogical and thus wrong objectively. The culture in this thread is that any logical, correct culture is superior to a culture that is wrong, that part in this thread is subjective. But that the culture is right or wrong is objective!

"There are legislations that have death penalty" is an objective fact.
"A legislation that has death penalty, is wrong, illogical and has no respect of the Human Right to live." Is an objective fact.
That you accept death penalty does not make it objectively right, it makes you objectively wrong. That you accept to be wrong, is subjective, it does not change objectivity.

P.S. I also made my point that almost no value statement is objective, not even the value of right and wrong. Discussing value is of no importance it does not add to the objectivity, but you need to recognise where you become subjective.

Dapper · Jan 13, 2012

Vince_Fiero
I saw value in my argument as a definition, I did not put a value. There was no subjective point in my reasoning that I see at this moment.

You not seeing a subjective point does not mean Rights are objective. You need to be able to test Rights against something other than mere rhetoric to prove rights are objective.

Vince_Fiero
Something logical is correct. Something illogical is incorrect.

No it is not. For instance, a hypothesis can be perfectly logical, but when it is tested the results might not be as predicted. The logic was wrong. The original hypothesis was logical and wrong. This has been covered thoroughly.

"There are Human Rights" is objective since there is a logic (see above) that proves it is correct.
"The Human Right to live" is objective since there is a logic (see above) that proves it is correct.

(see above) You used logic and it is wrong.

That a person can not express their argument does not make it incorrect, if you want to show it is incorrect you need to use logic and show it is contradictory.

Not express, can not prove their argument makes it incorrect. No one can show your opinion is incorrect... you need to prove it correct with real, observable and verifiable proof.

Vince_Fiero · Jan 13, 2012

Dapper
You not seeing a subjective point does not mean Rights are objective. You need to be able to test Rights against something other than mere rhetoric to prove rights are objective.

See below you are saying that Einstein had a subjective logic, that had no value since it could not be proven with empirical evidence.

Dapper
No it is not. For instance, a hypothesis can be perfectly logical, but when it is tested the results might not be as predicted. The logic was wrong. The original hypothesis was logical and wrong. This has been covered thoroughly.

Lets get this clear: E.g.:
Newton stated that F=m*a. In the assumption that m is a constant.
Einstein stated that "m is not a constant". Empirical proof confirms Einstein.
Was Einstein wrong, before it was proven?
Does this make Newton wrong? Yes! Does it make his logical reasoning incoherent? No
Does this make that "F=m*a with m as a constant" has less value then "m is not a constant", not in my life.

So we do judge on the basis of value.
Newton had a correct logic, that had a wrong assumption. However that the assumption is wrong, I do not value in my life.

Dapper
(see above) You used logic and it is wrong.

Define wrong (seems subjective). The logic is correct according to the logical system (objective), the conclusions are objective.

If empirical evidence shows differently, you have to find out why? Theory could be wrong, assumptions could be wrong. It is up to the person that finds the point wrong to prove why it is wrong, otherwise it remains correct but subjective, value is low since it can not explain all.

The thread aims to have "Rights" as something free from subjectivity. Logic makes it objective. What you see in the world is that this is not applied, we agree fully with that. We stated that what you see in the world proves that people are not objective, not logical. That you value a subjective approach is your value estimation. It does not make our application of logic on rights less objective.

Dapper
Not express, can not prove their argument makes it incorrect. No one can show your opinion is incorrect... you need to prove it correct with real, observable and verifiable proof.

Again apply it on Einstein, he did not have the material (e.g. Hubble telescope) to prove his theory. So you rejected his theory (that he could not prove) for some 80 years?
People have been been trying to prove his theory and succeeded. If the CERN experiment with speeds over lightspeed is correct, we might soon find an other theory that is even more correct. Until proven logically Einstein`s theory objectively stands quite well the test of time. You seem to have rejected all his theories again.

Vince_Fiero · Jan 13, 2012

Why should people believe Vince_Fiero, he admits he lies!

Vince_Fiero
I value Human Rights higher then lying, so I lie, my goodness will I lie.

Lets practice logic again:
I must have been incorrect, I was using incorrect decisions rules. I was wrong (that is part of discussion)!
Can I remove that subjective part out of my decision (that is why I value the discussions here) or is this the limit?
So what is the option that could avoid lying:
1) Be honest: Gets me killed
2) Lie: then anyone can lie to me, not acceptable: I want to be able to defend myself against lying.
3) I have the right to remain silent?

Would I still lie, now?
Sort of: 3) The right to remain silent is the only moral option.
However I can still build up military force, I can still show I can do nuclear attacks. There is no lie in that.
If people ask you why you believe in Nuclear arms, to attack the other country? I answer with a question, that way I avoid the lie. Would you like your country to be unable to defend itself properly?

In total you give the same arguments then you did with lying, but you avoided losing your right to defend yourself from lies. On the real motivation of your nuclear build up: you exercise your right to remain silent. No court should force you to answer.

You have the Human Right to remain silent, otherwise you could be forced to act against your Human Rights (Not able to defend them or forced to give incorrect information).

That governments lie, is not only immoral, it is also illogical, incorrect, they should shut up or reply with a question or avoiding statement.

===========================

Isn't it "your freedom of speech" to lie?

The Freedom of speech would be that anyone can say anything at anytime to me and I can not defend myself against it.
When they make a promise on a contract and they do not execute that, it would be their freedom of speech.
I do not see any reason I need a right to lie, it is illogical (I could not defend a contract), it is against the right to get correct information.

There is a Human Right to get information that is knowingly correct.
I want to be able to defend myself against being knowingly mis-informed, so I can not deliver incorrect information myself.
I have a right to be mistaken, the knowingly is important (maybe clumsy).

I believe that harassment hurts, I believe I need to be able to defend myself against harassment. But it does not give me the right "to stop the other person from saying what they consider information that is knowingly correct", I can only demand justice on the hurt, the other person should not hurt me, they can spread information that is knowingly correct in any other way. What hurts psychologically might be a value judgment though, so the measures are subjective. However the right to not to be hurt is still correct and we have to respect the other persons right to defend their human rights.

So we have an objective duty! (Ah there we go, evolution of theory)
The Human Rights are inherent. You need to be able to defend them, otherwise to call them rights would be illogical. An other person needs to be able to defend them. So you have the objective duty to agree with "anyone you have a conflict with concerning Human Rights" what values will be used to judge. Otherwise Human Rights become illogical, you can not defend them on different value systems.

Does value make it subjective? Yes in the sense that some people do not care about some things and others do care about it.
No in the sense that:

Vince_Fiero
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.
1) Value: Out of ... logic ....: You need to respect the XXX rights of others to hold the XXX rights yourself.
So if you value holding XXX rights lower then something else, that is against the definition of XXX rights, you cannot defend XXX rights if something else might invalidate them.
So XXX Rights have an infinite value by definition.

From here a value systems that does not see Human (=XXX) Rights as infinite value is illogical, incorrect. So there is an agreement (subjective) on value needed, but that value always needs to see Human Rights as infinite value to be logical.

If you accept that your justice system judges that Human Rights are not objective, you accept an incorrect justice system. That is an objective fact.
But the value system always has a subjective part, you can not avoid that.
The similar values in the Bible, Qu'ran, Bouddhism, etc... support this. The fact that many do not respect the Human Rights, only makes them illogical, incorrect.

Touring Mars · Jan 13, 2012

Danoff
So as long as you don't violate the rights of others, your rights are intact (regardless of the existence of others).

This implies that one's rights are only as intact as others judge them to be at any given time, thus calls into question the idea that one's rights exist objectively and independently. You agreed with me that human rights can only exist between people because they are reciprocal. This being the case, I cannot see how I, as a solitary individual, can possibly claim to possess any rights (such a claim would be redundant anyway), since one's rights cannot exist independently of the consideration of others. I believe that human rights are an invention of human society and not a discovery. As such, while I readily accept that the intended purpose of rights is to protect individuals, I don't accept that rights are the property of individuals.

