Human Rights

[TenEightyOne]

It's taken me twenty thousand words (sorry, GTP ) to try to say what @Touring Mars just did in a paragraph. Sheesh.

 

[Danoff]

Sometimes (lesser chance) the impala is able to get its way because it is able to, either by expending enough energy over time in escape that the lion gives up the chase, because the lion selects a different impala at the last minute, or because of some other random chance. That's a result of the interactions between the lion and the impala, neither recognising the other as anything but a goal driver.

Both did what they were able to, being pedantic neither would do what they were unable to, unless forced to attempt it as perceived risk demanded it in the sliding scale of worth-of-action/need-to-survive.

This does not disagree with anything I wrote, and so I'm tempted to move on assuming we have agreement here. However, given that this is not inconsistent with what I wrote, I'd ask you to re-read what I wrote and either agree or disagree with it so that we can make sure that we hash out disagreements at this step. I'll post it here so you don't have to go back:

The lion got his way because he was able to. He had the strength, agility, sharp teeth, stealth, whatever, to be able to kill the impala. This is nature - see what you can get away with. Your ability to produce force, or organize force, or even defend against force is what is valuable to animals in nature.

Arguments?

I think you are confusing the urge to survive with a 'right' to survive.

I don't know about Keef but I'm definitely not confusing those two. The fact that lions kill, or that humans kill is an integral aspect of rights. If rights are bestowed upon you by other people, there is no such thing as rights, only law. You are arguing that human rights do not exist. You are arguing that a society which democratically elects to exterminate certain ethnicities or enslave certain ethnicities is not objectively any different than a society that claims that all people must be treated equally by their government. I should think you'd very much hope to be wrong.

 

[Keef]

I think you are confusing the urge to survive with a 'right' to survive.

My understanding of the word 'right' is that it is an entitlement... as such, it can either be self-proclaimed, bestowed upon you by other people, by some other entity (e.g. God), or they are simply innate.

My view is that human rights only truly exist as a result of the relationships between people, and thus I can only agree with the view that they are bestowed upon us by other people. You only need take a walk through the Serengeti to find out how much a self-proclaimed 'fundamental right to life' is worth to a pack of hungry lions. I don't believe in God(s) so I can't accept that human rights are God given, and there is no scientific evidence that says that humans are born 'entitled' to life, liberty or anything else for that matter.

As such, I assume that human rights are really legal rights, and are not 'natural' as such. I also don't really see the point in natural rights if there are no laws, institutions, societal norms or mechanisms for rights to be defined, recognised or protected. In other words, natural rights are not worth the paper they (aren't) written on.

I'm not confusing them, I was just trying to make something out of nothing. In trying to talk TenEightyOne through it I was given answers which weren't anything like I was aiming for. The goal was for him to answer his own questions.

Human rights don't exist as a consequence of interaction, they exist as a consequence of our ability to reason. These concepts were reasoned by philosophers who had way more times on their hands than we do so it's a bit difficult to come up with the perfect argument. There are indeed different types of rights - natural and legislated they're usually called - and they're similar in that they apply to everybody but different in that legislated rights are created and enforced whereas natural rights simply exist via logic and reason.

If I was better at arguing I'd suggest that the US's Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, don't actually need to exist. The ideas of life, liberty and property already cover all those things. But our founders saw it fit to highlight those things in particular so nobody muddies the broad waters of life, liberty and property. They legislated rights which already exist, logically, but can be used as tools to protect ourselves when an overzealous government decides to throw logic out the window. These rights have been made into law so they exist more effectively in a society which is based on law.

 

[Touring Mars]

You are arguing that human rights do not exist

No... I'm saying that they can (and ought to) exist, but that they only effectively exist as part of a society who are willing to accept them, where they are clearly defined and where there exists some mechanism by which those who violate them face consequences.

You are arguing that a society which democratically elects to exterminate certain ethnicities or enslave certain ethnicities is not objectively any different than a society that claims that all people must be treated equally by their government.

I'm not arguing that at all.

I'm saying that by defining and protecting human rights, such as the right to life, a society may be called a civilized one - observation of human rights is the standard by which one might objectively measure societies/people/states etc. as either good or bad.

 

[Danoff]

No... I'm saying that they can (and ought to) exist, but that they only effectively exist as part of a society who are willing to accept them, where they are clearly defined and where there exists some mechanism by which those who violate them face consequences.

Yes how effectively they are used depends on how society implements their protection.

I'm not arguing that at all.

I'm saying that by defining and protecting human rights, such as the right to life, a society may be called a civilized one - observation of human rights is the standard by which one might objectively measure societies/people/states etc. as either good or bad.

