Human Rights

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 2,239 comments
  • 116,967 views
But all I see are three humans. One kills the other and the third wastes energy imprisoning and possibly impuning the third. That isn't natural behaviour, it is the result of a socially agreed framework with recognised roles and responsibilities. Some of the urges or literal forces may have been primal but the outcome was socially engineered.

I see 3 humans too. And it might be a waste of time for one of the humans to put the other one in jail - but that's his prerogative. How do I know that? Objectivity.

Now, it's funny you should say that... :)

One of the things that humans have done is to continuously find and improve our methods of quantifying the quantifiable.

Let me use some maths to calculate the movement of Venus; x=y^2. It is maths, but clearly I have no base idea of where to actually start because I don't have the sum of research before me and I haven't practiced its use.

Venus was always doing what she did, we weren't always able to do fancy maths'n'stuff with it. See 'flat earth' for more details.

The point of our disagreement is, it seems to me, the separation between the naturally occuring behaviours of the host (which vary very little from species to species, humans included) and the philosphical definition of what that behaviour means as a social action.

No. Not as a social action, there is no society needed - which is precisely why I used the Lion and the antellopegazelleimpala as an example. You keep trying to make this about a social framwork and about human beings, but this applies to animals, rocks, trees, and the vacuum of space.


Excluding some measurements as 'definitely subjective' doesn't mean that what remains is definitely objective because the initial scope may have been flawed, that's how I feel when I read the arguments that one expression of force enables the right to return expression of force. There were no rights, the use of force by one organism or the other was simply a sum result of the base programming.

"Simply the sum result of base programming" is totally 100% beside the point. Nowhere in my reasoning does the rationale behind the action come into play. Evaluating that requires some subjective value system - your favorite seems to be to value animal instinct as some kind of pure, unquestionable, unchangeable objective reality. My point is that you can objectively say that when a lion kills a gazelle, a subjective value (might makes right, survival of the fittest, etc. etc.) was imposed.

It's not that excluding some things means the remainder is objective. It's that you can identify subjectivity and avoid it - but only if you have a brain and the ability to understand that (unlike, say, a lion).


So why get out of bed?

In order to survive I need to negotiate the appropriate resources, that's the only reason we all get out of bed. Perhaps if I were more perfect I'd realise that it all really is futile and pointless at which time I'd stay in my bed and die.

You're dodging the point. I did not claim that getting out of bed is somehow better than not getting out of bed (that would be subjective). I was pointing out that rights stem from logic, and if you're going to question logic, you shouldn't bother getting out of bed.
 
Last edited:
You're dodging the point. I did not claim that getting out of bed is somehow better than not getting out of bed (that would be subjective). I was pointing out that rights stem from logic, and if you're going to question logic, you shouldn't bother getting out of bed.

Actually, if I were going to question that logic I might get out of bed some days just to see.

At the root of what I believe is that all 'life' as we understand it obeys very very simple drivers to replication. That is all. That's based in the same physical state and out of the same physical laws as the movement of Venus. All of the situations we have discussed are based on actions or situations that arise from those physical propensities alone.

Everything else is us (as a host which is, in our reciprocal understanding, sentient) applying frameworks of reasoning that are in turn products of our sentience. You can apply base chemical and physical logic and achieve the same outcomes with or without watching the experiment through a lens of additional reason, or perceived right, or applied boundaries, or re-interpreted intentions.

"Simply the sum result of base programming" is totally 100% beside the point. Nowhere in my reasoning does the rationale behind the action come into play. Evaluating that requires some subjective value system - your favorite seems to be to value animal instinct as some kind of pure, unquestionable, unchangeable objective reality.

Animal instinct (although as I said I'd apply it to life, with or without sentience) is a pure, unquestionable unchangeable (in the instant) reality. I hold that absolutely.

My point is that you can objectively say that when a lion kills a gazelle, a subjective value (might makes right, survival of the fittest, etc. etc.) was imposed.

It's not that excluding some things means the remainder is objective. It's that you can identify subjectivity and avoid it - but only if you have a brain and the ability to understand that (unlike, say, a lion).

Might makes right meaning survival of the fittest is something that I've agreed with, although not in the sense of establishing "right" in the sense of, for example, a "Human Right".