Vince_Fiero · Jan 13, 2012

Touring Mars
This implies that one's rights are only as intact as others judge them to be at any given time, thus calls into question the idea that one's rights exist objectively and independently. You agreed with me that human rights can only exist between people because they are reciprocal. This being the case, I cannot see how I, as a solitary individual, can possibly claim to possess any rights (such a claim would be redundant anyway), since one's rights cannot exist independently of the consideration of others. I believe that human rights are an invention of human society and not a discovery. As such, while I readily accept that the intended purpose of rights is to protect individuals, I don't accept that rights are the property of individuals.

I think this goes the wrong way. Rights is something you can defend. That you are alone on the world does not make that you could not defend them, you just will not have the need. If you do the logic, you come to human rights for whenever a second person would show up. If she did the logic, she will understand your human rights immediately. That is why objective = out of logic is so good, it is the essence.

I believe there are social rights (subject for later) that only come out of interaction. However Human Rights are logical: "I will not do to others what I do not want them to do to me." Twice you are the subject, so you need no-one else, if it is logical it becomes universal.

Nobody owns Human Rights, they are innate, you can not sell the Human Rights, you can only sell services (no details on this one) or choose the other to represent you. Innate feelings are not correct though, logic has to prove correctness.

Edit: I do not believe you can loose your rights by not respecting them, they would not be innate/objective anymore.

My first run at: Might is right: Emperor Vince_Fiero

A right is something you can defend. So if I make with my might that you not can defend it, it is not a right anymore. You did not choose not to be able to defend it so that I would would actually only be violating your right, I would infringe your right with my might. But it is the way we the emperor see rights.
So if you can not choose your rights, why should I be able to choose mine. We the emperor have the might, obviously!
So I have the right to choose rights for me and you. But you do not have any possibility to choose. I would use my might to defend the right to choose your rights. So I have to accept that when I loose the might that I have no right to choose any rights anymore. Do not worry I will make certain I do not lose my rights, I have the right on my side.
I seem to refuse that the new one with more might chooses, but with imposing my right I have ~~lost~~ not recognised that right. My right system would be illogical, incoherent.

Comrade Vince_Fiero
But that is communism. The system is chosen by the people, the leadership is chosen by the people, all the leaders are fully submitted to the will of the people represented by the party. So the party has the might and the people impose the way they work. So if the people choose capitalism that is possible, the leadership will follow. Sorry forgot communism once choose is irrefutable, but then the people do not really choose/impose, the might imposed it. That is what the might is for, to defend the irrefutable. But then they do not represent the people, they just implement their right with their might. No the people choose communism. If you choose something else you just need to get away from the might. But that will not happen The Party does not allow people to leave from our circle of might. But then the people did not choose anything and we are back at the Emperor, illogical, incoherent.
(You can do similar with Western Democracy I believe, just a bit less convincing on the not leave.)

So Might is right does not work:
1) If you impose the right to others you are incoherent, you should accept that others impose right to you. Otherwise this is against the definition of right; you do not know what you can defend anymore since it changes all the time. So you should respect Human Rights at least, but then you do not impose everything, so your might is limited.
2) If the people choose the right through representation. You need to make certain the people have an actual choice. Otherwise you are back in case 1. The people will choose Human Rights, these are a logical common denominator.

That many legal systems do not represent Human Rights correctly only illustrates again that people are illogical or not correctly represented.

Touring Mars · Jan 13, 2012

Vince_Fiero
However Human Rights are logical: "I will not do to others what I do not want them to do to me."

That is not logic, but simply a statement of your intentions and/or wishes.

Vince_Fiero
That you are alone on the world does not make that you could not defend them, you just will not have the need. If you do the logic, you come to human rights for whenever a second person would show up. If she did the logic, she will understand your human rights immediately.

That's a major assumption. The invention of human rights and the widespread adoption of them has taken millenia to get to where we are today. Defining and accepting rights as social norms has evolved alongside the need to create and enforce laws that uphold them and punish those who violate the rights of others. Arguably, one's human rights are completely worthless unless you happen to live in a society where other people recognise them and are willing to enforce them on your behalf, by upholding the law and threatening retaliatory force in your stead in the event that someone kills you. Without this legal embodiment of human rights, human rights effectively cease to exist in any meaningful way, and are reduced to mere wishes like that quoted above.

Human rights haven't always existed (and cannot possibly have), just as humans haven't always existed - and I don't accept that they are either God-given or born of pure logic. I think it is considerably more likely that the basic human rights that we claim today arose out of a collective will to live in peace with other people, with the aim of maximising survival, and that their only true reality exists in the form of laws.

Dotini · Jan 13, 2012

Touring Mars
The invention of human rights and the widespread adoption of them has taken millenia to get to where we are today. Defining and accepting rights as social norms has evolved alongside the need to create and enforce laws that uphold them and punish those who violate the rights of others. Arguably, one's human rights are completely worthless unless you happen to live in a society where other people recognise them and are willing to enforce them on your behalf, by upholding the law and threatening retaliatory force in your stead in the event that someone kills you. Without this legal embodiment of human rights, human rights effectively cease to exist in any meaningful way, and are reduced to mere wishes like that quoted above.

Human rights haven't always existed (and cannot possibly have), just as humans haven't always existed - and I don't accept that they are either God-given or born of pure logic. I think it is considerably more likely that the basic human rights that we claim today arose out of a collective will to live in peace with other people, with the aim of maximising survival, and that their only true reality exists in the form of laws.

👍👍

Respectfully,
Steve

Vince_Fiero · Jan 13, 2012

Touring Mars
That is not logic, but simply a statement of your intentions and/or wishes.

No this was part of the definition of Human Rights. The logic follows out of it, by applying it on different situations.

Touring Mars
That's a major assumption. The invention of human rights and the widespread adoption of them has taken millenia to get to where we are today. Defining and accepting rights as social norms has evolved alongside the need to create and enforce laws that uphold them and punish those who violate the rights of others. Arguably, one's human rights are completely worthless unless you happen to live in a society where other people recognise them and are willing to enforce them on your behalf, by upholding the law and threatening retaliatory force in your stead in the event that someone kills you. Without this legal embodiment of human rights, human rights effectively cease to exist in any meaningful way, and are reduced to mere wishes like that quoted above.

You got the point: Laws have grown out of feeling and what people had the impression was important. That made them complicated and mostly beside the point.

The people pushing the thread are convinced that a discussion on our cultures is not useful, but that reasoning with logic will take the major part of the discussions away and focus on the essence, the logical/objective part.

I came to a sad conclusion, that not respecting Human Rights has an advantage on respecting them, since the one respecting Human Rights will not attack first. However logical Human Rights always give you a chance to defend yourself (but it can be too late). When it goes against the logic, it can always be used against you and that is what happens in practice.

Touring Mars
Human rights haven't always existed (and cannot possibly have), just as humans haven't always existed - and I don't accept that they are either God-given or born of pure logic. I think it is considerably more likely that the basic human rights that we claim today arose out of a collective will to live in peace with other people, with the aim of maximising survival, and that their only true reality exists in the form of laws.

You have many law systems, most are not based on logic. That makes if you look at them that they go against logic. That people accept that does not make them right. To defend rights you need discussion, discussion is based on logic, if the rights are not based on logic you are nowhere when you start discussing them.

I was skeptic like you are. If you look at the laws that exist, you will see the major issues they have when compared to logic.

Danoff · Jan 13, 2012

Wolf-M
Scientific theories are not "objective theories" as regards their correctness.

You're mixing concepts here. The only statements that can be wrong are objective ones. Subjective statements are inherently neither correct nor incorrect. "I think that's pretty" is obviously subjective and obviously neither right not wrong. "Your mum is a man" is obviously an objective observation of my mom and is clearly wrong (also the definition of mum and man exclude that statement from being correct).

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

Correct. Yes. We agree on something.... sortof. Their correctness is also objective, but objectivity does not imply correctness. Flawed reasoning leads to an objective statement that is wrong.

Wolf-M
Isn't it the same with scientific theories?

