Human Rights

[drivehard]

My main reason for a response was the fact that you said: "But this type of discussion is not worth having - and if this is your point, it wasn't worth making." And if you re-read my posts I think you will see that's my focus. So now that the see-saw is set I think you'll notice the whole of history squatting down on the board of wood leaving a monstrous crater in the earth.

But let me attempt to make a foolish leap into your...stuff.

"When one man initiates force against another, he is making a value judgement."

When one man initiates force he dosen't even have to posess the faculty of judgement. When one man initiates force against another it is most commonly in the name of self preservation which is inherent in all living things. The weeds fight over the sun and men kill over ideas or religion. Which are ultimatley an advanced form substanence.

" that presupposes that the ability to produce force is objectively the best possible ability."

Did you just make that up? It dosen't presuppose anything. You are making up the mind of something that does not even need a mind to exist: The use of force.

 

[blaaah]

Define "rights" here. If you mean to say that some sort of supernatural God figure is not going to step in and actively prevent you from doing whatever it is that you want to, no matter how awful, to innocent people - then you're right - there are no "rights" but the laws of physics. No universal judge is going to stop you from committing atrocities. Likewise, no universal judge will step in and save you from having atrocities committed against you.

But this type of discussion is not worth having - and if this is your point, it wasn't worth making. Nobody here thinks that the invisible morality police stop you from doing whatever you want.

So you must be using "rights" in some other context. What is that context? Are you saying that there is no way for anyone to objectively judge an action? That's a massive statement, and it's wrong.

When one man initiates force against another, he is making a value judgement. "My ability to produce force justifies its use." or perhaps "The use of my ability to produce force requires no justification". The use of force to subvert one conscious being's will in favor of another's is inherently a value judgement that presupposes that the ability to produce force is objectively the best possible ability. This claim, that might makes right, is impossible to demonstrate and has been invalidated a million times over.

You farm apples. Your neighbor farms oranges. You like apples better than oranges. Your neighbor likes oranges better than apples. You force your neighbor to farm apples. You may say "my ability to force my neighbor to farm apples justifies my actions" or "I do not have to justify my actions". But you've made a subjective value judgement that your preference for apples combined with your ability to force your neighbor should result in a subversion of your neighbor's will. This subjective value judgement does not hold up to any sort of objective standard.

That's not the end of the subject, of course. You could try to claim that the lack of action requires its own justification or is a subjective value judgement, or you could try to claim that self defense falls into the same category, etc. etc. I'll address those later.

For now, this much stands on its own. The initiation of the use of force is inherently a subjective value judgement that cannot stand up to any objective measure. It is not justifiable in any circumstance.

All you are doing is expressing an opinion, which I think is wrong.
We can try and define rights, I had not put any definition on rights. Do I have the rights to define what the rights exactly are? Or do you?

 

[Danoff]

My main reason for a response was the fact that you said: "But this type of discussion is not worth having - and if this is your point, it wasn't worth making." And if you re-read my posts I think you will see that's my focus.

You were really trying to disprove the notion that an invisible morality police will always prevent you from doing anything immoral? I highly doubt it. Re-read my post, the discussion I said was not worth having was whether mankind is capable of committing any kind of atrocity. We are. End of discussion. As you say, history has proven that.

"When one man initiates force against another, he is making a value judgement."

When one man initiates force he dosen't even have to posess the faculty of judgement. When one man initiates force against another it is most commonly in the name of self preservation which is inherent in all living things. The weeds fight over the sun and men kill over ideas or religion. Which are ultimatley an advanced form substanence.

" that presupposes that the ability to produce force is objectively the best possible ability."

Did you just make that up? It dosen't presuppose anything. You are making up the mind of something that does not even need a mind to exist: The use of force.