I agree too that we can avoid subjectivity, I'm not sure that we agree on where to draw the border.
 
I've been explaining it for the past several pages.
I haven't recognized it as such, because in logic there is no room for interpretation and each step must be indisputable. If you want to convince me that there exists an objective right to life, you will have to take me by the hand like Socrates does with Alcibiades. You may have to go extra-terrestrial with that in order to avoid human interpretation.

Edit>
You did not want to die, that would be a fact.
That was harder to answer than I had expected at first. At a time like that probably not and on a beautiful Spring day like today, most definitely not. 35 years ago I couldn't have cared less and 35 years from now, who knows. What I do know for certain, is that when I do want to die, that I want to be able to do so. But that is me, there are plenty of people of will never think that way, because to them their life is in God's hands and the very question of wanting to end their life is inconceivable.
 
Last edited:
That was harder to answer than I had expected at first. At a time like that probably not and on a beautiful Spring day like today, most definitely not. 35 years ago I couldn't have cared less and 35 years from now, who knows.
Killing is not inherently wrong, it's your life so you can end it or have it ended if you want. I was assuming that this example was a typical murder. Though, even if you did want to die, the killer in this case was not respecting this wish, but simply furthering their will above others. It would have turned out to be to your benefit, but it still wouldn't be justifiable. I suppose what I should have said, to be more correct was "If you did not want to die, it would be a fact that you didn't want to die". Whether or not your life is important is subjective, but that you hold whatever opinion you hold is objective. The value of all subjective opinions is equal.

The whole point I'm trying to get across is that while people are full of subjective wants and thinking, reality is objective. My idea of a good life and good societal norms (customs, laws) is subjective. However it is objective that I have these subjective ideas. Since these ideas are subjective, I can't objectively say that they are better than anyone else's ideas. I don't have a right to impose my views on anyone (this is a fact if all people are equal in worth), but I do have a right to resist views imposed on me (because the world where I accept those views by force is no better than the world where I reject those views).

My understanding was that you agreed in the objective worth of people being the same. You brought up that some people might disagree, and that's true. Now I have to ask whether you think this is a matter of opinion vs opinion or fact vs opinion. I was under the impression of the latter (all people are equal is a fact, kings are superior is an opinion) initially.
 
Killing is not inherently wrong, it's your life so you can end it or have it ended if you want. I was assuming that this example was a typical murder. Though, even if you did want to die, the killer in this case was not respecting this wish, but simply furthering their will above others. It would have turned out to be to your benefit, but it still wouldn't be justifiable. I suppose what I should have said, to be more correct was "If you did not want to die, it would be a fact that you didn't want to die". Whether or not your life is important is subjective, but that you hold whatever opinion you hold is objective. The value of all subjective opinions is equal.

The whole point I'm trying to get across is that while people are full of subjective wants and thinking, reality is objective. My idea of a good life and good societal norms (customs, laws) is subjective. However it is objective that I have these subjective ideas. Since these ideas are subjective, I can't objectively say that they are better than anyone else's ideas. I don't have a right to impose my views on anyone (this is a fact if all people are equal in worth), but I do have a right to resist views imposed on me (because the world where I accept those views by force is no better than the world where I reject those views).
I agree with all this.

My understanding was that you agreed in the objective worth of people being the same. You brought up that some people might disagree, and that's true. Now I have to ask whether you think this is a matter of opinion vs opinion or fact vs opinion. I was under the impression of the latter (all people are equal is a fact, kings are superior is an opinion) initially.
Yes, the latter, definitely.

It becomes interesting when dealing with e.g. Christians. To them it is a fact that Jesus is the son of God and is therefore superior to any other human being. To them that is not a matter of opinion.
 
It becomes interesting when dealing with e.g. Christians. To them it is a fact that Jesus is the son of God and is therefore superior to any other human being. To them that is not a matter of opinion.

In the end, you can only try to take an objective stance. If what you're saying is fact, it should be logically coherent. Of course people, no matter their intelligence or opinions, can make errors so even facts can be debated from time to time.
 