It is not. A scientific data and theories are objective (not right or wrong) observations of the world (if that data and those theories are arrived at via the scientific method and not based on personal bias).

Wolf-M
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.

Well, it's pointless. Glad to see that we can agree that empirical evidence has no place in this discussion. Let's stop talking about it shall we?

Wolf-M
Sigh. Might makes right is also logically valid here.

Might makes right is subjective (you have agreed to this) in nature, and is there for not based on logic at all but, rather, a subjective value judgement that can neither be right nor wrong, but is entirely dependent on personal preference and bias.

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

Then that value judgement has no place in an objective evaluation. So, by your own admission above, an objectively just interaction between individuals precludes the initiation of force.

This is freedom from force in an objective system. It does not dictate that one will never encounter force, but that when one does it is done on a subjective basis.

Are we good? Can we move on from here having established the first right "freedom from force assuming an objective system"?

Touring Mars
This implies that one's rights are only as intact as others judge them to be at any given time, thus calls into question the idea that one's rights exist objectively and independently.

I have no idea how you read that from this:

me
So as long as you don't violate the rights of others, your rights are intact (regardless of the existence of others).

Taking human rights as objective, whether you violate the rights of others is an objective statement - independent of perception. So no one is needed to judge anything at any time.

Now, practically speaking, there would be a whole court process with evidence, judging, other people, even sentencing. But none of that has any bearing on whether your rights are intact. Human beings may proceed to punish you as if you are guilty of something you are not, but if you are innocent then they are violating your rights (which are still intact).

Touring Mars
You agreed with me that human rights can only exist between people because they are reciprocal. This being the case, I cannot see how I, as a solitary individual, can possibly claim to possess any rights (such a claim would be redundant anyway), since one's rights cannot exist independently of the consideration of others.

Your rights exist independently of the considerations of others AND are reciprocal. The problem here is a loose use of the term reciprocal. It's really half of that - that you need to observe the rights of others (if they exist) in order to have rights. That's not really reciprocal so much as it is a requirement on your behavior.

So I see how you're getting tripped up, and I should stop using the world reciprocal because it doesn't properly describe the situation. The bottom line is that you have rights provided that you don't violate the rights of others.

Touring Mars
I believe that human rights are an invention of human society and not a discovery. As such, while I readily accept that the intended purpose of rights is to protect individuals, I don't accept that rights are the property of individuals.

If this were true, it would render rights meaningless altogether. If rights are subjective, they do not exist. Subjective concepts cannot apply to more than the individual or like-minded individuals. They have no bearing on interaction with someone who does not share that concept, because there is no right or wrong in subjectivity - only opinion. The person who you're putting in jail claims that murder is perfectly fine (via might makes right), and you have no response to him other than that you have a mob with you. If the mob went the other way, you'd be the one in jail.

...and this brings me to another point.

I get a lot of animosity for claiming that rights are objective. There are only a handful of people in existence that I have made that claim to who don't immediately start throwing the standard "it's all cultural" assumption at me... and this is not terribly surprising given how prevalent that is in philosophical teaching. But what I don't get is the digging in. Should people be saying "you know what, I think you're wrong but that would be awesome. I hope you're right, let's get to the bottom of this and see if we can work something out that satisfies me"? Shouldn't that be the response I get? Are any of you comfortable in a world where people can be slaves, murdered, sold as property (as women are still in the middle east) and that this is somehow justifiable because we can't pass judgement on those cultures? Shouldn't the animosity be directed at the notion that human interaction is arbitrary and that any behavior is as good as the next?

I just don't understand the emotional response here. Granted that it has no bearing on the substance of the discussion but I'd expect different.

GTsail · Jan 13, 2012

Dapper
.....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.
.

So all we need is a law to make "Human rights" objective?

Have you considered Article 3 of the United Nations Code?

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person"

Does this make "Human rights" objective?

Respectfully,
GTsail

Dapper · Jan 13, 2012

GTsail290
So all we need is a law to make "Human rights" objective?

Have you considered Article 3 of the United Nations Code?

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person"

Does this make "Human rights" objective?

Respectfully,
GTsail

Naturally born or God given human rights is forever subjective/opinion, the law is objective/fact.
Laws are a result of our way of life. Rights come from our laws.

GTsail · Jan 13, 2012

Danoff
.....Your rights exist independently of the considerations of others AND are reciprocal. The problem here is a loose use of the term reciprocal. It's really half of that - that you need to observe the rights of others (if they exist) in order to have rights. That's not really reciprocal so much as it is a requirement on your behavior......

If human rights hinge upon the requirement that "you need to observe the rights of others"

Why is it a stretch to think that human rights spring from the existence of "others"?

And that human rights exist to enhance/normalize the interactions between humans and don't exist if there are no other humans to interact with or "observe the rights of others"?

If there are no "others" then human rights don't exist (because even by your definition, both components are not present).

Respectfully
GTsail

Danoff · Jan 13, 2012

GTsail290
If human rights hinge upon the requirement that "you need to observe the rights of others"

Why is it a stretch to think that human rights spring from the existence of "others"?

And that human rights exist to enhance/normalize the interactions between humans and don't exist if there are no other humans to interact with or "observe the rights of others"?

If there are no "others" then human rights don't exist (because even by your definition, both components are not present).

Well, based on what's outlined above, there's nothing specific to humans. When a bear comes and kills you he's violating your rights. When you go kill him you're violating his. The only caveat there is that the bear is not capable of understanding or observing your rights, and so you are not under any obligation to observe his.

The point is that once you've violated someone else's rights, you prove yourself incapable of understanding/observing rights and so you lose them. That's not contingent on another person being around, if they aren't around, you're going to have a hard time doing anything that demonstrates a lack of ability to observe the rights of others.

Some may notice I'm giving the human the benefit of the doubt and not the bear. That's because of the biological differences in brains between humans and bears. A healthy human being is biologically capable of grasping the concept the might makes right is arbitrary and choosing not to engage in it. A bear has no such biological capability and so is assumed from the beginning to not have rights. However, if there were a bear out that that had a brain that operated more on a human level, that bear would indeed have rights.

Try to imagine a bear that is capable of understanding any of this and not thinking that such a bear has a right to life.

GTsail · Jan 13, 2012

Danoff
..... When a bear comes and kills you he's violating your rights. When you go kill him you're violating his. The only caveat there is that the bear is not capable of understanding or observing your rights, and so you are not under any obligation to observe his.....

Bears! Nice!

My evolutionary ramblings.........I don't think that this is what evolution is teaching us. Evolution is teaching us that the "winner" of this encounter is the one who is stronger/smarter or has more weapons! The UN Handbook of rights is of no use (except maybe to throw).

What does evolution teach us about life? I would say that it teaches us that life wants to continue to live so it will adapt itself to its environment and proprogate itself so it can continue to prosper.

So in the case of animals/plants/etc; don't they generally behave/interact in a way that will continue their species? And at some point, the higher level animals begin to interact in a social manner with social behaviors which achieve the goal of continuing their species?

So couldn't we have just continued this evolutionary response over into humans?

To prosper and continue as a species, humans have started to learn behaviors that enhance interactions between other humans with the ultimate goal of continuing the species?

Couldn't human rights be an evolutionary response that humans have devised to ensure the continuance of the species? A response that is evolving as we learn what works and what does not work in regard to rights and behaviors between humans?

Hmmmm....Smart bears:
Why do we seem to grant some rights to some higher level animals like dolphins/whales/horses/etc? I don't think its because we have had a reciprocal exchange of rights. I don't think they can understand our rights. I would say that we grant these rights because we wish to continue their species and because their species provides us with some benefits.

Respectfully,
GTsail

Danoff · Jan 14, 2012

GTsail290
Bears! Nice!

My evolutionary ramblings.........I don't think that this is what evolution is teaching us. Evolution is teaching us that the "winner" of this encounter is the one who is stronger/smarter or has more weapons! The UN Handbook of rights is of no use (except maybe to throw).