Ok, fair enough. I worded that too ambiguously. I don't mean that the use of force involves a conscious or calculated value judgement. I don't mean that a cave man thinks "Unguh unguh. Grog has stick. Grog ability to steal meat from Glar-the-comedian is objectively more valuable than Glar's comedic dexterity." What I mean is that the action itself implies a value judgement. Perhaps this seems like a sticking point, but I think it's a fairly simple concept.

When you see a lion take down a wildebeest, the lion is not consciously thinking anything - but you still recognize the "might makes right" value judgement that nature dictates. That is the currency of nature - physical fitness (the ability to produce force). Whether it's a weed growing in your yard, a lion, a cave man, or a business man, you can recognize the "might makes right", or "survival of the fittest" value judgement every time it comes into play.

But physical fitness is not an objectively valuable trait. Many would consider Stephen Hawking to be more valuable than Mike Tyson. Nature, it seems, has not provided us with a method to objectively judge an action. But as far as actions go, force is a peculiar one - it enables one person to impose his will, or his value system on another. Since we cannot determine who's will, or who's values are correct, and there is no objective determination that might makes right, we know that the initiation of force is an unjustifiable act. That doesn't prevent you from doing it, but it does prevent you from claiming that it is just.

All you are doing is expressing an opinion, which I think is wrong.

Please quote any sentence that contains an opinion in my post. And I shouldn't have to say this but I will anyway - limit it to the part of my post where I'm explaining my position. Start after this statement:

So you must be using "rights" in some other context. What is that context? Are you saying that there is no way for anyone to objectively judge an action? That's a massive statement, and it's wrong.

...read down from there. Let me know when you find an opinion.

 

[blaaah]

I was thinking this bit:
"The use of force to subvert one conscious being's will in favor of another's is inherently a value judgement that presupposes that the ability to produce force is objectively the best possible ability. This claim, that might makes right, is impossible to demonstrate and has been invalidated a million times over."

There does not have to be a presupposition, and it doesn't have to be related to it being the best possible ability.

What is the invalidation of might means right? And in what context are we talking about right or rights?

 

[Danoff]

First of all, thank you for responding as asked.

I was thinking this bit:
"The use of force to subvert one conscious being's will in favor of another's is inherently a value judgement that presupposes that the ability to produce force is objectively the best possible ability. This claim, that might makes right, is impossible to demonstrate and has been invalidated a million times over."

There does not have to be a presupposition, and it doesn't have to be related to it being the best possible ability.

What is the invalidation of might means right? And in what context are we talking about right or rights?

Secondly, I know that you're going to be frustrated by this, but I'm going to make my point. None of this is opinion. Whether or not there has to be a presupposition is not an opinion. Either there is, or is not a presupposition requirement. There is no opinion on the matter.

"Might makes right" can either be demonstrated or it can't. Maybe the use of the word "impossible" is overstepping a bit, but it's also not an opinion. Either someone can demonstrate it, or they cannot.

When discussing human rights, morality, etc. etc., way too much is made of "opinion" and of all opinions being equal. We can still use rationality, and that rationality can be judged either right or wrong. The statements I made above, whether "The use of force to subvert one conscious being's will in favor of another's is inherently a value judgement that presupposes that the ability to produce force is objectively the best possible ability." is a true or false statement is something that is demonstrable and deterministic.

There does not have to be a presupposition, and it doesn't have to be related to it being the best possible ability.

Please give me a scenario which illustrates this point.

What is the invalidation of might means right? And in what context are we talking about right or rights?

When I say "might makes right", I mean the notion that the ability to produce force justifies its use.

 

[drivehard]

"You were really trying to disprove the notion that an invisible morality police will always prevent you from doing anything immoral?"

Not in the least. By that logic you could assume that because I argue in favor of rights being dictated by nature and not by man that I am in fact a murderer. Which couldn't be further from the truth.

" Perhaps this seems like a sticking point, but I think it's a fairly simple concept."