At the root of what I believe is that all 'life' as we understand it obeys very very simple drivers to replication. That is all. That's based in the same physical state and out of the same physical laws as the movement of Venus. All of the situations we have discussed are based on actions or situations that arise from those physical propensities alone.

That's not really contradicting anything.

Everything else is us (as a host which is, in our reciprocal understanding, sentient) applying frameworks of reasoning that are in turn products of our sentience. You can apply base chemical and physical logic and achieve the same outcomes with or without watching the experiment through a lens of additional reason, or perceived right, or applied boundaries, or re-interpreted intentions.

We occasionally apply objectivity to nature - as is the case with logic and mathematics. Otherwise you're not contradicting anything.


Animal instinct (although as I said I'd apply it to life, with or without sentience) is a pure, unquestionable unchangeable (in the instant) reality. I hold that absolutely.

Well then you're wrong. Every time someone commits suicide, or gives away their belongings, or chooses not to steal even though they know for certain that they would not get caught, you're wrong. And there is nothing objective (I'll not you didn't say there was) about the laws of nature - they are what they are, but there is nothing in logic that says they are better than any other value system.

Might makes right meaning survival of the fittest is something that I've agreed with, although not in the sense of establishing "right" in the sense of, for example, a "Human Right".

You agree that might makes right is subjective, which would mean that you understand the objective basis for a right against force. I'm not sure exactly what part you're getting tripped up on, because it seems from the above that you've already conceded the argument.

Poof, Lion and Impala pop into existence.
Lion kills impala.
The lion has valued his will over the will of the impala
Hunter kills lion using a value system no less objective than the lion has demonstrated he subscribes to

In this case, objectively, the impala's rights were violated, the lion forfeited his rights, and the hunter's rights are intact. All that rights are is a recognition of objectivity. They don't protect the impala and they don't compel the hunter.

I agree too that we can avoid subjectivity, I'm not sure that we agree on where to draw the border.

That's all that rights are - a recognition of when we are failing to avoid subjectivity. I'm not sure what part is bothering you.

I haven't recognized it as such, because in logic there is no room for interpretation and each step must be indisputable. If you want to convince me that there exists an objective right to life, you will have to take me by the hand like Socrates does with Alcibiades. You may have to go extra-terrestrial with that in order to avoid human interpretation.

You're going to have to point out where the things I wrote are subject to interpretation (hint: they aren't).
 
The lion has valued his will over the will of the impala
Hunter kills lion using a value system no less objective than the lion has demonstrated he subscribes to...

You're going to have to point out where the things I wrote are subject to interpretation (hint: they aren't).

No, you are imposing your concept of 'will' into something assessed by lion (or fly, or tree, or whale, or weird-boggly-eyed-deepwater-fish) in the instant. There was no comparison of the value of will, or a right to act, only an opportunity driven by advantage.

We should probably stop fencing, you continue to apply Rand-style thinking as some kind of explanation for the chemical, physical and biological nature of the universe and of that which we perceive to be 'life'. That application is erroneous, stubborn, and in some ways self-contradictory. It borrows from established understandings in science and philosophy and bastardises them in order satisfy what seems to many to be a transparently conservative political and social agenda.

The inputs are philosophical, the outputs are philosphical, they are not related to science or to how things actually are even when we're not here.

I'm aware that your last comment was @Denur , but I feel that there is a lot of interpretation that can be applied to the overall philosophy that seems to be informing your argument.

Why I'm Not an Objectivist - An interesting dissection of Objectivism which argues many of my points in a much better way than I ever could.

Rights: Ayn Rand Got It Wrong

The Simplistic Flaw In Ann Rand's Philosophy - A philosophy professor dissects the faulty logic in the libertarians' favorite deep-thinker

Ayn Rand Is For Children - Rand's social outlook considered

Philosophy of Objectivism - Objectivism is a Philosophy
 
No, you are imposing your concept of 'will' into something assessed by lion (or fly, or tree, or whale, or weird-boggly-eyed-deepwater-fish) in the instant.

Nope. Nothing is assessed by the lion, or fly, or tree, or whale, or weird-boggly-eyed-deepwater-fish. I have no idea why you think that because I have stated exactly the opposite about 5 times.

There was no comparison of the value of will, or a right to act, only an opportunity driven by advantage.

