Human Rights

[Dapper]

That we call the reference for evaluating Human Rights is cultural (language), but it does not matter how you call it. I go for this definition of Human Rights (at this moment):

A right is something you can defend.
There are Human Rights that every human has, since there are things a human can not accept others would do to him.
I assume the exact definition of Human is unimportant at this stage, sufficient is ... the ability to defend their rights.

Thus To have a consistent set of rules the human can not infringe the Human Rights of anyone else either, thus all humans have the same human rights.

A consistent set of rules is called laws, which are objective. Humans all having the same rights does not qualify rights as objective. Simply put, anyone can say whatever they want, including what our rights are.

Thus Human Rights are universal for humans.
Thus it is wrong (opposite of right) to act against Human Rights, it is against the definition of right, since if you do not accept someone else has the right then you can not defend it for yourself anymore.
Thus A morality (in sense of right and wrong) is wrong if it does not respect Human Rights. You can measure A morality (in sense of right and wrong) against Human rights.

I don't accept humans have any more rights than any other creature. Yet while encapsulated within a society, while respecting our laws, I am allotted everything our laws say. See how easy it is if there is something actually objective?

You morality has the subject "right". There are rights that are universal as proven above, Human Rights (or whatever you call it). Your morality is about wrong, as this is everything that is not right and there are universal rights so there is universal wrong. The universal parts are objective.

No 2 people have the same morality, how is that universal? How can you explain the 90%/10% divide on the trolley scenario? The only answer is morality is subjective... as empirical evidence proves.

I do not value your definition that rights are just in someones brain, because of the Human Rights definition above that is valuable and makes Human Rights universal (=Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices) = many brains even if they do not talk to each other. I do believe that you find very similar rights in the Bible, the Qur'an, Buddhist principles, philosophy, etc... but that is a consequence that is coherent, not proof, the logic above is proof.

I don't care what you think. That is the entire point. Logic is not always right, logic is not objective! Besides rhetoric, show me evidence of anything. You can't, just like danoff, and I'll stick with rights are merely a result of humans' way of life and that laws are set in place to objectively secure the artificial rights we have.

 

[Danoff]

Your argument is

If force then subjective.

Not subjective therefore not force???!!!


What argument is that??

Seriously? Read again:

Force is subjective and arbitrary and so with the goal of avoiding the subjective and arbitrary we must exclude force.

This is not rocket science.

And I must say again, you are not using modus tollens. You are denying the antecedent, which is why your argument is invalid as a matter of logic.

Already explained why that's not the case. You (don't really) respond by retreading.

I'm sorry I dont seem to find your statement to fit within logic terms.

Premise: If A then B. Conclusion: Not B then Not A

is a valid argument

I'm not 5 years old.

So I re-run your argument

If [might is right] then [human rights are subjective]?

Not even close to resembling my argument. Not sure why you keep doing this. Human rights don't even exist at anything that could be construed to be the state of the argument that I think you might be referring to. Not sure how this thing that hasn't been defined to that point could be considered subjective by something that we don't understand how is related.

It's a mess, stop trying to make what I'm saying into that.

You can only show that [might is right] cannot be established as a matter of objectivity. You can't even show that might is right is WRONG objectively.

....maybe you're getting there?

Even, giving you the benefit of doubt, that you can manage to establish that, at most you can show that A is wrong; ie [might is right] is wrong (which I do not agree), it does not follow that "human rights are subjective" is also wrong.

....maybe not.

You are mixing ideas.

The fact that the sun would come up tomorrow is established by empirical evidence.

Sortof, but a little off-track. The rational approach to reality is to proceed based on the knowledge at hand.

 

[Wolf-M]

If you can't even put your argument into simple terms of logic (ie with premises and a conclusion) and must resort to a long paragraph describing your views that shows something is wrong there.

Seriously? Read again:

Force is subjective and arbitrary and so with the goal of avoiding the subjective and arbitrary we must exclude force.

This is not rocket science.

It is not rocket science as a matter of value judgment.

Your statement is not objectively verifiable that's why it's not objective.