I guess I misunderstood you. I thought that this ^ conflicted with this:

As such, I assume that human rights are really legal rights, and are not 'natural' as such. I also don't really see the point in natural rights if there are no laws, institutions, societal norms or mechanisms for rights to be defined, recognised or protected. In other words, natural rights are not worth the paper they (aren't) written on.

If human rights are legal rights, they are subjective. However, I see now that you were making a different point - which is that human rights have no value if they aren't observed. You say that if there are no schemes of protection in place, they are worthless. What value is a right to a dead guy right?

I'd again argue the opposite. Human rights aren't worth the paper they aren't written on if they are never violated. I gave the example earlier in this thread of gravity. What good is it if I have a right for the earth's gravity to act on me. You can't violate that right. Nobody can. I will always have gravity acting on me regardless of whether it is my right or not, or whether others want to deprive me of that right or not.

It is exactly where we see human rights trampled where they matter. The Serengeti is exactly where human rights come into play. Lions don't recognize human rights, or the rights of any animal. Lions just go along living by the principle that whatever they want to do, whatever they are able to do, they will do. And so you end up with dead humans and dead gazelles. Here's the thing though, that's exactly the reason that human beings don't have to worry about the moral implications of killing a lion.

Nazi Germany is another example of human rights trampled rampantly, and it's exactly why every nation on Earth had the moral ability to overthrow the Nazi government and kill those who were defending it.

It's only where rights are trampled that they really matter. Rights are not a scheme of protection - they're not a force field - they're a method of objective assessment of action. It's not an argument against human rights to point to dead people and say "a lot of good it did them". Rights enable you to point to those dead people and objectively say "an injustice was done", and take future action knowing that you're not jeopardizing your own rights. Rights are why we can morally put people in jail, put people to death, or seize back stolen property. Rights are why you can shoot the guy who is threatening your life.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@Danoff, I think we agree so far, I can't say I'll retrospectively agree if the light of what we've said is coloured in future discussion.

I want to be clear though, looking at some answers from other posters; I'm not saying if definition of rights is right-or-wrong, or the best way to do it... I simply hold that there are no 'natural' rights, only mutually-agreed economies.

 

[Danoff]

The lion got his way because he was able to. He had the strength, agility, sharp teeth, stealth, whatever, to be able to kill the impala. This is nature - see what you can get away with. Your ability to produce force, or organize force, or even defend against force is what is valuable to animals in nature.

@Danoff, I think we agree so far, I can't say I'll retrospectively agree if the light of what we've said is coloured in future discussion.

I want to be clear though, looking at some answers from other posters; I'm not saying if definition of rights is right-or-wrong, or the best way to do it... I simply hold that there are no 'natural' rights, only mutually-agreed economies.

Ok, is there anything objectively better about being able to produce force, organize force, or defend against force than other skills? For example, is there a philosophically objective measure that says that the impala's beauty is an inferior attribute to the lion's strength? Is the ability to eat grass objectively less valuable than the ability to eat meat? Nature values force, but is that an objective value system?

If you think the answer is yes, demonstrate it.

Humans take this to extreme. Is a painter's ability to paint objectively inferior to a gladiator's ability to fight? Nature's value system puts the painter at a disadvantage.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Ok, is there anything objectively better about being able to produce force, organize force, or defend against force than other skills? For example, is there a philosophically objective measure that says that the impala's beauty is an inferior attribute to the lion's strength? Is the ability to eat grass objectively less valuable than the ability to eat meat? Nature values force, but is that an objective value system?

If you think the answer is yes, demonstrate it.

Humans take this to extreme. Is a painter's ability to paint objectively inferior to a gladiator's ability to fight? Nature's value system puts the painter at a disadvantage.

I still disagree with "force" as at that point you're talking about one life acting on/towards another.

The single life will do all it can to consume energy as efficiently as possible in order to continue consuming and replicating. It's not always the expender of the greatest direct or relative force that succeeds when two life-forms interact, each according to their programming.

I'm not sure where discussing 'what is art' helps, that really is a social philosophy. Is the painter at a disadvantage?

Peacocks with nice feathers get more lady peacocks once you look at the negotiation stage, that's not a show of brute force but rank foppery.

 

[Danoff]

I still disagree with "force" as at that point you're talking about one life acting on/towards another.

This is a discussion of individuals interacting.

The single life will do all it can to consume energy as efficiently as possible in order to continue consuming and replicating. It's not always the expender of the greatest direct or relative force that succeeds when two life-forms interact, each according to their programming.