Totally agree, in fact I have stated something along the lines of lion thinks "eat food" and does about 5 times now. So.... not sure why you think this is a rebuttal.

We should probably stop fencing, you continue to apply Rand-style thinking

Don't do that. Don't try to re-characterize my position so that you can appeal to other people in hopes of finding a way out. Address my argument head-on yourself.

as some kind of explanation for the chemical, physical and biological nature of the universe and of that which we perceive to be 'life'.

What on earth makes you think that anything I've written is trying to explain life, or explain the universe, or explain anything? Where are you getting this? This is an application of logic. It doesn't explain behavior any more than 2+2 explains where the 2 things or the other 2 things came from or why they were added.

That application is erroneous, stubborn, and in some ways self-contradictory.

You're going to have to actually point to a specific example for me to take that seriously.

It borrows from established understandings in science and philosophy and bastardises them in order satisfy what seems to many to be a transparently conservative political and social agenda.

Conservative political agenda? Human rights? What? Again, I have no idea how you jump here from the conversation.

The inputs are philosophical, the outputs are philosphical, they are not related to science or to how things actually are even when we're not here.

This statement makes me think you're not even reading, not engaging, not really thinking about the topic, just looking for a way to dismiss and go on with your current worldview.

I'm aware that your last comment was @Denur , but I feel that there is a lot of interpretation that can be applied to the overall philosophy that seems to be informing your argument.

Again, specific examples.

Why I'm Not an Objectivist - An interesting dissection of Objectivism which argues many of my points in a much better way than I ever could.

Rights: Ayn Rand Got It Wrong

The Simplistic Flaw In Ann Rand's Philosophy - A philosophy professor dissects the faulty logic in the libertarians' favorite deep-thinker

Ayn Rand Is For Children - Rand's social outlook considered

Philosophy of Objectivism - Objectivism is a Philosophy

Argue with me, don't refer me to other people arguing with each other.

Edit:

I did bother to read some of what was linked btw, if you want me to address any of it, first be sure it applies to my argument. If it does, then quote the part you want me to address here, and I'll be happy to explain exactly the misstep that was taken to reach the conclusion in the article.
 
Last edited:
Don't do that. Don't try to re-characterize my position so that you can appeal to other people in hopes of finding a way out. Address my argument head-on yourself.

Interestingly I was appealing to you and trying to offer you a way out, not to others... and it was meant in a spirit of overall jest.

To approach your argument head-on;

You agree that might makes right is subjective, which would mean that you understand the objective basis for a right against force. I'm not sure exactly what part you're getting tripped up on, because it seems from the above that you've already conceded the argument.

You make a base assumption there which seems to read thus; one who agrees that 'might is right' is subjective must therefore also agree that there is an objective basis for a right against force.

No, absolutely not. I agree the first and fully disagree with the second.

Force either shall or won't be used against one, that is all. We are a host for carbon/electrical life (just like any other host) and we follow the path of least resistance in order to survive. There's no question of 'will' or 'right', simply of inevitable pre-programmed action.

Simple mechanics lie at the root of all actions of life, regardless of how we quantify those actions after the fact. Some of those quantifications exists as mathematical proof. Others exist only as philosophy. To make an 'objective basis for a right against force' one has to limit one's view to philosophy and allow objectivity itself to be a philosophical quantity.

This is why "natural rights" do not exist, because they are not in nature.
 
To approach your argument head-on;

Thank you.

You make a base assumption there which seems to read thus; one who agrees that 'might is right' is subjective must therefore also agree that there is an objective basis for a right against force.

No, absolutely not. I agree the first and fully disagree with the second.

I think this is because you're misunderstanding what a right really is, but I'm not certain.

Force either shall or won't be used against one, that is all.

Ok, that's fine.

We are a host for carbon/electrical life (just like any other host) and we follow the path of least resistance in order to survive. There's no question of 'will' or 'right', simply of inevitable pre-programmed action.

Ok that's wrong. Not only do we have freedom of choice, but we're not alone in the animal kingdom in that regard. Many many many human beings make decisions that not only have nothing to do with biological programming, but actually go against their biological programming. Your instincts are suppressed probably a hundred times a day by your rational mind - which controls your actions. This is how people jump out of planes, or even get on them in the first place.