What does evolution teach us about life? I would say that it teaches us that life wants to continue to live so it will adapt itself to its environment and proprogate itself so it can continue to prosper.

So in the case of animals/plants/etc; don't they generally behave/interact in a way that will continue their species? And at some point, the higher level animals begin to interact in a social manner with social behaviors which achieve the goal of continuing their species?

So couldn't we have just continued this evolutionary response over into humans?

To prosper and continue as a species, humans have started to learn behaviors that enhance interactions between other humans with the ultimate goal of continuing the species?

Couldn't human rights be an evolutionary response that humans have devised to ensure the continuance of the species? A response that is evolving as we learn what works and what does not work in regard to rights and behaviors between humans?

Hmmmm....Smart bears:
Why do we seem to grant some rights to some higher level animals like dolfins/whales/horses/etc? I don't think its because we have had a reciprocal exchange of rights. I don't think they can understand our rights. I would say that we grant these rights because we wish to continue their species and because their species provides us with some benefits.

Respectfully,
GTsail

Try monkeys, they don't provide us with benefits (unless you count testing lipstick and eyeliner), and yet we offer them more rights than many other animals. It's not legal to own one in the US unless you're a zoo basically (I had a relative that owned a monkey at one point. He explained to me that such a thing was not possible anymore). It's considered cruel and is illegal to torture animals. I think this stems from our knowledge that animals don't seek to torture us (or other animals). That much is fairly reciprocal... they might attack, but that's slightly different. Anyway a proportionate response would dictate that we avoid torturing monkeys (and most other animals).

I have no doubt that that law of nature (might makes right) is based on biology (survival of the fittest) and that much of human interaction exists as a result of a desire to continue our species. But that's a fairly arbitrary goal. Some humans would argue that continuation of our species is a bad thing and that we should wipe ourselves off the planet. I would argue that the continuation of the deer population near my house is a very bad thing given that it attracts mountain lions and the deer have a bad habbit of ending up in front of cars. More members of a species is not inherently good - and yet that's the driving force behind life.

We don't have rights simply because we're human though. Anything that showed up on our planet with a human or better than human capacity for thought should be extended rights (and I think we would). Aliens from another world that visit us with bigger brains than ours would likely be offered all of the rights we enjoy without question (by most of us). It's our ability to understand our actions, their impact on others, and the nature of our reality that gives us the ability to recognize the arbitrary nature of force and its use to achieve goals. That's the ability that distinguishes us from the rest of the animals on this planet.

Edit:

Can't own a bald eagle either, but that's because they're endangered - which is not really part of the discussion.

Vince_Fiero · Jan 14, 2012

GTsail290
Couldn't human rights be an evolutionary response that humans have devised to ensure the continuance of the species? A response that is evolving as we learn what works and what does not work in regard to rights and behaviors between humans?

We are only accelerating this by taking away subjectivity, using objective logic and getting to the only defendable position more quickly.

I´m not valued as negotiator since I think logically, that the other is illogical makes them incorrect. But they do not value me being right, since I do not accept that they value things that are incorrect. For me they just slow down the process.

Danoff
The point is that once you've violated someone else's rights, you prove yourself incapable of understanding/observing rights and so you lose them.

You can not loose them they are innate.
We are reaching the limit of the objective.
When you state that you can loose your Human Rights, you will have to judge them differently then infinite. That was proven to be illogical.

You seem to value an illogical definition of Human Rights. Why?

Edit: we still can't define notions like "∞-∞", they are subjective.

GTsail290
If human rights hinge upon the requirement that "you need to observe the rights of others" Why is it a stretch to think that human rights spring from the existence of "others"?

I agree but it does not invalidate Human Rights as discussed.
It states that Human is maybe too limited and should be extended to Computer, Animal, etc....

Animals can not have rights, since they can not defend them: Was an answer I got before. I did not value that statement and it is open for me.

Danoff
Are any of you comfortable in a world where people can be slaves, murdered, sold as property (as women are still in the middle east) and that this is somehow justifiable because we can't pass judgement on those cultures? Shouldn't the animosity be directed at the notion that human interaction is arbitrary and that any behavior is as good as the next?

You state you should avoid judgements yet use arguments with judgements. It shows we understand that even our quest holds judgement. The judgement to value something defendable.

I also have the impression we are discussing too much objective versus subjective in terms of it is a fact/definition, something I value.
Value is partially subjective, we can not change that. But discussion is not about value, value is about negotiation. Discussion is about logic.

So there are definitions of rights people here seem to value:
1) Rights are innate, come out of logic. But will include a value judgement (objectively you have the duty to agree values against which to judge to be able to defend your rights) a negotiations part.
I rejected the option you can work purely objective, logical since that would be an assumption that only judgements based purely on Human rights are valuable, which I do not believe you can prove. Might be a next step.
2) Rights are objectively written in laws, they are a social negotiation process of interaction that leads to agreements between the actors.

1) Has been proven to be correct, logical, defendable in discussion. With the right to live (proven 1 2).
If you do not value this logical reasoning you should state why not, it will help to improve it.
e.g. I value the wrong theory of Newton F=m*a with m as a constant, since it simple to use and practical day to day. It is a reasonable estimate as long as I do not apply it near the speed of light.

But since some in the thread value it so much, call it the only defendable position, we should discuss why as well.
ok I apply logic on the rights as a pure negotiation process option 2.

2) Rights are objectively written in laws, they are a social process of interaction that leads to agreements between the actors.
But I do not need interaction to come to the laws on Human Rights; I think about what I accept that people do to me. I think about what I can do to others. Twice I´m the subject. So to state you need interation to describe interaction is illogical, it would assume that I need interacton with someone else to think about them. But to think you only need a concept you do not need the other to be present. We think about aliens, see below.
So stating that rights are a social process is incorrect, illogical.

I do not value a definition of rights that I can not defend, so I can not value that rights are a social process, it is illogical.
Why would you value (option 2) a definition of rights that you can not defend?

You would be defending colonists killing the Humans they find in the new land, there was no interaction yet so the autochtone had no rights. It is illogical, you would not accept that from colonists coming to your country either. It is pure subjective, I value autochtone less then me. I can impose my might. It is illogical, incorrect.
Edit: If people used logic for/defendable rights they would have avoided a lot of suffering in the past that we now know was based on incorrect feelings.

Danoff
We don't have rights simply because we're human though. Anything that showed up on our planet with a human or better than human capacity for thought should be extended rights (and I think we would).

And if they have might, we hope that they have logic (they will discuss) and will accept our logical Human Rights.
Edit: To shoot them first would be against their Alien rights, it would be illogical, incorrect, not defendable.

Vince_Fiero · Jan 14, 2012

Value is less subjective as one might think.

I have the Human Right to have an opinion on the value of Human Rights.
If someone would put a value 0, you can not defend that Human Right anymore. The value of rights needs to be infite or it becomes illogical, incorrect, not defendable.

I can create any social right (subjective) that also gets infinite value so that can invalidate Human Rights (objective).
Using might you can impose rights, but it was shown to be illogical, can not be defended.
So the rights that would be social rights (only exist out of interaction) would be rights that anyone can accept. But that is the definition of Human Rights. So if you find a Social Right that has infinite value it must be a Human Right.
So there are no social rights that invalidate Human Rights.

Human Rights are inherently incoherent remains as possibility to reject them but that would be a wrong definition.
(to be improved, but whow this helped me, hope you value it).

Objective Rights (or whatever you want to call it) are:
* Objective: Innate, result of logic (you need no interaction to describe the right how to interact, (proven))
* Rights: Something you can defend, based on logic

Out of that:
* if there is no you, you can not have something innate, you can not defend it
* you can not have an Objective Right to have an opinion on the value of Objective Rights (above)
* you can not loose them, they are innate of infinite value. A right that would invalidate an other Objective right is a Objective Right. If the other right is invalidated it is not an Objective Right, but subjective, it would be illogical to call it an Objective Right, incorrect to state it as one.
* you have to apply them equally to other Objects by definition, if you can apply them differently to other objects they are against the definition. It would reject the fact that you can defend it, the definition becomes illogical when you value objects, it becomes subjective. Objective Rights that you as Object have; you have to except other Objects to have equally as well.