It sure does seem like a sticking point and if your tone was as vehement as some others on this forum we would sit down right here and never move an inch. It is a very simple concept. A concept that occasionally dances along the line of good and evil. I will even admit, for the most part, that I stand on the side opposite the one I argue in favor of. But for the purpose of thought and discussion it is of infinite more value to favor the laws of nature or physics. One could argue that the most enduring advancements in human rights come from those laws that are most closely related to nature.

"but you still recognize the "might makes right" value judgement that nature dictates"

Nature dictates much more that "might makes right". I do not like that term at all. You're implying a bit much there.

"But physical fitness is not an objectively valuable trait. Many would consider Stephen Hawking to be more valuable than Mike Tyson."

Physical fitness is an objectively valuable trait even if I myself consider Stephen Hawking to be more valuable than Mike Tyson. Not only can it be linked to longevity of life but also quality of life. I would love to do Yoga but I just can't hump over those social presuppositions.

 

[blaaah]

blaaah:
There does not have to be a presupposition, and it doesn't have to be related to it being the best possible ability.

Please give me a scenario which illustrates this point.

The language is getting too confusing and clouded for me to grasp.
Say for example a Killer Whale uses it's force to grab a seal and just play with it for awhile before killing it. Is it presupposing that it's force is right to subverse the will of the seal into being afraid or conform to either letting itself be caught or trying to escape. What is the question we are asking? And the killer Whale might not be thinking this is the best possible ability what I am doing right now. It's just thinking I like playing with seals. I think we might be thinking about different things.





blaaah:
What is the invalidation of might means right? And in what context are we talking about right or rights?

When I say "might makes right", I mean the notion that the ability to produce force justifies its use.

It justifies it for the person who chooses to justify it, it does not justify it to some other observers.
So it can be both wrong and right, or overall neither. Is that what we agree on?

 

[Danoff]

" Perhaps this seems like a sticking point, but I think it's a fairly simple concept."

It sure does seem like a sticking point and if your tone was as vehement as some others on this forum we would sit down right here and never move an inch. It is a very simple concept. A concept that occasionally dances along the line of good and evil. I will even admit, for the most part, that I stand on the side opposite the one I argue in favor of. But for the purpose of thought and discussion it is of infinite more value to favor the laws of nature or physics. One could argue that the most enduring advancements in human rights come from those laws that are most closely related to nature.

So... what makes you think it's a sticking point?

"but you still recognize the "might makes right" value judgement that nature dictates"

Nature dictates much more that "might makes right". I do not like that term at all. You're implying a bit much there.

Like what?

"But physical fitness is not an objectively valuable trait. Many would consider Stephen Hawking to be more valuable than Mike Tyson."

Physical fitness is an objectively valuable trait even if I myself consider Stephen Hawking to be more valuable than Mike Tyson. Not only can it be linked to longevity of life but also quality of life. I would love to do Yoga but I just can't hump over those social presuppositions.

Longevity of life is not an objectively valuable trait. Ask anyone who has committed suicide (good luck), smoked a cigarette, or eaten a hamburger. Not only do many people voluntarily choose to shorten their lives in favor of other experiences, but many people do not wish to live to old age.

There is nothing objective about valuing physical fitness. In human society, in fact, we used to strive to be unfit. It was seen as something that conferred status. The less fit you were, the richer it meant you were - this was true of both women and men.

But beyond the question of whether it has a non-zero objective value, is the question of what objective value it has - especially with respect to other attributes. That's the real trick, to determine when physical fitness is objectively more important than intelligence or creativity. It cannot be done.

 

[Danoff]

blaaah:
There does not have to be a presupposition, and it doesn't have to be related to it being the best possible ability.

The language is getting too confusing and clouded for me to grasp.
Say for example a Killer Whale uses it's force to grab a seal and just play with it for awhile before killing it. Is it presupposing that it's force is right to subverse the will of the seal into being afraid or conform to either letting itself be caught or trying to escape. What is the question we are asking? And the killer Whale might not be thinking this is the best possible ability what I am doing right now. It's just thinking I like playing with seals. I think we might be thinking about different things.