Simple mechanics lie at the root of all actions of life, regardless of how we quantify those actions after the fact.

Ok, that's fine. No agreement here does not disagree with what I just wrote.

Some of those quantifications exists as mathematical proof.

Ok, that's fine.

Others exist only as philosophy.

Not a big fan of philosophy obviously.

To make an 'objective basis for a right against force' one has to limit one's view to philosophy and allow objectivity itself to be a philosophical quantity.

I wonder if you would say the same of anything else objective.

Presume A exists.
Presume that if A exists, B exists.
I objectively conclude that B exists.

Does one need to limit one's view to philosophy for this? It is logic, and that's all that's being used here.

This is why "natural rights" do not exist, because they are not in nature.

You're twisting a title that I've already told you I dislike because I don't find it properly descriptive, and arguing based on what the title might describe. I prefer logical rights, or objective rights, over natural rights as a title. In fact, the very example I started with was a recognition of nature not conforming to rights or objectivity. I used the fact that they are not adhered to in nature as a starting point, as an example, to illustrate what rights really are.

The thing is, everybody seems to come back to, over and over again, that because rights aren't always observed they don't exist. As though human rights are some force from the sky that prevents you from acting. As though the fact that a lion kills an antelope is somehow evidence that rights don't exist. Yes, rights are violated constantly. And no, god does not come down and judge the violators. In many cases nobody notices and the world keeps spinning. Does that somehow mean that rights don't exist or that they aren't meaningful? Absolutely not.

Rights are what allow us to make an objective determination that something subjective happened. I can do it to cases that don't involve force too. If I say "I like blue better than red", objectively I can say that that statement represents a subjective value system which weighs blue over red. Can I say that blue is better than red objectively? No. Can I objectively say that it is subjective to value blue over red? Yes I can. And you have agreed to this part.

But that's all that rights really are - a recognition of the subjective. Rights aren't force, they aren't protection, and they aren't nature or the hand of god punishing you. They're just a recognition of the subjective. And nothing might come of it - or everything - it's up to a society or individual to determine what to do with it. Some societies or individuals choose to recognize that and act accordingly, others do not. That is all.
 
Unless something can be deemed objectively wrong (and not just not right), all we will get is a reversal of roles in regards to subjective and objective. Belief (ok/not ok to kill) is subjective and can be observed objectively (cannot be right/wrong). Action (killing) is objective, and will be observed subjectively (ok/not ok to kill). In the absence of objectively wrong, we've got agreed standards.
 
Unless something can be deemed objectively wrong (and not just not right)

You can't determine that anything is objectively wrong - to do so would be to require an objective value system, which, to my knowledge, does not exist. To commit murder is to be subjective. And once you've subscribed to subjectivity, other people can treat you subjectively and maintain their objectivity. Perhaps that isn't easy to read. Sometimes ease of understanding is lost for technical accuracy. Let me give an example of what I'm saying.

You can't say that one person murdering another person is objectively wrong. Maybe the person who was murdered was a really despicable person. Maybe you think that the murderer had a disadvantage childhood or was completely insane. In some cases (especially hypothetical philosophical trolley car examples), murdering someone could save a dozen or even thousands of lives. Can you say that the person who was killed is more valuable than the thousand that were saved?

All we can say about the murder is that the murderer chose to impose a subjective value system. That value system was that the person murdered was a despicable person, or the killer felt like it while on their schizophrenic episode, or they felt that 1000 lives (or a dozen) was worth more than the 1 person they were murdering. Regardless of what their motivations were, they were subjective.

Anyone else (including society as a whole) can choose to act against the murderer or not depending on their own subjective values. But if they choose to initiate force against the murderer, they know that whatever subjective value system they are imposing, they're imposing it on someone who already chose to impose a subjective value system on someone else - someone who announced to the universe that they are willing to act on subjectivity. And so anyone else (including society as a whole) who chooses to act against the murderer based on their own subjective values, is doing so based on the murderer's own rules* - and that's what makes it objective.

This is establishes a human right against force. You can use force to defend against initiated force (self defense, defense of others) and maintain objectivity. You can even use force to punish or protect against future behavior of someone who initiates force (imprisonment, capital punishment).