Try not to think of it in terms of thermodynamics. A porcupine may have more capability to inflict injury than a lion depending on the nature of the interaction.

I'm not sure where discussing 'what is art' helps, that really is a social philosophy. Is the painter at a disadvantage?

Yes. There is a reason you don't see a whole lot of animals making artwork*.

Peacocks with nice feathers get more lady peacocks once you look at the negotiation stage, that's not a show of brute force but rank foppery.

You're talking about voluntary interaction, I'm talking about conflict of wills.


*For full disclosure, I actually do own a painting made by an elephant.

 

[Danoff]

@TenEightyOne,

I'm still waiting on this. Does might make right?

 

[TenEightyOne]

@TenEightyOne,

I'm still waiting on this. Does might make right?

Sorry!

No, it doesn't. I sort of already answered in a vague and roundabout way. The strongest will not always win.

 

[Danoff]

Sorry!

No, it doesn't. I sort of already answered in a vague and roundabout way. The strongest will not always win.

Yea that doesn't directly respond. Forget about any other scenarios other than the Lion and the Gazelle, I've already put into the scenario that the Lion wins because of strength. Did might make right? Is nature objective in rewarding the Lion?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yea that doesn't directly respond. Forget about any other scenarios other than the Lion and the Gazelle, I've already put into the scenario that the Lion wins because of strength. Did might make right? Is nature objective in rewarding the Lion?

In your scenario where the lion wins on strength might hasn't made right, it has decided the outcome. Nothing more.

There was no right/wrong should/shouldn't about it. As I already said you could present many instances of the "same" occurence with differing outcomes based on all kind of factors.

This specific example's outcome was driven by circumstance, desire and energy, there is nothing more to it than that.

 

[Danoff]

In your scenario where the lion wins on strength might hasn't made right, it has decided the outcome. Nothing more.

There was no right/wrong should/shouldn't about it. As I already said you could present many instances of the "same" occurence with differing outcomes based on all kind of factors.

This specific example's outcome was driven by circumstance, desire and energy, there is nothing more to it than that.

Agreed.

The ability to produce force, or force someone else into a particular action is an arbitrary ability and is objectively not superior to other skills or talents. If one human is good at shooting people, and another human is good at painting, neither skill is objectively any better than the other - and yet one of those people can use his abilities to subvert the will of the other person. That's not an objectively superior outcome. It's only objectively good if the ability to produce force is objectively good, and I've never seen that established by anyone.

So what does that mean? It means that producing force is an attempt at subverting one person's will to that of another based on a subjective value system. Anyone who is willing to attempt to do so inherently subscribes to the notion that one will can be subverted subjectively, and so that person objectively opens themselves to force.

In otherwords, the Lion killed an innocent gazelle, and now anyone can objectively use the Lion's own actions as a reason to kill the lion - the lion can't complain, after all he started the might makes right conversation in the first place.

This is your right against the use of force.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The ability to produce force, or force someone else into a particular action is an arbitrary ability and is objectively not superior to other skills or talents. If one human is good at shooting people, and another human is good at painting, neither skill is objectively any better than the other - and yet one of those people can use his abilities to subvert the will of the other person. That's not an objectively superior outcome. It's only objectively good if the ability to produce force is objectively good, and I've never seen that established by anyone.

To apply that example (or one similar) those are skills that arise from economy, vanilla-human does not do (or conceive of) those things. Only eat-breed-rest. All outcomes are need-driven to the individual life form.

To reach a position where you can even talk about objective or subjective outcomes you have to apply a framework of reason, of right and wrong, of negotiation... and produce enough leisure that exploration of the consciousness can begin.

In otherwords, the Lion killed an innocent gazelle, and now anyone can objectively use the Lion's own actions as a reason to kill the lion - the lion can't complain, after all he started the might makes right conversation in the first place.

This is you right against the use of force.

I cannot agree. Who said the gazelle (wasn't it an impala at one point?) was innocent? By whose standard? I say it just was. We might judge its action now from our own social standpoint but in that moment our judgement is an irrelevant far-removed concept.

A reason? Who judges the lions actions as a reason for further action? Nearby gazelle/impala/gnu will add Lion to their list of threats-to-life, if they haven't already... but no other 'reasoning' will take place by anyone. Lion ate gazelle.

Who would the lion complain to? His own drive is to survive, pain teaches him to avoid injurious situations... not a sense of moral correctitude or the fear of being socially penalised. The threat of penalty can be instinctive of course but only as a survival instinct; that's why the hearty-beast didn't attack the lion in the first place.