Less important, the rights identified (work in progress):
* you have the right to defend your Objective rights. Otherwise they would not be rights, if you can not defend them.
This introduces the objective obligation to agree on the value system you judge against. Otherwise you can not judge.
That value system can not deny the infinite value of Objective Rights or it would be illogical (proven ).
Subjective Rights always have less value then Objective Rights (see above)
* there is an Objective Right to live. Otherwise you can not defend youself against an attacker, it would would be illogical.
* there is the Objective Right get knowingly correct information. Otherwise you can not defend yourself on a correct basis. The others can lie to break down your defence.
* there is the Objective Right to remain silent. Since otherwise you could be forced to give incorrect information or not defend your rights.

So everyone was right? What we were discussing were definitions.
Objective right = right out of logic, irrefutable, more worth then the rest.
Object = Human, makes the rights subjective, thus of less value (Objectively) then the Objective Rights. Human Rights are subjective.
Human Rights do not exist if there are no Humans; correct, but the Objective Rights do. The Objective Rights are innate to all Objects. The Object has the right to remain silent on the fact if they understand that or not or use the right to defend themselves on their Objective rights.

But people that were defending that the subjective Human Rights that do not respect the Objective Rights had the same value as Human Rights that do respect Objective Rights were wrong: See conclusions out of Objective Definition.

If the Objective Rights are innate, of infinite value and do not need discussion since I can logically create them in my head. There is no value in this thread.
The value of this thread is not to create Objective Rights, they are innate. The value of the thread is to give people the know-how to express them in English, logically. This is also a way to defend your Human Rights, express them before they are violated an know where you become subjective.

Can subjective rights exist, rights of less value by definition above then Objective rights?

Danoff · Jan 14, 2012

Vince_Fiero
You can not loose them they are innate.

They're based on the proposition of objectivity. If you demonstrate a subjective value system, you can be responded to with a subjective value system.

Wolf-M was right to poke where he did, as I lay awake this morning thinking about this subject, I realized that there is a minor chink in the armor that needs to be fixed in my argument. It's actually not difficult at all to fix, but it requires that I rephrase a few things (TM already has gotten me to rephrase the notion of reciprocity).

I know this is something of a punk move in this discussion, but I'm not entirely sure I want to lay out the solution in one unabridged piece here on this internet forum. I am planning to write a book on this subject at some point and while this is an awesome place to hone the discussion, I don't necessarily want to put it in a form that can be copy pasted into a book by anyone who is reading. So I've been a little coy in the past with my argument, and I'll have to keep being ever so slightly coy. That being said, the trolley problem is one that picks at this little chink in the armor, and so I'll solve the trolley problem the with the same fix.

In the trolley problem, you have 5 individuals on a track unknowingly in danger of being run over by a trolley coming down the track. The individuals have no way of avoiding the trolley (they're in a gorge with steep walls), and so they will be killed. You notice this and notice that there is a fork in the rail, and that you can switch the track so that the trolley avoids the 5 and heads down another gorge where there is 1 worker on the track who will be killed. The question is whether to flip the switch.

Here's the chink. If you flip the switch via a utilitarian calculus that saving 5 is more important than saving 1, you're making the value judgement that 5 random people's lives are worth more than 1 and you are initiating force against the 1 with that as the justification. This is not might makes right.

Here's the response. Valuing 5 lives more than valuing 1 life is still a subjective value judgement. There are many subjective value systems in which 1 human life could be considered worth more than 5, or in which killing the maximum number of humans is the goal. If we discover that the 5 are prisoners and the 1 organizes the single most successful charity in the world and is responsible for saving millions of lives, does that change the outcome? It does illustrate the subjective nature of valuing 5 lives over 1. Perhaps you come to the conclusion completely differently and decide that the flip of a coin should decide their fate. You flip the coin and decide which way to throw the switch. This would also be a subjective value judgement, that that particular coin, flipped at that particular time, by that particular person should determine the fate of the people below.

...and so we know that flipping the switch for any of these reasons (and an infinite number more), is a subjective value judgement that has no place in an objective system. Objectively, you have now demonstrated a willingness to participate in a subjective system and have opened yourself to action within an infinite number of subjective value systems - none of which can be determined superior to another by the nature of subjectivity (there is no right answer).

So there you have it. The use of a subjective utilitarian calculus to flip the switch is no more defensible than using a slightly different utilitarian calculus not to flip the switch and removes you from objectivity. Your demonstrated belief in subjective value judgement leaves you open to any number of actions including imprisonment.

Nothing has changed with the fundamental problem of flipping the switch. It is still not supportable objectively. The objective action is not to make a subjective judgement, leaving the switch alone.

Vince_Fiero · Jan 14, 2012

Danoff
Vince_Fiero
You can not loose them they are innate.

Click to expand...

They're based on the proposition of objectivity. If you demonstrate a subjective value system, you can be responded to with a subjective value system

If you value that, it is incorrect, illogical.
Objectivity is not changed by subjective action. If the Human Right is Objective, you keep it, independent how you act. Otherwise if you start using subjective value yourself, you would lose your Human Rights as well.

I have the Human Right to live. I kill someone since he killed someone. Killing is against the Human Right to live, I would not accept people to kill me for that killing. So someone that kills (even killers) is illogical.

But then Self Defence is illogical? Self Defence can be defended as an action to defend your Human Right to live. So you put the infinite value of your Human Right to live against the infinite value of the attackers right to live. It remains illogical to kill, you do not respect their right. Since the attacker violated your right first, you have the best case to defend. But the killer never lost his right to live, the Objective Human Rights are innate, you can not loose them. Once the person is not a clear direct thread to you, killing that person will be very difficult to defend.

Danoff · Jan 14, 2012

Vince_Fiero
If you value that, it is incorrect, illogical.
Objectivity is not changed by subjective action. If the Human Right is Objective, you keep it, independent how you act.

Nope.

Once you demonstrate that you are not adhering to an objective basis for interaction, you open yourself to subjective action by your own reasoning. How can an attacker that claims might-makes-right cry foul when you respond with might-makes-right... he established it.

============================================================

After annoying my wife with discussions of human rights all morning, I have come to a realization about why people may take issue with my claims - and it is perhaps because I have not chosen the right words to express myself.

I am not claiming that subjective value systems are wrong... objectively. Such a thing would be impossible (as I myself have said in this thread - subjective concepts cannot be right or wrong). I am not claiming to know that there is an objective system that can tell us that murder is wrong. I am claiming that a system that permits murder is subjective... and that subjective is inherently useless for discussions of interpersonal behavior since each individual will have their own set of subjective values.

My argument boils down to a few incredibly basic concepts:

- Subjective values have no bearing on interaction since they are by definition based on individual perception
- As a result, the only system that can weigh on interaction is an objective one
- An objective system cannot permit subjective values to result in coercive force between individuals.

None of that says slavery is wrong, for example. It says that since slavery is not objective, it should not be permitted in an objective system (and the goal is an objective system).

The concept of subjective human rights is a bit of an oxymoron since subjectivity depends on perception, and the notion of right is meant to be independent of perception. So I define the conclusions that I draw from an objective framework to be "human rights".

Does that make any more sense to anyone than what I've already written?

From this you can conclude that in an objective system individuals have the following:
- Freedom from subjective initiation of force (which is the only kind known)
- Right to life
- Right to self defense
- The objective functions of government
- Capitalism
- Right to property
- Right to contract
- Etc.

Vince_Fiero · Jan 15, 2012

Danoff
I am not claiming that subjective value systems are wrong... objectively. Such a thing would be impossible (as I myself have said in this thread - subjective concepts cannot be right or wrong). I am not claiming to know that there is an objective system that can tell us that murder is wrong. I am claiming that a system that permits murder is subjective... and that subjective is inherently useless for discussions of interpersonal behavior since each individual will have their own set of subjective values.