*Rules being not necessarily the murderer's value system, but rather subjectivity.
 
But @Danoff , those are judgements made by people who are part of a social system that shares and teaches certain values. Different people might see the murder in completely different lights.

The 'right' isn't there until somebody knows it is there and observes it, or until you know it's there and pursue it. A successful pursuit of the 'right' would require it to become part of your society's value system.

The organism itself (murderer without the upbringing and life experience) killed because it required to do so in order to live. What society gives is an extension to the method of living; it moves the organism beyond an eating-breeding machine to one that negotiates its position (literally, rather than always as a voluntary barter).

The prisoner isn't willingly negotiating his position by willingly trading for it, rather he has accepted the rules of society (if this is his first offence) and has negotiated his means for living (and then leisure, another bonus of society) by adopting the language and customs of those around him. He may have deviated during his teens but probably still represented a subculture.

When he stood there in the organ transplant unit and killed a man in Renal, just to watch him die... he wasn't doing it to survive in that instant. He was making judgements based on the sum of his social experience, perhaps saving a dying relative in pain, perhaps settling a score, perhaps killing a random man for pleasure (antisocial). All the thoughts, values and belief that informed his action came from the sum of his experience that overlaid the base nature of the organism.

That's how he's "negotiated" his way into the system, in return for legal protection and social support (not necessarily fiscal, I mean education, leisure etc) he has conformed to the rules of the society. That has enabled him to live and to do the second most important thing, feel as much pleasure as possible.

That negotiation is where rights are born, they cannot be born before because they are not part of the mechanism of life.
 
I believe it would be helpful to define the term "Murder" before going too much further. Seems to me that some are using it as essentially synonymous with "kill a human being". A dictionary definition of the term is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another" but that of course has problems stemming from the word "unlawful". I certainly cannot consider killing someone in self-defense to be an act of murder.
 
I believe it would be helpful to define the term "Murder" before going too much further. Seems to me that some are using it as essentially synonymous with "kill a human being". A dictionary definition of the term is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another" but that of course has problems stemming from the word "unlawful". I certainly cannot consider killing someone in self-defense to be an act of murder.

The literal definition from roots (to me at least, half-Celt half-Norse) is "a stealthy kill", often seen to be "cowardly" (which is a judgement in itself obviously. As you say its modern context is "unlawful killing", which is also a judgement rather than a statement of simple action.

Making it synonymous with "killing another human being" is the safest definition for the purposes of this thread as it reserves judgement on the morality or necessity of the act and also avoids the minefield of etymological and legal definition.
 
So why not use the term "kill" instead of "murder" since the context makes it perfectly clear it's human being we're talking about killing or being killed. Or "homocide" might be an even better term for the discussion.

I really have a problem with words being redefined "for the purposes of this thread".
 
So why not use the term "kill" instead of "murder" since the context makes it perfectly clear it's human being we're talking about killing or being killed.

Because in normal speech they mean the same thing. To be more proper you'd say there was a "suspicion of murder", either way you'd still be saying "murder" from the proto-Germanic for man (non gender) and kill. That's why "murder" is the word for humans and "kill" isn't.

Or "homocide" might be an even better term for the discussion.

Wrong thread.

I really have a problem with words being redefined "for the purposes of this thread".

You're adding definitions rather than making disproving them, "murder" is a legally defined crime and also an act. The legality overrules the historical definition at times, for example; I couldn't say you murdered someone when it had been proved in court that you acted in self-defence and had no case to answer. You murdered him and didn't all at once.

You risk muddying (or bloodying) the waters by trying to overdefine that point, it seems that most people know what each other means when they say "A murders B". It's everything else they say that's bat-**** crazy sometimes :D
 
But @Danoff , those are judgements made by people who are part of a social system that shares and teaches certain values. Different people might see the murder in completely different lights.

What are judgements made by people who are part of a social system?