That's not really what I'm looking for.

The use of force to subvert one conscious being's will in favor of another's is inherently a value judgement that presupposes that the ability to produce force is objectively the best possible ability.

I'm looking for something more along the lines of:

Tom knows he is stronger than Jim. Jim is going to commit suicide. Tom catches Jim and stops the suicide attempt. Here Tom is subverting Jim's will using force, but his justification is not that might-makes-right, but that Jim's life was more valuable than Jim's will.

Something like that... and now that I've answered my own question, I'll have to think on it for a bit. It seems that I need to generalize my original statement a bit more. Instead, I should have said something more like this:

"The use of force to subvert one conscious being's will in favor of another's is inherently a value judgement that presupposes that either the ability to produce force is objectively the best possible ability, or the value of one conscious being's will is objectively greater than the other's."

Something like that, but perhaps more succinct.

It justifies it for the person who chooses to justify it, it does not justify it to some other observers.
So it can be both wrong and right, or overall neither. Is that what we agree on?

I'm not concerned with subjective justification. I'm concerned with objective justification. I claim that the objective justification does not exist - and I think we do agree on that. What we disagree on is whether that result has meaning.

 

[drivehard]

"So... what makes you think it's a sticking point?"

I don't know. Maybe a sickly popular sympathy or tendency to reason. Maybe a massive leap of faith when proclaiming the truth. Maybe the fact we just uncovered and contemplated tugging the one string holding your argument together.

"Like what?"

I don't know. Intelligence makes right. Speed makes right. etc.

And all those things are objectively valuable traits considering there relation to nature or self-preservation.

Considering the turns we are taking, which is all I really need, I respectfully leap back from out of this...stuff.

 

[Joel]

"So... what makes you think it's a sticking point?"

I don't know. Maybe a sickly popular sympathy or tendency to reason. Maybe a massive leap of faith when proclaiming the truth. Maybe the fact we just uncovered and contemplated tugging the one string holding your argument together.

"Like what?"

I don't know. Intelligence makes right. Speed makes right. etc.

And all those things are objectively valuable traits considering there relation to nature or self-preservation.

Considering the turns we are taking, which is all I really need, I respectfully leap back from out of this...stuff.

I understand that sometimes the way Danoff types and the vocabulary he uses can be difficult to grasp, but I suggest reading this thread over and seeing what some other members have said in the past before dismissing his opinion. You really haven't cut the only string holding his argument together, it's just a tough argument to articulate.

 

[drivehard]

Ya I never said I cut it. And I have no intention of reading through this entire thread in order to argue in a form that is apparently preferred.

 

[blaaah]

It's not easy English.
And I'm too tired to think on it now.
Might have another go sometime.

 

[Joel]

Ya I never said I cut it. And I have no intention of reading through this entire thread in order to argue in a form that is apparently preferred.

It's not that it's preferred, I just meant if you read through other parts of the thread, you might find an explanation which is easier to understand. I'm not trying to talk down on you in any way, I'm just saying that the way Danoff articulate his thoughts can be tricky to understand.

 

[drivehard]

Ya no worries.

 

[Wolf-M]

Secondly, I know that you're going to be frustrated by this, but I'm going to make my point. None of this is opinion. Whether or not there has to be a presupposition is not an opinion. Either there is, or is not a presupposition requirement. There is no opinion on the matter.

"Might makes right" can either be demonstrated or it can't. Maybe the use of the word "impossible" is overstepping a bit, but it's also not an opinion. Either someone can demonstrate it, or they cannot.

When discussing human rights, morality, etc. etc., way too much is made of "opinion" and of all opinions being equal. We can still use rationality, and that rationality can be judged either right or wrong. The statements I made above, whether "The use of force to subvert one conscious being's will in favor of another's is inherently a value judgement that presupposes that the ability to produce force is objectively the best possible ability." is a true or false statement is something that is demonstrable and deterministic.

