Human Rights
- Thread starter Danoff
- 2,239 comments
- 116,728 views
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
me
So the initiation of force is (whether conscious or not) a subjective value judgement - that your will should trump your neighbor's. But self-defense is the same value judgement right? When someone attacks you and you defend yourself, you are also making a subjective value judgement that your will should trump the will of your attacker. How is this objectively founded?
The attacker has intrinsically made the positive assertion that a non-objective foundation is a sufficient basis for the use of force. Thus, by the attacker's own assertion, no objective basis for a forceful response is needed. The inability to recognize the lack of an objective justification for the attempted usurping of another conscious individual's will makes it unnecessary and difficult for the individuals around him to maintain objectivity in interacting with him.
The simplest possible example is a person encountering a lion in the wild. The lion recognizes only the subjective notion that its ability as a predator and its desire for food should result in the death of the person. Whether the person has any other subjective abilities that outweigh the lion's hunger or predatory abilities is not of any concern. When the lion attacks, the person cannot objectively state that it is not the best possible outcome for him to die. But he does not have to. The lion makes no attempt at objectivity, recognizing that and responding in kind is itself an objective response. In the absence of objective terms, the person is responding to the attacker by his own terms.
Fundamentally, what I am establishing is a right to one's life and liberty. This includes the right to defend that life and liberty from those who would choose to infringe it.
Next I want to talk about inaction...
- 17,865
- 509
Aside from the fact that you still haven't presented much of a view. You just continue to bang on the drum of "this is all pointless" and now saying there is no system that works when the human mind requires a system to function. More or less, you seem to come across as an anarchist that denies it.
I think I've provided plenty of views just not in the form you prefer. And I would rather bang that drum than posit myself on a pile of crap so that I could simply defend it, because realistically posturing in such a way is absurd. Forgive me if I'm raining on your parade but saying these things is just as important as your words are to you.
The human mind has a life span and is constantly changing, enough said.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
The problem is you're not saying anything. You're doing the intellectual equivalent of plugging your ears and saying "I'm not listening". You're pretending that this is a two-way conversation, but really all you're doing is repeating the same single line over and over "it's all pointless" - as though this is somehow some sort of intellectual rebuttal rather than what it is, an empty claim.
Here's my suggestion to you - read and respond. As far as I can tell, you're doing neither. As long as that's the case, I'm bored.
I really think it's the opposite. If I have taken an effort to say "it's all pointless" and you can't show that it is "?pointful?" how could we get any further. As if I had successfully subverted what you say and how you say it but what you were doing prior to the truth was much funner. If I've made any claim whatsoever it would be hard to say that it was empty considering your course of action. Using words as numbers is a mistake.
It's not all pointless. Just the majority of it. And since you're bored I resign. Will check back in later and post if something is so majestic that it needs to be torn to the ground.
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
As far as my country goes, there wasn't much violence required, but political activism played a huge part in the creation of both of our nations. The American Revolution was fought because of oppression from the colonial masters, and after the war was over, the Americans created the Declaration of Independence and later the Bill of Rights and Constitution (IMO two of the greatest documents of all time). The first order of business was to create laws to protect against the sort of rights violations the British committed for years. They obviously thought there was a point to implementing a system, and if it were still followed today I think America would be better off.
Nihilism is the natural state of man according to Heidegger. As much as would like to it's hard for me to dispute that. Either way it seems you have to accept this truth before venturing off into any belief, which is difficult after accepting, otherwise you could argue you're just a product of circumstance.
Keef
Premium
- 25,060
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
The Declaration of Independence was actually written near the beginning of the Revolutionary War, in 1776, and it only took a month from conception to ratification on July 4th. The War didn't end until 1783. The Constitution came in 1787 and was ratified the next year. The Bill of Rights are simply the first 10 amendments to the original constitution, written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. And thank God they reviewed their work and realized it didn't quite accomplish what they intended.
Fun Fact: The US Constitution is the shortest ever written. Why? Because it says what needs to be said, and nothing more.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Terms like anarchist and nihilist seem too studied, formalist and open to interpretation. I'd like to ask if the term alienation might be more appropriate.
I'm sure the youth of today are more alienated than those of the 50's and 60's when I was a kid. For instance, our music was sweet, simple and sappy. It spoke of love and affection. Along the way, that changed.
Okay, maybe we are all more alienated today than then. The question is, what do we do about it?
Respectfully,
Dotini
- 17,865
- 509
Doubtful. I think it is more the fact that societal pressures are radically different, with individualism being far easier to express. Censorship has been reduced, and what is considered acceptable has changed greatly in both personal and professional environments. I don't think people are any more alienated than they were before, it is just more clearly expressed.
However, you could consider that relative to accessing an incredible amount of information leads to people being far more aware of general trivial nature of their actions. This in turn plays on natural insecurities. Of course, this same information system allows us to explore ideas and concepts in far more detail than would perhaps be the case 50 years ago. An intelligent person can easily teach themselves anything at this point, between full text books being online and peer groups to help them resolve issues they cannot figure out on their own. In the past, they'd have to rely on the library system and making direct contacts to find people with similar interests.
Isolation maybe more so, as people will at times simply ignore the people around them in favor of discussing things online with their "peers." I myself have been going out less because I honestly find the vast majority of people about as interesting as watching paint dry.
But not, I don't think human psychology has changed that much. It is just easier to express ones feelings and doubts - just look at the number of threads about people explaining their complicated personal situations. Years ago, you wouldn't go tell your entire class about such issues, but when you can be anyone, people express themselves more honestly.