I did certainly allow for the fact that different people might see the murder in completely different lights:

me
Anyone else (including society as a whole) can choose to act against the murderer or not depending on their own subjective values
me
You can't say that one person murdering another person is objectively wrong. Maybe the person who was murdered was a really despicable person. Maybe you think that the murderer had a disadvantage childhood or was completely insane. In some cases (especially hypothetical philosophical trolley car examples), murdering someone could save a dozen or even thousands of lives. Can you say that the person who was killed is more valuable than the thousand that were saved?

So I'm failing to see why that's somehow a rebuttal to my post.


The 'right' isn't there until somebody knows it is there and observes it, or until you know it's there and pursue it. A successful pursuit of the 'right' would require it to become part of your society's value system.

You're once again implying that rights don't exist until they are well protected. Rights are at their most important when they are not incorporated into society's value system. If your rights are never infringed, you don't need them.

The organism itself (murderer without the upbringing and life experience) killed because it required to do so in order to live. What society gives is an extension to the method of living; it moves the organism beyond an eating-breeding machine to one that negotiates its position (literally, rather than always as a voluntary barter).

You effectively rebut this statement later:

When he stood there in the organ transplant unit and killed a man in Renal, just to watch him die... he wasn't doing it to survive in that instant. He was making judgements based on the sum of his social experience, perhaps saving a dying relative in pain, perhaps settling a score, perhaps killing a random man for pleasure (antisocial). All the thoughts, values and belief that informed his action came from the sum of his experience that overlaid the base nature of the organism.

You also once again attempt to delve into the notion the somehow any of the motivation matters. It doesn't. All of that may play into someone's subjective interpretation of the events. But that's not where rights live.

That's how he's "negotiated" his way into the system, in return for legal protection and social support (not necessarily fiscal, I mean education, leisure etc) he has conformed to the rules of the society. That has enabled him to live and to do the second most important thing, feel as much pleasure as possible.

Actually he has not conformed to the rules of society - by definition. Furthermore, nobody chooses to enter the "system". They are born in the country they are born in by chance, and in many cases have no choice but to remain. No criminal chooses to conform to the rules of society in exchange for anything - criminals choose to break the rules of society in exchange for all kinds of things.


That negotiation is where rights are born, they cannot be born before because they are not part of the mechanism of life.

They're a mechanism of logic, not life.

I believe it would be helpful to define the term "Murder" before going too much further. Seems to me that some are using it as essentially synonymous with "kill a human being".

Making it synonymous with "killing another human being" is the safest definition for the purposes of this thread as it reserves judgement on the morality or necessity of the act and also avoids the minefield of etymological and legal definition.
So why not use the term "kill" instead of "murder" since the context makes it perfectly clear it's human being we're talking about killing or being killed.

Killing is something that can be done lawfully and objectively. I was using the term murderer to refer to the person who initiated force - the person who was forfeiting his rights and who could ultimately have force used against him. I used that term because murder has a connotation of "illegal" or "wrong". Whereas killing is neither illegal or legal, right or wrong, or objective or subjective.

Killing is something a murderer does, and it's something that is done in self defense.
Murder is something the murderer does, and not something that is done in self defense.
 
Because in normal speech they mean the same thing.
But they clearly do not, else we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
You're adding definitions rather than making disproving them, "murder" is a legally defined crime and also an act. The legality overrules the historical definition at times, for example; I couldn't say you murdered someone when it had been proved in court that you acted in self-defence and had no case to answer. You murdered him and didn't all at once.
This can only happen when you say "kill a human" is the same thing as "murder".
You risk muddying (or bloodying) the waters by trying to overdefine that point, it seems that most people know what each other means when they say "A murders B".
Again, clearly not. I do not see a soldier killing an enemy soldier as murder, not do I see an executioner carrying out a legally mandated death sentence as a murderer. Or a homeowner killing an intruder. But you wish to classify all them as examples of murder.
Killing is something that can be done lawfully and objectively. I was using the term murderer to refer to the person who initiated force - the person who was forfeiting his rights and who could ultimately have force used against him. I used that term because murder has a connotation of "illegal" or "wrong". Whereas killing is neither illegal or legal, right or wrong, or objective or subjective.

Killing is something a murderer does, and it's something that is done in self defense.
Murder is something the murderer does, and not something that is done in self defense.
This is more in line with what the word "murder" means to me.
 
