Human Rights

[Danoff]

Objective basis justifies nothing. We may want it to but it dosen't.

That doesn't make any sense. How is something objectively determined not justified? This is a semantics argument, my broadest definition of "justified" is that which is objectively supported.

There is an objective basis for survival would you agree?

To simple, no I cannot agree. Survival is not objectively supported in all circumstances and by all means. I've provided examples which illustrate that point.

If not what is there a purely objective basis for?

Two things come to mind. I've already given you one (just a few posts back), and hinted at the other. I don't like repeating myself and you ask me to do it a lot.

 

[drivehard]

Self defense isn't objectively supported in all circumstances and by any means considering self and defense is defined differently in all parts of the world.

The issue here is how you are saying things, which is why it may appear nobody is "paying attention". The math you use to argue, which has been called "mental masturbation", is entirely too narrow to explain human nature.

It's insulting to myself to engage in this.

"All is subjective" -somebody besides me said that.

 

[Famine]

Self defense isn't objectively supported in all circumstances and by any means considering self and defense is defined differently in all parts of the world.

You're using subjectivity to show how objectivity is wrong?

The issue here is how you are saying things, which is why it may appear nobody is "paying attention". The math you use to argue, which has been called "mental masturbation", is entirely too narrow to explain human nature.

It doesn't seek to explain human nature. That would be a subjective phenomenon.

Explain to us why your right to remain alive without interference or impedence from others depends upon anything else.

It's insulting to myself to engage in this.

"All is subjective" -somebody besides me said that.

Somebody who doesn't understand the universe.

 

[FoolKiller]

"All is subjective" -somebody besides me said that.

Well, then it must be true.

But Google has trouble with that exact phrase, however it does say that Gregory Bateson said "All experience is subjective." But that has a totally different meaning than what you quoted. Your quote would mean that the Earth is only here because a human thinks it is and sees it. That air is only here because we think we need to breathe it and do so. Gravity only exists because we think we should be stuck to the ground and are. Fact is, every object and natural force around you is objective. It is there outside of you and your experience. If you never existed the Earth, air, and gravity would go on as it always had. They are not subject to your or your experience.

But since quoting people other than ourselves seems to mean something.

Somebody besides me (Hilary Putnam) once said, "No sane person should believe that something is subjective merely because it cannot be settled beyond controversy."

 

[drivehard]

You're using subjectivity to show how objectivity is wrong?



It doesn't seek to explain human nature. That would be a subjective phenomenon.

Explain to us why your right to remain alive without interference or impedence from others depends upon anything else.



Somebody who doesn't understand the universe.

Those are the two conflicting ideas and it does the job just fine.

So if "human nature" is a subjective phenomenon how are "human rights" objectively justified? Human rights would ultimately fall into the realm of human nature would they not?

I don't have an ultimate right to remain alive. All I have are needs that must be met for me to stay alive.

Nobody understands the universe. Just bits and pieces of it. Unless you're getting ready to invoke your god soon.

 

[Keef]

Self defense isn't objectively supported in all circumstances and by any means considering self and defense is defined differently in all parts of the world.

Self-defense is objectively supported by the right to life, which is objectively supported.

The issue here is how you are saying things, which is why it may appear nobody is "paying attention". The math you use to argue, which has been called "mental masturbation", is entirely too narrow to explain human nature.

The issue here is your refusal to acknowledge these simple concepts that a 12 year old could pick up on. We're speaking English, what are you speaking? Danoff stated the point very clearly multiple times, and we all get it but you.

Must you uphold the Chicago socio-political stereotype so ferociously?

 

[drivehard]

Somebody besides me (Hilary Putnam) once said, "No sane person should believe that something is subjective merely because it cannot be settled beyond controversy."


And I would say:

No sane person should believe something is objective because they simply wish the controversy would disappear, or that there just plain sick of something.

 

[Keef]

So now you're arguing against an accomplished philosopher whose own statement clearly supports those made in this thread?

 

[FoolKiller]

No sane person should believe something is objective because they simply wish the controversy would disappear, or that there just plain sick of something.