 

[Danoff]

To apply that example (or one similar) those are skills that arise from economy, vanilla-human does not do (or conceive of) those things. Only eat-breed-rest. All outcomes are need-driven to the individual life form.

To reach a position where you can even talk about objective or subjective outcomes you have to apply a framework of reason, of right and wrong, of negotiation... and produce enough leisure that exploration of the consciousness can begin.

Doesn't particularly matter how we got here, only that we are here and can think.

I cannot agree. Who said the gazelle (wasn't it an impala at one point?) was innocent?

It's not important - that was a rephrase to help the philosophical jargon be more concrete. The gazelle might have performed in exactly the same behavior as the lion, it makes no difference - except that we'd jump to the end of my hypothetical and the Lion would be the people who killed him after he killed the gazelle, and the gazelle would be the Lion. What I mean by "innocent" is that the hypothetical assumes the gazelle and lion have effectively done nothing until the hypothetical starts. They're a blank slate. Their past behavior is assumed to be nothing. They pop into existence for the hypothetical and then pop back out. "Innocent" being not having initiated force - that's just a definition, not a judgement of what force is.

By whose standard? I say it just was.

See above.

We might judge its action now from our own social standpoint but in that moment our judgement is an irrelevant far-removed concept.

This has nothing to do with our social anything.

A reason? Who judges the lions actions as a reason for further action?

I already said it - "anyone".

Nearby gazelle/impala/gnu will add Lion to their list of threats-to-life, if they haven't already... but no other 'reasoning' will take place by anyone. Lion ate gazelle.

Ok, and that's fine if that's the outcome. Lion ate gazelle, nobody noticed. That doesn't change anything about the nature of the interaction.

Who would the lion complain to?

If the lion is philosophical, nobody. He would understand that those who kill him are doing exactly what he did to the gazelle.

So I'm not seeing any real argument to what I wrote. If I missed it, go ahead and post it again.

 

[TenEightyOne]

In otherwords, the Lion killed an innocent gazelle, and now anyone can objectively use the Lion's own actions as a reason to kill the lion - the lion can't complain, after all he started the might makes right conversation in the first place.

This is your right against the use of force.

With that, I disagree. Using the lion's actions as a reason to kill the lion requires philosophical contemplation of the situation.

This is not natural definition. I don't think there is a "might makes right" conversation as I have said. "Might" may specifically mean "most suited to achieving a survival goal in any given instance" and "right" would therefore mean "successful", but insofar as that cannot inform a "natural right to life".

Other than that I agree with your previous post overall.

 

[Danoff]

With that, I disagree. Using the lion's actions as a reason to kill the lion requires philosophical contemplation of the situation.

Yes.

This is not natural definition.

I prefer logical to natural.

I don't think there is a "might makes right" conversation as I have said. "Might" may specifically mean "most suited to achieving a survival goal in any given instance" and "right" would therefore mean "successful",

Yes(ish). Replace "successful" with "objectively more valuable". So then there is a "might makes right" conversation.

but insofar as that cannot inform a "natural right to life".

Buh? Please explain.

 

[TenEightyOne]

With that, I disagree. Using the lion's actions as a reason to kill the lion requires philosophical contemplation of the situation.

This is not natural definition. I don't think there is a "might makes right" conversation as I have said. "Might" may specifically mean "most suited to achieving a survival goal in any given instance" and "right" would therefore mean "successful", but insofar as that cannot inform a "natural right to life".

Buh? Please explain.

To rephrase; the most suited to achieving the survival goal in that instance will be successful. That definition of "might is right" is the closest that I will get to agreeing with the phrase. That definition cannot form a "natural right" to life because "right" as a standard is irrelevant and only applied philosophically by us after the fact.

 

[Danoff]

To rephrase; the most suited to achieving the survival goal in that instance will be successful. That definition of "might is right" is the closest that I will get to agreeing with the phrase.

What's wrong the meaning "the most suited to achieving the survival goal in that instance is objectively better"? Remember the outcome here is that it isn't.

That definition cannot form a "natural right" to life because "right" as a standard is irrelevant and only applied philosophically by us after the fact.

The relevance is remarkable, but we haven't gotten into that yet. First we need to agree on the existence.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What's wrong with the meaning "the most suited to achieving the survival goal in that instance is objectively better"?

Isn't "the most suited" the same as "objectively better"?

Remember the outcome here is that it isn't.

Please could you rephrase that for me? I wasn't able to follow

The relevance is remarkable, but we haven't gotten into that yet.

Yeeessssss, as Paxman would say. I'm looking forward to the "reveal"...

First we need to agree on the existence.