Come up with a logical argument to explain your story - is it that difficult?

If you fail to do so, you fail to establish that human rights are objective.

Logic is as simple as that (since you claim to rely on logic).

Already explained why that's not the case. You (don't really) respond by retreading.




I'm not 5 years old.



Not even close to resembling my argument. Not sure why you keep doing this. Human rights don't even exist at anything that could be construed to be the state of the argument that I think you might be referring to. Not sure how this thing that hasn't been defined to that point could be considered subjective by something that we don't understand how is related.

It's a mess, stop trying to make what I'm saying into that.



....maybe you're getting there?



....maybe not.



Sortof, but a little off-track. The rational approach to reality is to proceed based on the knowledge at hand.

If you are not relying on logic and instead human reasoning, then you cannot claim that your proposition is objectively right!! It's just so simple.

If instead your meaning of "objective" means knowledge at hand, that is just another way to say your're relying on self-evidence.

If it's objectively right, it cannot be challenged even 1000 years later. If your proposition will change as time progresses, it shows that you're relying on value judgments!

This, also, is not rocket science.

 

[Famine]

A consistent set of rules is called laws, which are objective.

If laws are objective:

• No two laws may contradict (they do)
• No-one may make new laws (they do)
• No-one may repeal laws (they do)

 

[Danoff]

If you can't even put your argument into simple terms of logic (ie with premises and a conclusion) and must resort to a long paragraph describing your views that shows something is wrong there.

I did, just for you. It's limiting (simplified more than is comfortable), but it works. Again, just for you:

Force implies subjectivity
Avoiding subjectivity implies avoiding force.

Where's the issue?

Your statement is not objectively verifiable that's why it's not objective.

I can think of several things you might be trying to say here, and I'm not sure which one it is. Since I don't feel like tackling all of them I'll just ask you to apply this to the above.

If instead your meaning of "objective" means knowledge at hand, that is just another way to say your're relying on self-evidence.

Once again, missing the point. Proceeding under the assumption that reality is as we perceive it is not self-evidence, it is the rational conclusion to an unknowable reality. That force, individuals, etc. may not exist does not concern me in the slightest (and 1000 years from now, we may discover that they do not exist). What concerns me is that under the premise that the universe is as we perceive it (which is the only rational conclusion with the facts at hand), human rights follow objectively.

If it's objectively right, it cannot be challenged even 1000 years later. If your proposition will change as time progresses, it shows that you're relying on value judgments!

Where's the issue with what I wrote above?

 

[Dapper]

If laws are objective:

• No two laws may contradict (they do)
• No-one may make new laws (they do)
• No-one may repeal laws (they do)

None of that is remotely true.
Laws "exist independently of perception".

 

[Famine]

None of that is remotely true.
Laws "exist independently of perception".

Laws are written by people according to feeling. Objective laws could never be wrong, which means no two laws anywhere could ever come into conflict (which they do), no laws could ever be repealed because they are objectively correct (though they are) and no new laws could ever be made because the existing ones are objectively correct (though they also are).

You even live in a country where your State's laws differ from the State next to it. Which is right when they do not agree? They cannot both be right, so they cannot be objective!


Here's a list of blood alcohol levels regarded as illegal:
0.05%, 0.15%, zero, 0.08%, 0.02% (but only for learners), no limit, 0.049%

Which is the right one objectively? They cannot all be right objectively. In fact they're all correct subjectively (it has been determine, in those territories, that alcohol in the blood is an impairment [except the ones with no limits, which either haven't decided or don't intend to] and that an impairment equivalent to a certain level in the average person is illegal), but none are objectively right. But you say law is objective... yet they seem to disagree...

 

[Dapper]

Laws are written by people according to feeling.

That doesn't discount their existence.

Objective laws could never be wrong, which means no two laws anywhere could ever come into conflict (which they do), no laws could ever be repealed because they are objectively correct (though they are) and no new laws could ever be made because the existing ones are objectively correct (though they also are).

You even live in a country where your State's laws differ from the State next to it. Which is right when they do not agree? They cannot both be right, so they cannot be objective!