Who did that? Me? Danoff? Danoff created this thread, hardly the actions of a man who wishes the controversy would disappear. He invited the controversy in order to discuss that he believes human rights are objective and exist despite how any person or group chooses to violate them.

I entered into this discussion of my own free will. Again, not the actions of someone who wishes the controversy would disappear.

 

[drivehard]

So now you're arguing against an accomplished philosopher whose own statement clearly supports those made in this thread?

Why do you not like it when I reference other people? I am no genious are you?

I believe the "accomplished philosopher" made that statement because nobody through out centuries of philosophic thought can logically conclude that something is purely objective.

So she gives up. She just wants it to be true. She basically says that without faith you are insane.

And I doubt I could handle myself in any respectable manner if I attempted to take her on. But Kierkagaard and many other "accomplished" philosophers could.

...by stating there is an objective basis you unsuccessfully end the controversy.

 

[Danoff]

"All is subjective" -somebody besides me said that.

1+1
A->B, not B, therefore, not A.

Somebody besides you is wrong. Please explain the subjectivity of Modus Tollens to me.

 

[drivehard]

I had to google that one. I'm not going to presume to know the complexity of your favorite formula or tell you I can absolutely deny it.

But is this a valid example of "modus tollens"?:

Premise 1: If Casey is a dog, then Casey has four legs.

Premise 2: Casey does not have four legs.

Conclusion: Therefore, Casey is not a dog.

 

[Keef]

I believe the "accomplished philosopher" made that statement because nobody through out centuries of philosophic thought can logically conclude that something is purely objective.

You've misunderstood his statement. What he said supports our argument, not yours.

He is saying that no sane person would ever call something subjective simply because they're tired of arguing about it. Ergo, "faithful" people are insane because they've given up on thoughtful discussions of objectivity.

That's why I questioned your quoting of a man who clearly supports objective reasoning.

 

[drivehard]

No that's not what he said.

Though I agree in that his statement supports your argument.

Another fine product of Chicago!

 

[Danoff]

I had to google that one. I'm not going to presume to know the complexity of your favorite formula or tell you I can absolutely deny it.

But is this a valid example of "modus tollens"?:

Premise 1: If Casey is a dog, then Casey has four legs.

Premise 2: Casey does not have four legs.

Conclusion: Therefore, Casey is not a dog.

Yes, that is a valid application of modus tollens. Modus Ponens, on the otherhand, would be saying "Casey is dog, therefore Casey has four legs" (including premise 1 obviously).

Now if, instead of premise 2 you said "Casey has four legs", if you then concluded that "Casey is a dog", you'd have fallen into the fallacy known as "affirming the consequent".

All of this is objective, none of it depends upon reality, experience, sensory perception, etc. and all of it has real consequence in reality, experience, sensory perception etc.

 

[drivehard]

Do all dogs have 4 legs?

 

[Danoff]

Do all dogs have 4 legs?

Nope.

*waits for drivehard to say "aha! Modus Tollens is disproven!"*

 

[Keef]

No that's not what he said.

His use of the word "beyond" is synonymous with "without".

"No sane person should believe that something is subjective merely because it cannot be settled beyond [outside of; without] controversy."

It follows that when a person encounters something that cannot be settled objectively without thorough discussion (like our argument, or faith) they often give up and resort to some sort of subjective explanation (like religion).

What do you think he is saying?

 

[drivehard]

His use of the word "beyond" is synonymous with "without".

"No sane person should believe that something is subjective merely because it cannot be settled beyond [outside of; without] controversy."

It follows that when a person encounters something that cannot be settled objectively without thorough discussion (like our argument, or faith) they often give up and resort to some sort of subjective explanation (like religion).

What do you think he is saying?

Ya I don't follow.

Reads to me as: simply because something is unresovable it should not be believed to be subjective.

 

[drivehard]

Nope.

*waits for drivehard to say "aha! Modus Tollens is disproven!"*

Like I said before I'm not going to presume to know the complexities of your favorite formula.

So please, enlighten me. Why does this not matter?