My argument boils down to a few incredibly basic concepts:

- Subjective values have no bearing on interaction since they are by definition based on individual perception
- As a result, the only system that can weigh on interaction is an objective one
- An objective system cannot permit subjective values to result in coercive force between individuals.

+1
We are almost there, we still disagree on the exact limit between objective and subjective?
Again if you can loose the rights they can not be Objective, Objective rights are innate. You judge someone that has violated rights, it is a judgement = subjective, it does not change that person´s objective rights. (more language then difference in principles)

The most interesting discussion is on Self Defence an inherent conflicting case, here reformulated:
I have an Objective Right to live. My attacker has an Objective Right to live.
The other infringes my right to live, takes the action, the responsibility.
I have as only option to defend my right or die: Actions that infringe my or the attacker´s rights. It is the responsibilty of the attacker that I had to infringe Objective Rights.

There can not be an Objective Right to Live, the definition of life is subjective. It is illogical to call something objective when there is a subjective part in it.

That is where the Objective Obligation to agree on a value system for judgement comes in (what value has the definition of life used by both parties). What happens when you do not agree, you try to exercise your rights, but the other party obstructs by stating that all the value systems you propose are unacceptable for him and the other party insists on value systems that you can not accept. Does your right disappear? No the right is innate. Do you have the objective right to force judgement from a court that you accept unilaterally?
Does it not come down to "Might is Right", the one that can inforce their value system wins? The Uebermensch rules. The Right to live is Objective, but it is the judgement that I value practically and that is subjective.

Back to the Bolchevic Great Terror: The people that were executed could be represented by their grand-children, their right still exists. The decision to kill them was based on the fact that they were a threat against the People, infringing the right to live of the people. The rights always existed, the value judgement of the arguments changed with whom had the might to inforce their value system.
So all we should discuss is that the judgement of Human Rights (defended or violated), is all subjective and it is irrelevant what you choose? But your answer should also be valid in the next case.

"Objective Rights" v.s. "Might is Right" using a trolley.
To show the final battle, and why the trolley is so hard, I need a slightly modified case.

A heavy large trolley, broke lose and is going downhill on a track at high speed. The track splits into 2 tracks, track A and track B.
The configuration is so that the trolley will take track A if nothing is changed.
You as a highly qualified inspection engineer are in a narrow path on track A, you can not get off the track in time before the trolley will kill you. Your security equipment includes a remote controller for the switch between track A and track B.
There are 5 criminals (murderers) in a chain gang in a narrow path on track B, pulling out weeds that survived spraying, they can not get off the track in time if the trolley would come their way. Their security is guaranteed through guards at both side of the narrow path and the configuration of the switch, deviating anything that comes down the track away from them.

Objectively it is about:
1) Everyone has their Human Rights at danger, all choices are immoral, against Objective Human Rights with infinite value.
2) You have the might and can choose to use it to protect your Objective Human Right.
3) When you use your might and turn the switch, you kill 5 people, you take responsibility.

Your immoral choices are:
1) I do not take responsibility (subjective), the trolley is the killing force: I innact and die.
2) I assume my choices: I do not kill 5 = I value more 5 survive then 1, that I die is not my responsibility, I value logical decisions based on Objective Rights and Utilitarian rules (subjective).
3) I assume my choices, might is right: I kill 5 and will explain my choice with the value (subjective) I put to my live compared to the others. I´m comparing infinity with infinity; it is pure subjective.

Would you die? There is no objectivity in the descision, it depends on your values. So all we should discuss is that the judgement is all subjective and it is irrelevant what you choose?

About might and difficulty of choices:
[Youtube]rMMHUzm22oE[/Youtube]

Danoff · Jan 15, 2012

Vince_Fiero
+1
Again if you can loose the rights they can not be Objective, Objective rights are innate.

Self defense is the application of force to prevent the application of a subjective standard (not arbitrary). It is consistent with the original premise, that an objective standard is superior to a subjective standard.

VF
Objectively it is about:
1) Everyone has their Human Rights at danger, all choices are immoral, against Objective Human Rights with infinite value.
2) You have the might and can choose to use it to protect your Objective Human Right.
3) When you use your might and turn the switch, you kill 5 people, you take responsibility.

Your immoral choices are:
1) I do not take responsibility (subjective), the trolley is the killing force: I innact and die.
2) I assume my choices: I do not kill 5 = I value more 5 survive then 1, that I die is not my responsibility, I value logical decisions based on Objective Rights and Utilitarian rules (subjective).
3) I assume my choices, might is right: I kill 5 and will explain my choice with the value (subjective) I put to my live compared to the others. I´m comparing infinity with infinity; it is pure subjective.

Would you die? There is no objectivity in the descision, it depends on your values. So all we should discuss is that the judgement is all subjective and it is irrelevant what you choose?

Murderers have already demonstrated a willingness to subscribe to a subjective value system, so killing them does not violate their rights - they have forfeit them. That being said, you take responsibility for the knowledge of their murder. If they were falsely imprisoned, you are in the wrong and guilty of murder yourself.

The only choice within the confines of human rights is to let yourself be killed (you always have the right to kill yourself, objectivity does not prescribe an arbitrary force preventing you from making a voluntary decision such as suicide). You could choose to trust the state that the prisoners are murderers and kill them. If they are, in fact, murderers, you have done no wrong. If they are not, you have committed a rights violation. You are risking your morality and your rights on this choice.

Wolf-M · Jan 16, 2012

Touring Mars
The invention of human rights and the widespread adoption of them has taken millenia to get to where we are today. Defining and accepting rights as social norms has evolved alongside the need to create and enforce laws that uphold them and punish those who violate the rights of others. Arguably, one's human rights are completely worthless unless you happen to live in a society where other people recognise them and are willing to enforce them on your behalf, by upholding the law and threatening retaliatory force in your stead in the event that someone kills you. Without this legal embodiment of human rights, human rights effectively cease to exist in any meaningful way, and are reduced to mere wishes like that quoted above.

Human rights haven't always existed (and cannot possibly have), just as humans haven't always existed - and I don't accept that they are either God-given or born of pure logic. I think it is considerably more likely that the basic human rights that we claim today arose out of a collective will to live in peace with other people, with the aim of maximising survival, and that their only true reality exists in the form of laws.

Can't sum it up better than what is said above.

Vince_Fiero
Logic is the only way to reason. Take a rational position.
Something logical is correct. Something illogical is incorrect.

An argument being logical only makes it a valid one. It shows nothing related to its correctness; nor does it show whether it is reasonable to adopt the conclusion.

Take the following as an example

Premise 1: Four-legged animals are mammals.
Premise 2: A lizard has four legs.
Conclusion: Therefore a lizard is a mammal.

The argument is perfectly logical, yet it is neither correct nor reasonable to say that a lizard is a mammal.

The problem lies with the premises. In this case, the premises can be contradicted by reference to verifiable facts (a mammal may have two legs and a lizard is not a mammal). In the case of scientific theories, one bases his/her conclusions (ie predictions) on assumptions that act as the premises of the argument. Once the premises are shown to be false, the whole argument collapses. In the case of human rights, the argument for it being "innate", or "objective", is premised upon the idea that "if we want others to respect our rights, we ought to do the same to them".

This correctness, or objectivity, of this premise, however, can never be demonstrated. It is simply a desire that we have - given the experience of the past that we have learnt. It may be a perfectly reasonable value to cherish, or to defend, but it remains a subjective value we make and nothing can change that.

Danoff
If this were true, it would render rights meaningless altogether. If rights are subjective, they do not exist. Subjective concepts cannot apply to more than the individual or like-minded individuals. They have no bearing on interaction with someone who does not share that concept, because there is no right or wrong in subjectivity - only opinion. The person who you're putting in jail claims that murder is perfectly fine (via might makes right), and you have no response to him other than that you have a mob with you. If the mob went the other way, you'd be the one in jail.

That's why we have laws. Morality is purely opinion-based; the system on which your rights/freedom hinges is the law.