I would think otherwise.

Whilst I agree that "might does not make right", this is entirely a subjective opinion. I believe that there is a higher law that governs us all human beings. It is really adherence to this higher law that human dignity and integrity are preserved. What I have said is, however, necessarily subjective in nature.

Objectivity is scientific reasoning. In the realm of philosophy that is almost a foreign concept.

The only one objective theory I am aware of in relation to this discussion is the concept of utilitarianism which I have stated many times above.

There is "utility" in an act if overall pleasure of a commnuity (derived from that act in question) - overall pain of that community > 0

This is particularly true with regard to the "pure" utilitarian theory put forward by Jeremy Bentham that places no distinction between higher forms of pleasure (noble acts) and lower forms of pleasure (eg lazing around all day long).


Whilst you keep insisting on an objective rebuttal of your proposition, I keep wondering on what objective ground your proposition is based in the first place.

 

[Danoff]

As succinctly as possible...

Whilst I agree that "might does not make right", this is entirely a subjective opinion.

There is no objective basis for "might makes right". Therefore, it is not an objectively justifiable position.

There is no opinion in that. There is no subjectivity. This is only the fact that no one has provided any objective rationale in support of the concept "might makes right". Indeed, this is an intuitive result.

The only one objective theory I am aware of in relation to this discussion is the concept of utilitarianism which I have stated many times above.

There is "utility" in an act if overall pleasure of a commnuity (derived from that act in question) - overall pain of that community > 0

The concept of maximizing some sort of utility function is an objective concept. Which utility function to pick is a subjective choice. This is why utilitarianism isn't objective.

 

[Dotini]

The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects the right to free speech. This is presumably an important human right, otherwise it wouldn't be first. This was a slam-dunk 8-1 decision, seeming to endorse the view expressed here at GTP that you don't have a right to not be offended, Alioto dissenting.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...freedom-of-speech-case-at-u-s-high-court.html

The U.S. Supreme Court, saying even hurtful speech is protected by the Constitution, ruled that members of a Kansas church can’t be punished for staging an anti-homosexual demonstration at a military funeral.

The justices, voting 8-1, said a lower court was right to throw out a $5 million award to a man who said the demonstration marred his son’s funeral. The protesters, from the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, bore signs that said God was killing U.S. soldiers to punish the country for accepting homosexuality.

The case tested the limits of the First Amendment, forcing the justices to choose between endorsing broad speech rights and protecting private citizens from being targeted by offensive protests. Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the latter option would mean “punishing the speaker.”

“As a nation we have chosen a different course -- to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate,” Roberts wrote. “That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.”

 

[drivehard]

Do you think the oppisition to gayness is going to linger around like racism? Concealed for civic reasons but harbored in homes forever. You look down the road and strangley I see more hope for gayness. Don't know why. Maybe because the superficial element isn't as strong.

 

[Joel]

Do you think the oppisition to gayness is going to linger around like racism? Concealed for civic reasons but harbored in homes forever. You look down the road and strangley I see more hope for gayness. Don't know why. Maybe because the superficial element isn't as strong.

I think it'll last longer than racism, because of religions and their stance on homosexuality. The Catholic Church doesn't have a negative opinion on black people, but gays are "against nature". The WBC is a joke really, something like 30 members, nobody takes them seriously. However, they'll exist for as long as the 1st amendment is unchanged (hopefully forever). Homophobia seems like it's on the verge of being eradicated in the civilized world, as far as laws against it go. However, we're collectively still a long way to go before you can say homphobia is gone.


On topic, yay Supreme Court! They made the right call, you restrict one person's speech, someone else restricts yours.

 

[Sam48]

The Catholic Church doesn't have a negative opinion on black people, but gays are "against nature".