 

[Danoff]

Like I said before I'm not going to presume to know the complexities of your favorite formula.

So please, enlighten me. Why does this not matter?

The premise is false.

"Premise 1: If Casey is a dog, then Casey has four legs."

This requires that all dogs have four legs to be correct. Since the premise is false, the conclusion suffers from the same problem. But given the premise, the conclusion was correct. Again, this is an objective determination.

 

[drivehard]

And there is no false premise in your argument:

The initiation of force has no objective basis and is therefore not justified.

 

[Keef]

Ya I don't follow.

Reads to me as: simply because something is unresovable it should not be believed to be subjective.

Do you believe a philosopher would actually consider anything to be unresolvable? Is anything unresolvable?

 

[drivehard]

Yes.

And is there anything that remains unresolved?

 

[Keef]

Your stubbornness toward Danoff's argument remains unresolved.

 

[drivehard]

Unfortunatley it does.

Not in good conscience could I believe it is the truth.

The logic is beyond me but I remain unconvinced and without faith.

 

[Azuremen]

I fail to see why you are present then, if you have no interest in logic or other's actual opinions. From what I can tell, you just want to claim nothing can be solved so why bother. If this is truly how you feel, I suggest you get a job at Taco Bell and start smoking marijuana, the attitudes tend to run in parallel quite well. As does being an Internet Philosopher.

Conversely, you could make some effort to educate yourself better so as to understand the logic used by others. And perhaps to understand how they formulate their opinion.

As for whether things can be resolved, it truly depends on the scale of the system at hand. Newtonian mechanics will resolve a basic issue of kinetics relative to, say, a person. Of course, Newtonian mechanics falls apart if you change the system to a quantum or interstellar scale.

 

[Famine]

So if "human nature" is a subjective phenomenon how are "human rights" objectively justified? Human rights would ultimately fall into the realm of human nature would they not?

Nope. Rights have an objective basis - that is a basis that is wholly independent of any thought, word or deed. Human nature - our behaviour - is a subjective phenomenon, that is a phenomenon that depends upon variance of thoughts, words and deeds.

I don't have an ultimate right to remain alive.

Who said that you do?

Nobody understands the universe.

And yet you're happy to nail your colours to the mast of someone who would invoke the universal word "all"?

 

[drivehard]

I fail to see why you are present then, if you have no interest in logic or other's actual opinions. From what I can tell, you just want to claim nothing can be solved so why bother. If this is truly how you feel, I suggest you get a job at Taco Bell and start smoking marijuana, the attitudes tend to run in parallel quite well. As does being an Internet Philosopher.

Conversely, you could make some effort to educate yourself better so as to understand the logic used by others. And perhaps to understand how they formulate their opinion.

As for whether things can be resolved, it truly depends on the scale of the system at hand. Newtonian mechanics will resolve a basic issue of kinetics relative to, say, a person. Of course, Newtonian mechanics falls apart if you change the system to a quantum or interstellar scale.

Ya if I wanted to discuss the intricacies of modus tollem, which I am not qualified to discuss, I would be in a dry philosophy forum.

My interest in any opinion that posits absolute truth in morality or human rights is nill. But it is your opinion that this point is not worth making or that it is pointless. I'm not the only one without faith in "mental masturbation" and you would've considered that before the estrogen in the "system of the mind" appeared as a post. I must admit Taco Bell sounds frightful. Nonetheless I would rather live a meaningless life with a sour cream gun after watching peoples worldly ambitions mutate them into blind and faithful materialists.

Ya I agree. My education has been neglected as of late and should really be allowed to grow. However my present situation is pitiful. Similar to using logic to posit truth in morality.

I'm impressed!

 

[drivehard]

Nope. Rights have an objective basis - that is a basis that is wholly independent of any thought, word or deed. Human nature - our behaviour - is a subjective phenomenon, that is a phenomenon that depends upon variance of thoughts, words and deeds.



Who said that you do?



And yet you're happy to nail your colours to the mast of someone who would invoke the universal word "all"?

Why do rights have an objective basis?