I think he either made a joke or a typo, go easy ;)
I didn't even realize his typo. I thought you were making a poor joke.

My bad.

barbrady.png
 
It was indeed a typo. Referencing it to the gay rights thread was in extremely poor taste.

Well, I'm not responsible for your judgements on taste and I think your offence is misplaced. You said homo-cide, perhaps linking that typo (which I now know it was) to the Gay Rights was an infantile joke but I feel you're being a little prickly.

"Homocide" should actually mean the same thing as "homicide" anyway. "Homophobia" is actually a bastardisation so the joke doesn't work at an etymological level.
 
Do the math with this: Stealing, right or wrong? Killing, right or wrong? Even for these basic questions, math doesn't help you. So what happens when the questions become increasingly complex: Death penalty, right or wrong? Abortion, right or wrong? Terrorism, right or wrong? Freedom fight, right or wrong?

So we've established a fundamental right of freedom from the initiation of force in this thread through logic alone. The answer to these questions is then:


Stealing, right or wrong? Violation of rights.
Killing, right or wrong? Violation of rights when done against an innocent.
Death Penalty, right or wrong? Not a violation of rights when done against the guilty.
Abortion, right or wrong? Not of a violation of rights.
Terrorism, right or wrong? Violation of rights when done against the innocent (which is kindof inherent in terrorism).
Freedom fight, right or wrong? Not a violation of rights when fighting those who have violated yours.

For the above, innocent is defined as someone who has not violated the rights of another.
 
I'll also point out that the rather cavalier response of:
So if you want to kill me and make others think that you are morally right in doing so - invest in propaganda.

Is rather blatantly at odds with the later idea that:
"Might makes right" would implicate that whoever has might is always right. I'm not saying that, I'm saying that those who have power can enforce their opinions. It doesn't mean everyone has to agree.
 
Last edited:
Moved it over here, since the "on-topic" component was not confidently so, and the conversation was straying from that even.

The solution isn't just a blanket no to suicide. If your suicide would lead to you abandoning a responsibility, then it shouldn't be allowed. However just because suicide might lead to an unfulfilled responsibility doesn't mean no one should be given the option.
Looks like our thinking is the same. I know.... it scares me too.

So how do we sort out the have right to have not, and the have not right to have not? Life, that is.

@Danoff This is where I'd have thought that maybe I could see the whole violation of rights thing being discerning. But there's a problem. If a violation of another's rights means that the violator's rights are removed, and a suicide resulting in what would be deemed child abuse is the catalyst for that violation, shouldn't the right to suicide be removed? The problem comes in the form of you seemingly thinking that no-one should ever have their right to suicide removed.

I've been prodding and poking at the libertarian view. If it works, I'm there. Is there a contemporary society that has a particularly pure and high libertarian saturation?
 
@Danoff This is where I'd have thought that maybe I could see the whole violation of rights thing being discerning. But there's a problem. If a violation of another's rights means that the violator's rights are removed, and a suicide resulting in what would be deemed child abuse is the catalyst for that violation, shouldn't the right to suicide be removed? The problem comes in the form of you seemingly thinking that no-one should ever have their right to suicide removed.

You pose this question a little awkwardly because you're not thinking about it exactly the way I do. So I'll frame my response to try to make it clear how I see this.

You don't have a right to break into and enter someone else's property. If you're walking along the sidewalk and see an open door, all you have to do to violate property rights is walk right in. Does this mean that you should have your right to walk removed? Because you could use your right to walk to enter someone else's house?

I don't think someone should ever have their right to walk removed. But simultaneously, I don't think that someone has the right to use any of their freedoms to infringe someone else's property rights. Suicide is a personal freedom that we all have, but we don't have the right to use that freedom to violate someone else's rights. That includes child abandonment or theft or any of the many other rights violations that I'm sure you could accomplish through the act of suicide.


I've been prodding and poking at the libertarian view. If it works, I'm there. Is there a contemporary society that has a particularly pure and high libertarian saturation?

The short answer is no.

The long answer is that there are places on the planet that practice portions of libertarianism quite well. There is always some aspect of those societies that directly goes against libertarianism. So you can see it fractured all over the planet, but never assembled as a whole.
 

Latest Posts

Back