None of that has anything to do with laws being real.

 

[Famine]

That doesn't discount their existence.

None of that has anything to do with laws being real.

Oh dear lord, what is he talking about now?

Laws are subjective. They are written by feeling and contradict. They are not objective or they could not contradict. No-one said anything about them not existing or being real...

 

[Dapper]

Oh dear lord, what is he talking about now?

What are you talking about? And you continue to assault your own character.

Laws are subjective. They are written by feeling and contradict. They are not objective or they could not contradict. No-one said anything about them not existing or being real...

The fact they are real makes them objective.

 

[Joel]

The fact they are real makes them objective.

Ermmm...wut?

 

[Keef]

Laws aren't objective. They might be based on objective reasons, such as evidence showing a need for said law, and the results of the law might be demonstrable through objective data, but the law itself is as objective as God; they're both written in a book somewhere.

 

[Famine]

What are you talking about?

The part where you said something subjective is objective even when it disagrees without something else that's also subjective that you think is objective.

I guess we've Dappered* past that part now?

And you continue to assault your own character.

Whatever that means.

The fact they are real makes them objective.

Ermmm...wut?

I know. I didn't think he was going to say that either. Then he did.

I'm... just... wow...


* To ignore as inconvenient on the pretence of irrelevance despite arguing it just then.

 

[Dapper]

Ermmm...wut?

Crickey...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objective

2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

Laws are real. Laws are written and do not have emotions. By definition laws are objective.

Rights are subjective. They do not meet any qualification for being objective.

The part where you said something subjective is objective...

You'd think that because you are wrong.

Laws aren't objective. They might be based on objective reasons, such as evidence showing a need for said law, and the results of the law might be demonstrable through objective data, but the law itself is as objective as God; they're both written in a book somewhere.

The difference between God and laws is one is applicable to everyone, the other is a personal choice. God is in a book, like laws, but God is not testable or verifiable, unlike laws. God is like rights, not laws.

 

[Joel]

Laws are real. Laws are written and do not have emotions. By definition laws are objective.

Laws are definitely not uninfluenced by emotions or prejudices. As Famine said with the BAC laws in different countries, how can those be objective? There's no mathematical formula, they just decided that 0.08 (in the case of my country) was the limit and that's that. Not objective in the slightest.

 

[Famine]

Laws are real. Laws are written and do not have emotions.

They're written by people who very much do have emotions. They are written according to cultural and social pressures, influenced by prejudices, feelings, fears, worries and, occasionally, money. By definition, laws are subjective and subject to change on whim.

Rights are subjective. They do not meet any qualification for being objective.

Except the part where they're a logical extraction (uninfluenced by prejudice or emotion) of our existence.

You'd think that because you are wrong.

Had any luck proving that all those different, subjective blood alcohol contents are in fact objective and don't disagree yet?

Nope, thought not.

Hey, how about proving the objectivity of the world's varying seatbelt laws? Try gun control. Oooh, what about capital punishment?


Brilliant.

 

[Dapper]

Laws are definitely not uninfluenced by emotions or prejudices. As Famine said with the BAC laws in different countries, how can those be objective? There's no mathematical formula, they just decided that 0.08 (in the case of my country) was the limit and that's that. Not objective in the slightest.

The basis of a law is not objective. The law itself is objective. Same with the universe.

Except the part where they're a logical extraction (uninfluenced by prejudice or emotion) of our existence.

Logical extraction does not mean real.

Had any luck proving that all those different, subjective blood alcohol contents are in fact objective and don't disagree yet?

Nope, thought not.

I think so.

 

[Famine]

The basis of a law is not objective. The law itself is objective.

Explain the differing blood alcohol levels then. Different opinions does not equal objectivity.

Logical extraction does not mean real.

Logical extraction means objective though - uninfluenced by the thinker.

 

[Dapper]

Explain the differing blood alcohol levels then. Different opinions does not equal objectivity.

The basis of a law is not objective. The law itself is objective. Same with the universe.

Logical extraction means objective though - uninfluenced by the thinker.