Danoff
Should people be saying "you know what, I think you're wrong but that would be awesome. I hope you're right, let's get to the bottom of this and see if we can work something out that satisfies me"? Shouldn't that be the response I get? Are any of you comfortable in a world where people can be slaves, murdered, sold as property (as women are still in the middle east) and that this is somehow justifiable because we can't pass judgement on those cultures? Shouldn't the animosity be directed at the notion that human interaction is arbitrary and that any behavior is as good as the next?

I admire your ambition.

Danoff
...and so we know that flipping the switch for any of these reasons (and an infinite number more), is a subjective value judgement that has no place in an objective system. Objectively, you have now demonstrated a willingness to participate in a subjective system and have opened yourself to action within an infinite number of subjective value systems - none of which can be determined superior to another by the nature of subjectivity (there is no right answer).

...

I am not claiming that subjective value systems are wrong... objectively. Such a thing would be impossible (as I myself have said in this thread - subjective concepts cannot be right or wrong). I am not claiming to know that there is an objective system that can tell us that murder is wrong. I am claiming that a system that permits murder is subjective... and that subjective is inherently useless for discussions of interpersonal behavior since each individual will have their own set of subjective values.

But if there's no "right" or "wrong" attached to action and inaction, then is there really a point to be obsessed with working under a purely objective system?

This really leads to the conclusion that for whatever controversial issue that will arise you will only take a neutral position, or to simply ignore it altogether. If someone asks you whether you support abortion or not, you, refusing to be influenced by subjective belief, would be unable to provide an answer. Either way, you would be infringing one party's rights (the mother's right to bodily autonomy and integrity and the foetus's right to life). The only permissible path to take to avoid any subjective influence is to disregard the whole issue.

The same for euthanasia, organ markets, cloning, gun laws etc

Because it is inevitable that all opinions involve subjective value judgments - whether we value the lives of human beings as an aggregate value or whether we believe that every human being has a choice to decide whether or not they would save others at the expense of their own lives.

Vince_Fiero · Jan 16, 2012

Wolf-M
An argument being logical only makes it a valid one. It shows nothing related to its correctness; nor does it show whether it is reasonable to adopt the conclusion.

Take the following as an example

Premise 1: Four-legged animals are mammals.
Premise 2: A lizard has four legs.
Conclusion: Therefore a lizard is a mammal.

The argument is perfectly logical, yet it is neither correct nor reasonable to say that a lizard is a mammal.

The problem lies with the premises. In this case, the premises can be contradicted by reference to verifiable facts (a mammal may have two legs and a lizard is not a mammal). In the case of scientific theories, one bases his/her conclusions (ie predictions) on assumptions that act as the premises of the argument. Once the premises are shown to be false, the whole argument collapses. In the case of human rights, the argument for it being "innate", or "objective", is premised upon the idea that "if we want others to respect our rights, we ought to do the same to them".

This correctness, or objectivity, of this premise, however, can never be demonstrated. It is simply a desire that we have - given the experience of the past that we have learnt. It may be a perfectly reasonable value to cherish, or to defend, but it remains a subjective value we make and nothing can change that.

I agree, we should stop discussion on what logic is, we agree. It seems that words like valid, incorrect, wrong are the discussion, not logic.

So show the premises to be false:

Objective Rights (or whatever you want to call it) are:
* Objective: result of logic
* Rights: Something you can defend, based on logic

Do objective rights have an issue in the premises not?

The fact is that "if we want others to respect our rights, we ought to respect their rights". If you take the premises that this is not valid like you do: "if we want others to respect our rights, we have no obligation to give others these rights"
You can defend your right. But another can not defend that right for them. So there is a difference between the both of you. But that is introducing a new premises. You are trying to prove a logic invalid, incorrect or wrong, by introducing a new element. The statement is a logical (objective) conclusion based on the definition of a right. It is possible to value it or not value it (that is subjective) but that does not make the statement less logical, objective.

Some people value more: A right is something society decided, nothing more.
That is illogical (if you could make up any right, how will you defend it against someone that made up a contradictionary right) and that you value that statement does not make the Objective Rights less logical (objective), it is just that you do not value the objective view.

As stated before, where the right is objective, the result of defending it, the judgment is always subjective. So practically there is always subjectivity in it. We agree on this last point as well.

Danoff · Jan 16, 2012

Wolf-M
In the case of human rights, the argument for it being "innate", or "objective", is premised upon the idea that "if we want others to respect our rights, we ought to do the same to them".

That's funny, who said that?

Wolf-M
But if there's no "right" or "wrong" attached to action and inaction, then is there really a point to be obsessed with working under a purely objective system?

Yes.

Objective vs subjective is a surrogate for right and wrong. Applying your own subjective values to someone else is arbitrary and unjustifiable (given that their subjective values can and will differ and neither of you is right). Objectivity is the only justifiable position.

Wolf-M
This really leads to the conclusion that for whatever controversial issue that will arise you will only take a neutral position, or to simply ignore it altogether. If someone asks you whether you support abortion or not, you, refusing to be influenced by subjective belief, would be unable to provide an answer. Either way, you would be infringing one party's rights (the mother's right to bodily autonomy and integrity and the foetus's right to life). The only permissible path to take to avoid any subjective influence is to disregard the whole issue.

The objective position on abortion is that a fetus is biologically no more capable of understanding/observing the rights of others than a baby cow, and until it is born, it is biologically part of the mother's body and her property.

Vince_Fiero · Jan 17, 2012

Danoff
Wolf-M
In the case of human rights, the argument for it being "innate", or "objective", is premised upon the idea that "if we want others to respect our rights, we ought to do the same to them".

Click to expand...

That's funny, who said that?

I do believe it is one of my logical conclusion that has not been refuted, but which is not valued a lot.

Danoff
Objective vs subjective is a surrogate for right and wrong. Applying your own subjective values to someone else is arbitrary and unjustifiable (given that their subjective values can and will differ and neither of you is right). Objectivity is the only justifiable position.

I fully agree with Wolf-M that we mix up objective and subjective too much and that we are insufficiently clear where we do this.
That is why many (including me) seemed to think they can do anything.
The discussions here can help us get that clear, in our minds and in our language.

The right on life is subjective, since life is a subjective term.

You have the objective right to determine your own destiny, that is choose the actions you do and the actions that are done on you.
If you would not have this there would be no reason to have a rights, or someone that chooses your destiny would be able to choose that you would not defend your rights.
For humans the right of life comes out of this. So where life is a subjective value, it is supported by an objective right, so of infinite value.
However again any judgment how you defend your right compared to other rights is again subjective.

e.g.: Danoff: Right to Capitalism, is just an implementation of the right to decide on your destiny. There is no need to introduce a subjective point like Capitalism.

Danoff
The objective position on abortion is that a fetus is biologically no more capable of understanding/observing the rights of others than a baby cow, and until it is born, it is biologically part of the mother's body and her property.

I believe that the point is correctly stated this way:
"When the fetus is capable of independent life it is a Human with full Human Rights"

I agree with Wolf-M that this is subjective in the sense of Human and life.
I agree with Danoff that there is something objective, the fetus has the right "to determine your own destiny".

That the fetus (turned into a baby) will have a reasoning that it will only want to get food and sleep and not more destiny does not change the Objective Rights of the fetus.

That the mother is responsible for the dependent baby is a subjective statement.

Vince_Fiero · Jan 17, 2012

So the next:

Danoff Self defense is the application of force to prevent the application of a subjective standard (not arbitrary). It is consistent with the original premise, that an objective standard is superior to a subjective standard.

I believe this language usage goes wrong somewhere:

1) Bluedies have a subjective standard that respects the objective standards, e.g. the Bluedies respect Objective Human Rights, but value the colour blue as superior to red. That Bluedies have this subjective standard gives you the right to use force (you seem to decide what is arbitrary or not)? That would be logical out of the definition above. This is against Objective Rights, you have no need to use force (e.g. imprisonment) to protect your Objective Rights, so when you use Force you are breaking the Objective Rights of the Bluedies? => Do you have the Objective Right to have a Subjective Value System that respects Objective Rights? I would say so.