As a Catholic, even I don't quite get this. Yes, it says homo-sexuality is a sin in the Bible, but then again, so is atheism. However, we don't have a negative opinion about atheists, we just kind of ignore them.

This then means we ignore the ones who do not believe in God, yet we have a negative view of gays, even though both of these acts are against the Bible's teachings. On top of that, not all gays are atheists. So why the Catholic church has such a negative view of gays, I'm not sure.

 

[Joel]

As a Catholic, even I don't quite get this. Yes, it says homo-sexuality is a sin in the Bible, but then again, so is atheism. However, we don't have a negative opinion about atheists, we just kind of ignore them.

This then means we ignore the ones who do not believe in God, yet we have a negative view of gays, even though both of these acts are against the Bible's teachings. On top of that, not all gays are atheists. So why the Catholic church has such a negative view of gays, I'm not sure.

Most homophobic Catholics tell me "we don't hate homosexuals, we just don't support their activities". I don't get it, the same couple verses in the bible which denounce homosexuality say that eating shrimp is a sin. If anything, the WBC should be picketing with "GOD HATES SHRIMP" signs. I think it's a good sign that pretty much everyone besides a small super radical Christian group thinks the WBC are a bunch of whack-jobs.

 

[A2K78]

I think it'll last longer than racism, because of religions and their stance on homosexuality. The Catholic Church doesn't have a negative opinion on black people, but gays are "against nature".

You do understand that there are tons of non-religioius individuals who either persecute homosexuals or just is unconfortable with the practice, right? Ever heard of Adolf Hilter?

Anyhow when it come to things such as hate or discrimination they are things you can't eradicate. Why? Hate was with us from the start and hate will be with us until the very last human dies off.

Overall if you think the world will one day become some Star Trek-like utopia where prejudices are done away with then you are living in nothing but fantasy land.

 

[A2K78]

Seeing how we are now talking about gays and human rights, are gays now trying to trample on the human rights of christians? Well someone seem to think so and even make a very convincing arguement as to why:


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/gabb6.1.1.html

 

[DK]

You do understand that there are tons of non-religioius individuals who either persecute homosexuals or just is unconfortable with the practice, right? Ever heard of Adolf Hilter?

Actually, Hitler was not an atheist.

 

[Sam48]

Actually, Hitler was not an atheist.

He quickly through out his Catholic beliefs at a young age. He is no doubt an atheist, no matter what wiki says.

 

[DK]

^ Yes, but in an interview he stated that he believed that a God-like figure told him to get out of a trench when it was about to be shelled.

 

[Dotini]

In a shocking unanimous decision, the Supreme Court decided that corporations do not actually enjoy quite all of the rights accorded to humans. Will wonders never cease?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/02/supreme-court-corporations-dont-have-personal-privacy-rights/
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Tuesday that AT&T and other corporations do not have personal privacy rights under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Freedom of Information Act requires federal agencies to make documents publicly available upon request, but contains an exemption for documents that "constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

Claiming they were a "corporation citizen," AT&T tried to use the personal privacy exemption to prevent the disclosure of federal government documents about the company.

The unanimous decision in Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc. reversed a ruling by a US appeals court in favor the telecommunications company.

 

[blaaah]

Overall if you think the world will one day become some Star Trek-like utopia where prejudices are done away with then you are living in nothing but fantasy land.

Hey don't rule out a forced utopia of zero prejudices, for example a world superpower police state injects and implants all beings which prevent the brain from forming prejudices. The effect would be permanent and genetically imprinted, the superpower would then disband and collapse,over thousands of years there would be a free and fair society, different cultures and traditions etc. But inside the bodies and minds there would be the zero prejudice project (ZPP) operating.

 

[Sam48]

^ Yes, but in an interview he stated that he believed that a God-like figure told him to get out of a trench when it was about to be shelled.

Well then what do you make of it? It really doesn't prove a whole lot in my opinion. Keep in mind that we are talking about a person who preferred the whole human race to have blond hair and blue eyes.