The process is objective, the outcome is not. Biggles put it succinctly-

To give you an analogy: a scientist comes up with a theory. In & of itself it’s perfectly logical & rationally argued, but when the theory is subjected to empirical testing it proves to be faulty. You cannot insist that because the reasoning behind the theory is logical the theory must be “flawless”. The scientist must go back & adjust his theory to account for the difference between theory & practice.

 

[Wolf-M]

I did, just for you. It's limiting (simplified more than is comfortable), but it works. Again, just for you:

Force implies subjectivity
Avoiding subjectivity implies avoiding force.

Where's the issue?

Because avoiding subjectivity implies avoiding force DOES NOT establish that human rights are objective/human beings are equal etc etc!!

They are two DIFFERENT propositions.

You must link avoiding force WITH human rights are objective.

And the only way you can do it is by arguing tha

If [might makes right], then [humans are unequal].

Because [might makes right] is wrong, therefore NOT [humans are unequal] (ie humans are equal).


That's the only way you can link "force" with "objectivity of human rights", and I say that is a logical fallacy.

Once again, missing the point. Proceeding under the assumption that reality is as we perceive it is not self-evidence, it is the rational conclusion to an unknowable reality. That force, individuals, etc. may not exist does not concern me in the slightest (and 1000 years from now, we may discover that they do not exist). What concerns me is that under the premise that the universe is as we perceive it (which is the only rational conclusion with the facts at hand), human rights follow objectively.

No wonder we are having this argument. You have misunderstood what is meant by objectivity.

Objectivity means it can be tested by reference to evidence. It means that the evidence objectively shows that the proposition stated is true.

If you fail to demonstrate that, then it is NOT objective. Simple as that.

It being the rational conclusion does NOT mean it is objective.



----

Re Famine's point

1) I agree that laws, whether they are "right" or "wrong", are subjective in the sense that we cannot say as a matter of fact (ie for sure) whether they are morally correct or wrong. Because it cannot be so tested. However, they are "objective" in the sense that it stipulates what can or cannot be done, because the law is the law - you obey it or you face the consequences of criminal sanction.

2) How would you respond to my point that human rights being "innate" (ie established by self evidence") is merely a manifestation of it being the lowest common denominator of what people in general think is right or wrong?

In that sense, since it relies on human being's past experience (such as WWII), "morality" can change as a matter of time. What is moral now may not be deemed moral a thousand years later.

If you accept that, then it shows precisely the point that morality, or human rights, is/are not objective.


And because of that, you cannot say, as a matter of universal truth, that a person who uses an utilitarian argument to defend for his switching of the tracks in the trolley example is wrong.

At most you can say that applying your morality, you think it is wrong.

That's the point I was trying to get at from the beginning.

 

[Famine]

The process is objective, the outcome is not. Biggles put it succinctly-

And wrongly.

In making law, the basis (opinion), process (lobbying) and outcome (opinion) are neither objective nor logical. Law is codified feeling.

If you start from an unsound basis, no matter how logical and objective your process, the outcome will be unsound. This is why we end up with several states determining that it's okay to have different amounts of alcohol and then drive - codified feeling.

Which also answers this:

2) How would you respond to my point that human rights being "innate" (ie established by self evidence") is merely a manifestation of it being the lowest common denominator of what people in general think is right or wrong?

In that sense, since it relies on human being's past experience (such as WWII), "morality" can change as a matter of time. What is moral now may not be deemed moral a thousand years later.

What people think is right or wrong is irrelevant. In fact "right" and "wrong" are irrelevant for that matter. What people think is "moral" is irrelevant. What "rights" people want to make law is irrelevant. These are all just feelings and opinions - subjectivity.

Our basic human rights exist independent of what people would grant us, what people would believe in, what people would feel. They exist because we are. Morality is merely the expression of offence against them (immoral) or not (moral). Since our innate rights have an objective basis and morality is a logical extraction of them, morality is also objective.


The Sun will rise tomorrow, roughly from the East, whether you believe in it or not. No-one has the right to kill you tomorrow, whether they believe in it or not.