It would only be that you have to use force to be able to protect your Objective Rights which would objectively be a reason to use force. Like imprisonment. (Thanks for the thought though it solved another thing in my head)

2) "An objective standard is superior to a subjective standard" as premise; would indicate that it is only a value statement (premise), so not objective. I concluded it logically out of the definition of Objective Rights, without value statements, which makes it universal, innate. Try to formulate a logical argumentation for yourself out of "Objective" and "Right" definitions that has the conclusion "An objective standard is superior to a subjective standard", it will prove your point and help you understand better.

Danoff · Jan 17, 2012

Wolf-M
In the case of human rights, the argument for it being "innate", or "objective", is premised upon the idea that "if we want others to respect our rights, we ought to do the same to them".

Vince_Fiero
I do believe it is one of my logical conclusion that has not been refuted, but which is not valued a lot.

Perhaps you did, but I don't remember it. Those ideas are present in my arguments as well - but not so much the value judgement that "we ought to do the same", but rather the logical consequence of demonstrating the willingness to force your own subjective standards on those around you... and it's not the premise either, it's a conclusion. So I take lots of issue with Wolf's statement.

Vince_Fiero
The right on life is subjective, since life is a subjective term.

It's an abbreviation of the right not to have others initiate deadly force against you (which is just an extension of force). So the subjectivity of "life" isn't really important.

Vince_Fiero
You have the objective right to determine your own destiny, that is choose the actions you do and the actions that are done on you.

Determining your own destiny could be taken to mean determining the outcome of your life - which is not entirely supportable. If you determine, for example, that your destiny should be to become a billionaire - I would say you do not have an objective right for that to happen. I'm sure that's not what you're trying to say, but I'd recommend a tweak to the language in order to avoid that interpretation.

Vince_Fiero
So where life is a subjective value, it is supported by an objective right, so of infinite value.

Agreed.

Vince_Fiero
However again any judgment how you defend your right compared to other rights is again subjective.

...and that's ok. It's entirely up to you how you want to defend your rights and whether you want to. That's because it's an entirely self-contained subjective valuation. As long as you're applying subjective values to yourself, you can be certain that you subscribe to those values. It's when you try to apply them to others that you get into trouble. Self-defense itself is objectively supported, how you choose to do it is an application of your own values to yourself.

Vince_Fiero
e.g.: Danoff: Right to Capitalism, is just an implementation of the right to decide on your destiny. There is no need to introduce a subjective point like Capitalism.

I think we can define capitalism (in this sense) objectively as the voluntary exchange of goods and services. This is, of course, obvious once you have a freedom from the initiation of force.

Vince_Fiero
I believe that the point is correctly stated this way:
"When the fetus is capable of independent life it is a Human with full Human Rights"

Can't agree with that.

Why do human beings have rights and not, say, a baby cow? The attempt to apply subjective values to someone else is not objectively supported, but a baby cow cannot possibly understand that or live within the confines of it. The baby cow simply lives by the law of nature. This establishes a certain cognitive threshold for rights (let's ignore for a moment that that threshold is not well defined), and fetuses don't meet that threshold.

I would say rights are not specific to humans, but that only humans are able to meet the criteria for them (cognitively). Fetuses do not meet this criteria, and only gradually do children. This is why even children do not have "full human rights". Their parents force a subjective value system on them, and this is acceptable - children will do the same to each other. They learn pieces of objectivity as they develop and gain rights as they go. Even some adult humans do not fully develop this ability and end up without most rights (in prison).

me
Danoff Self defense is the application of force to prevent the application of a subjective standard (not arbitrary). It is consistent with the original premise, that an objective standard is superior to a subjective standard.

Vince_Fiero
1) Bluedies have a subjective standard that respects the objective standards, e.g. the Bluedies respect Objective Human Rights, but value the colour blue as superior to red. That Bluedies have this subjective standard gives you the right to use force (you seem to decide what is arbitrary or not)? That would be logical out of the definition above.

Don't think so. These two statements contradict:

me
Self defense is the application of force to prevent the application of a subjective standard

you
That Bluedies have this subjective standard gives you the right to use force

...hmmm, I may be figuring out what you're getting at. No I'm not claiming that just because someone lives by their own subjective value system you can go murder them. What I'm claiming is that that person cannot force you to adhere to those values.

Vince_Fiero
Do you have the Objective Right to have a Subjective Value System that respects Objective Rights? I would say so.

Yes, you can have any subjective value standard you want because you know whether you subscribe to it. What you cannot do is apply that standard to others (using force).

Vince_Fiero
2) "An objective standard is superior to a subjective standard" as premise; would indicate that it is only a value statement (premise), so not objective. I concluded it logically out of the definition of Objective Rights, without value statements, which makes it universal, innate. Try to formulate a logical argumentation for yourself out of "Objective" and "Right" definitions that has the conclusion "An objective standard is superior to a subjective standard", it will prove your point and help you understand better.

Yea, that's fair. I was being brief. What I mean by:

"An objective standard is superior to a subjective standard"

is:

me
- Subjective values have no bearing on interaction since they are by definition based on individual perception
- As a result, the only system that can weigh on interaction is an objective one

Wolf-M · Jan 17, 2012

Vince_Fiero
The fact is that "if we want others to respect our rights, we ought to respect their rights". If you take the premises that this is not valid like you do: "if we want others to respect our rights, we have no obligation to give others these rights"
You can defend your right. But another can not defend that right for them. So there is a difference between the both of you. But that is introducing a new premises. You are trying to prove a logic invalid, incorrect or wrong, by introducing a new element. The statement is a logical (objective) conclusion based on the definition of a right. It is possible to value it or not value it (that is subjective) but that does not make the statement less logical, objective.

But why must we want others to respect our rights? Why can't we return to the natural state where survival of the fittest is king?

Is it not one's personal opinion, based on our experience, in deciding whether we would be better off living in a society where rights are reciprocally recognised or one where rights are defined according to strength?

Danoff
Objective vs subjective is a surrogate for right and wrong. Applying your own subjective values to someone else is arbitrary and unjustifiable (given that their subjective values can and will differ and neither of you is right). Objectivity is the only justifiable position.

I just thought you claimed that there is no right or wrong in this discussion...

I am not claiming that subjective value systems are wrong... objectively. Such a thing would be impossible (as I myself have said in this thread - subjective concepts cannot be right or wrong). I am not claiming to know that there is an objective system that can tell us that murder is wrong. I am claiming that a system that permits murder is subjective... and that subjective is inherently useless for discussions of interpersonal behavior since each individual will have their own set of subjective values.

Anyway, the issue I take with your statement is that one cannot take an objective stance towards issues of morality.

Perhaps Vince_Fiero is saying the same thing in other words - we must be careful in knowing what we mean by objective.

We can say that our values, while purely subjective, has objectively the support of most people as being rational or acceptable. I guess that is the position of Vince_Fiero.

Which I agree is a perfectly reasonable one. It's just another way of expressing the "innateness"/"self-evidence" argument.

On the other hand, we can never say that our morality is based on purely objective assumptions. When you assume that human beings are equal, that, too, is a subjective value judgment.

It is no different from saying that "I assume that human beings should be able to fight for resources depending on their strength/power".

After making that one single assumption which involves subjective values, one can almost immediately proceed to the logical conclusion that "might makes right", using conveniently Danoff's phrase, is "correct", or "right", or "reasonable" a conclusion.

So after all, the correctness and logicality of the "we should respect others' right for others to respect us" and "might makes right" are the same.

Both are based on assumptions that involve subjective value judgmnet; at the same time both are logical extrapolations of the assumptions we have made, and as such being "rational" or "reasonable" conclusions.

Human Rights

Off the track driver

Off the track driver

Off the track driver

ツーリング マルス

Off the track driver

ツーリング マルス

Off the track driver

Off the track driver

Off the track driver

Off the track driver

Off the track driver

Wolf on wheels

Off the track driver

Off the track driver

Off the track driver

Wolf on wheels

Similar threads

ツーリングマルス

ツーリングマルス