The existence of...? Of course that may be clearer with other parts of your response

 

[Danoff]

Isn't "the most suited" the same as "objectively better"?

How is the most suited for survival objectively better than the most suited for beauty or the most suited for song, or the most suited for artistry... or even the most suited to be eaten?

Please could you rephrase that for me? I wasn't able to follow

It's covered above.

The existence of...? Of course that may be clearer with other parts of your response

...your right against the use of force.

 

[Denur]

I've tried with all my might to get my head around these two quotes, but so far have failed miserably.

Lions just go along living by the principle that whatever they want to do, whatever they are able to do, they will do. And so you end up with dead humans and dead gazelles. Here's the thing though, that's exactly the reason that human beings don't have to worry about the moral implications of killing a lion.

In otherwords, the Lion killed an innocent gazelle, and now anyone can objectively use the Lion's own actions as a reason to kill the lion - the lion can't complain, after all he started the might makes right conversation in the first place.
This is your right against the use of force.

What if it wasn't a lion but a tribe's hunter who killed that innocent gazelle, in order to get something to eat for his family that night. Can I now kill a hunter without violating some morals?

 

[Famine]

Whose human rights did the hunter violate?

 

[Denur]

Irrelevant. The simple fact that the lion kills, does not automatically make it OK to kill the lion (not to me). I don't see humans as a special case, we are merely living organisms with the capability to reason.

 

[TenEightyOne]

How is the most suited for survival objectively better than the most suited for beauty or the most suited for song, or the most suited for artistry... or even the most suited to be eaten?

The objective definition "is more beautiful", "climbs better", "is better suited" is like asking what colour Wednesday is. Some people will say green, some will say Bb.

The only benchmark is suitability-for-survivability-in-the-instance-where-life-occurs. @Famine , I think it's hoped I'll be an Ayn Rand convert by the end of this. We don't need the hunter yet, we technically don't even need to know lion as lion or gazelle as gazelle.

 

[Famine]

Irrelevant. The simple fact that the lion kills, does not automatically make it OK to kill the lion (not to me). I don't see humans as a special case, we are merely living organisms with the capability to reason.

That'll be why you're having trouble with the quotes then. Interesting to note you cite a special ability of humans after saying humans aren't special.

I'd suggest you go back to the start of the most recent exchange and follow what @Danoff and @TenEightyOne are saying from the beginning

The objective definition "is more beautiful", "climbs better", "is better suited" is like asking what colour Wednesday is. Some people will say green, some will say Bb.

That'll be "subjective". Which is Dan's point.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That'll be why you're having trouble with the quotes then. Interesting to note you cite a special ability of humans after saying humans aren't special.

I'd suggest you go back to the start of the most recent exchange and follow what @Danoff and @TenEightyOne are saying from the beginning That'll be "subjective". Which is Dan's point.

That's kind of what I read him of saying; however no subjectivity exists in the instant of lion>gazelle because it is what is, given the circumastances, attributes and will one form will the other.

Our after-the-fact comparison of "which was better" by it nature comes from our own predetermined manners, modes and colours of thought.

That's I felt that Danoff had applied a subjective framework in an objective sense, in order to simply weigh the nature of 'talent' versus 'might', for want of a better way of framing it.

 

[Famine]

No, the point is that the lion's 'will' is imposed over the gazelle's for no objective reason - it exercises its might to determine the outcome, but that's a single subjective parameter. There's no objective way to conclude which is the better animal even though one lives and the other dies.

Might, thus, does not make right - force is not an objective medium to determine the right outcome.

(I guided you here from the Arizona thread and left it alone, simply because this is the right place for it and I knew Dan would pick up the reins - it's better for the consistency of the thread if the person leading the current discussion doesn't have additional interpretative voices...

but he's asleep right now )

 

[TenEightyOne]

No, the point is that the lion's 'will' is imposed over the gazelle's for no objective reason - it exercises its might to determine the outcome, but that's a single subjective parameter. There's no objective way to conclude which is the better animal even though one lives and the other dies.

Might, thus, does not make right - force is not an objective medium to determine the right outcome.

(I guided you here from the Arizona thread and left it alone, simply because this is the right place for it and I knew Dan would pick up the reins - it's better for the consistency of the thread if the person leading the current discussion doesn't have additional interpretative voices...

but he's asleep right now )

My point is that might doesn't right; and literal application of subjectivism/objectivism is by its nature impossible in pre-philosophical situations.

One can only objectively say "which survived". In that moment the most suited survived either by nature or chance.

The lion's "will" is purely goal driven for a completely objective reason. I still feel like you're applying philosophy to a factual envelope.