And because of that, you cannot say, as a matter of universal truth, that a person who uses an utilitarian argument to defend for his switching of the tracks in the trolley example is wrong.

Rights are inviolable (whether or not they are violated) and as such have no measurable value - limitless in worth. One lot of infinity (that which is without limits) is neither more nor less than many lots of infinity and a value judgement - the utilitarian argument - is impossible.

Killing one innocent - or many - is an offence against rights. Failing to save one innocent - or many - is not.

 

[Danoff]

Because avoiding subjectivity implies avoiding force DOES NOT establish that human rights are objective/human beings are equal etc etc!!

They are two DIFFERENT propositions.

You must link avoiding force WITH human rights are objective.

Ok, maybe now we're getting somewhere. So you're really ready to concede that point? Forget about the rest of what you wrote for a minute, you're on board with this:

Force implies subjectivity
Avoiding subjectivity implies avoiding force.

Objectivity means it can be tested by reference to evidence. It means that the evidence objectively shows that the proposition stated is true.

No it doesn't. It means external to perception and interpretation.


Regardless, thanks for acknowledging the point above. That's really all that is needed, I'll wait for you to recant and argue some more before I go any further.

 

[Wolf-M]

And wrongly.

In making law, the basis (opinion), process (lobbying) and outcome (opinion) are neither objective nor logical. Law is codified feeling.

If you start from an unsound basis, no matter how logical and objective your process, the outcome will be unsound. This is why we end up with several states determining that it's okay to have different amounts of alcohol and then drive - codified feeling.

Which also answers this:



What people think is right or wrong is irrelevant. In fact "right" and "wrong" are irrelevant for that matter. What people think is "moral" is irrelevant. What "rights" people want to make law is irrelevant. These are all just feelings and opinions - subjectivity.

Our basic human rights exist independent of what people would grant us, what people would believe in, what people would feel. They exist because we are. Morality is merely the expression of offence against them (immoral) or not (moral). Since our innate rights have an objective basis and morality is a logical extraction of them, morality is also objective.


The Sun will rise tomorrow, roughly from the East, whether you believe in it or not. No-one has the right to kill you tomorrow, whether they believe in it or not.

No, it is not.

That the sun will rise tomorrow is not an objective statement. It is merely a inference based on empirical evidence of the past. It is not the absolute truth. What if say tomorrow the Earth due to some unknown scientific reactions explodes? You cannot say as a matter of truth that the sun will rise tomorrow. It is merely a prediction.

Yet the fact that rights are absolute are not even based on any empirical evidence.

It is only your reasoning that rights are absolute. It's your value judgment.

As I've said so many times, when you say something is objective, you need to prove it.

How would you prove it? How would you prove that, as a matter of universal truth, a human being's life cannot be sacrificed involuntarily for the saving of more people's lives?

How?

It's impossible.

It's your values that you are expressing.

It's not objective.

Ok, maybe now we're getting somewhere. So you're really ready to concede that point? Forget about the rest of what you wrote for a minute, you're on board with this:

Force implies subjectivity
Avoiding subjectivity implies avoiding force.

Forget about my personal views. What I am saying is that EVEN IF what you are saying is true, it goes nowhere in establishing the ultimate proposition that human rights are objective.

Avoiding subjectivity implies avoiding force does NOT imply that human rights are objective.

Please enlighten me as to how you can link the two parts together without committing a logical fallacy.

Not to mention that I personally do not agree with what you have written.

No it doesn't. It means external to perception.

I hate needing to do wikipedia searches for such simple concepts.

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept which has been variously defined by sources. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"

"When its truth conditions are met" AND "mind independemt"

You have not established via logic that its truth conditions are met, I'm afraid.

 

[Danoff]

Forget about my personal views. What I am saying is that EVEN IF what you are saying is true, it goes nowhere in establishing the ultimate proposition that human rights are objective.

You're gonna hate me when I fill it in for you (note that I didn't say you'd hate yourself). But regardless I want to proceed from common ground. If you don't agree with what I wrote already, I want to iron that out now - it's going to be our foundation for the rest.

Not to mention that I personally do not agree with what you have written.

This is what I want to get ironed out first. Where's the problem?

Force implies subjectivity
Avoiding subjectivity implies avoiding force.

I hate needing to do wikipedia searches for such simple concepts.

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept which has been variously defined by sources. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"

"When its truth conditions are met" AND "mind independemt"

Thanks for proving my point. That actually is what I wrote ("truth conditions met" is implied):

It means external to perception and interpretation.

It does not, however, mean what you keep claiming:

Objectivity means it can be tested by reference to evidence.

Now, since you gave me such a hard time about it, I think maybe you could apologize for the following statement:

You have misunderstood what is meant by objectivity.

You have at this point demonstrated that you misunderstood what is meant by objectivity. Feel free to apologize.

That aside, are we agreed on the subjective nature of force and its elimination as necessary (but perhaps not sufficient) to eliminate subjectivity?

 

[Wolf-M]

You're gonna hate me when I fill it in for you. But regardless I want to proceed from common ground. If you don't agree with what I wrote already, I want to iron that out now - it's going to be our foundation for the rest.



This is what I want to get ironed out first. Where's the problem?






Thanks for proving my point. That actually is what I wrote:



It does not, however, mean what you keep claiming.



Now, since you gave me such a hard time about it, I think maybe you could apologize for the following statement:



You have at this point demonstrated that you misunderstood what is meant by objectivity. Feel free to apologize.

That aside, are we agreed on the subjective nature of force and its elimination as necessary (but perhaps not sufficient) to eliminate subjectivity?

I really feel tired in arguing with you. Excuse me for being rude.

I am saying that you cannot give a logical proof that human rights are objective. Care not what force, subjectivity or desire to remove subjectivity etc etc means. They are irrelevant.

Just give me a logical proof that human rights are objective. It's that simple. Don't digress, dont divert attention.

Just a proof, please.

With premises and conclusion.

Eg

A
B
If A, then B.

Conclusion: Therefore B.


Something along those lines. With each statement not being more than a sentence. Basic stuff that was taught in uni's logic class, right?



How where when did you show that the truth conditions for human rights are objective are satisfed?

In fact you claimed that they CANNOT BE PROVED.

If they cannot be proved, they are NOT OBJECTIVE.


That's all I've to say; the previous post pretty much summarises it all.

 

[Danoff]

I really feel tired in arguing with you. Excuse me for being rude.

I am saying that you cannot give a logical proof that human rights are objective. Care not what force, subjectivity or desire to remove subjectivity etc etc means. They are irrelevant.

Just give me a logical proof that human rights are objective. It's that simple. Don't digress, dont divert attention.

Just a proof, please.

With premises and conclusion.

Eg

A
B
If A, then B.

Conclusion: Therefore B.


Something along those lines. With each statement not being more than a sentence. Basic stuff that was taught in uni's logic class, right?

I am, this is not a diversion. For the 4th time, where is the problem with this (we will proceed from here):

Force implies subjectivity
Avoiding subjectivity implies avoiding force.

How where when did you show that the truth conditions for human rights are objective are satisfed?

Jesus h....

We were talking about the definition of objectivity (independent of any other discussion), which I defined for you (with truth conditions met as an implied portion of the definition). You then quoted wikipedia saying exactly the same thing. I'd think you could man up and apologize for claiming that I didn't know what objectivity meant and admit that you got it wrong.

 

[Wolf-M]

I am. For the 4th time, where is the problem with this (we will proceed from here):





Jesus h....

We were talking about the definition of objectivity (independent of any other discussion), which I defined for you (with truth conditions met as an implied portion of the definition). You then quoted wikipedia saying exactly the same thing. I'd think you could man up and apologize for claiming that I didn't know what objectivity meant and admit that you got it wrong.

What don't you just define "objectivity means that I, Danoff, am always right".

Easy job.

The truth conditions are not met.

Why? Because you have NOT LINKED force=subjectivity or whatever that means WITH human rights are objective.

There is no truth condition to speak of, because your argument is NOT related to [human rights are objective].


Please don't digress, will you not?

You are still stuck with force subjectivity etc.

In nowhere of your argument did you mention human rights are objective.

Then what do you expect me to do?

 

[Dapper]

And wrongly.

In making law, the basis (opinion), process (lobbying) and outcome (opinion) are neither objective nor logical. Law is codified feeling.

If you start from an unsound basis, no matter how logical and objective your process, the outcome will be unsound. This is why we end up with several states determining that it's okay to have different amounts of alcohol and then drive - codified feeling.

The basis, process and outcome of laws have no bearing on laws being real. Same with the universe. Something being unsound to you does not effect something being real. You are so way off base on what objective is that a discussion is impossible. It is like you are arguing the sky is red, but from within your conscious, what you perceive, your reality, is that the sky is red. The problem is that is testable, and you won't acknowledge the results that prove you wrong. The trolley scenario is to morality as color's wave lengths is to the sky's color. If everyone chose the same outcome in the trolley scenario you might have an argument, it would still be losing though.

They (rights) exist because we are.

Prove it.

 

[Danoff]

What don't you just define "objectivity means that I, Danoff, am always right".

Easy job.

The truth conditions are not met.

Why? Because you have NOT LINKED force=subjectivity or whatever that means WITH human rights are objective.

Ok, you're seriously losing sight of what we're talking about. I don't know how I can spell it out for you any clearer than I already did:

We were talking about the definition of objectivity (independent of any other discussion), which I defined for you (with truth conditions met as an implied portion of the definition).

This side discussion is the only time "truth conditions" ever came up. This has nothing to do with linking anything with anything and is totally 100% its own discussion aside from human rights simply about the definition of objectivity. I'm still waiting for you to admit that you had the wrong definition of objectivity.

Damned. Just when we were finally getting somewhere you dig in on something pointless like this.

Please don't digress, will you not?

You are still stuck with force subjectivity etc.

In nowhere of your argument did you mention human rights are objective.

Then what do you expect me to do?

Haven't even gotten to human rights yet. Still just talking about the subjective nature of "might makes right". We cannot proceed without common ground, I'm trying to establish that and you keep trying to jump to the conclusion that I'm a moron.

For the past few posts you've been fairly belligerent. You're quickly becoming impossible to have a rational discussion with. I'd recommend that you calm down a bit before continuing, as it is the path you're on right now is not going to end anywhere productive.

Edit:

For the 5th time, can we agree on the subjective nature of "might makes right" and that it has no place in objectivity?

 

[Wolf-M]

Ok, you're seriously losing sight of what we're talking about. I don't know how I can spell it out for you any clearer than I already did:



This has nothing to do with linking anything with anything and is totally 100% its own discussion aside from human rights simply about the definition of objectivity. I'm still waiting for you to admit that you had the wrong definition of objectivity.

Damned. Just when we were finally getting somewhere you dig in on something pointless like this.



Haven't even gotten to human rights yet. Still just talking about the subjective nature of "might makes right". We cannot proceed without common ground, I'm trying to establish that and you keep trying to jump to the conclusion that I'm a moron.

For the past few posts you've been fairly belligerent. You're quickly becoming impossible to have a rational discussion with. I'd recommend that you calm down a bit before continuing, as it is the path you're on right now is not going to end anywhere productive.

Ok I apologise. I apologise if I misunderstood you. I don't know whether I misunderstood you or not; and to be honest, I've lost patience in posting so many replies and still haven't seen you gone to the ultimate proposition - whether human rights are objective or not.


Why am I not bothering to discuss with you whether might makes right is subjective or the like?

Because I'm saying whatever the position is for your statement, it is irrelevant in determining whether human rights are objective.

I just hoped for a proof from you, a logical proof, with premises (each being a statement no more than a sentence) and a conclusion.

In that way we can see whether you've established that human rights are objective or not.

Using Dapper's words, "prove it".

Don't digress keep talking about something that is, in my humble opinion, irrelevant.

Apologies again for appearing to you to be belligerent. No personal offence. Just my being impatient. Sorry for that.