Human Rights
- Thread starter Danoff
- 2,239 comments
- 116,955 views
- 87,107
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Logic defines the right to your own life, your own mind, your own body and to retain the efforts of your mind and body. If you choose not to retain the efforts of your mind and body - say by voluntarily entering servitude, or working pro bono - it is your right to do so, as defined by logic.Elaborate
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Where does logic define that?
It's all over this thread. Here is one of the most recent times, which you already asked for this morning and I already quoted for you:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/human-rights.77925/page-55#post-10015422
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
I think what Famine and Danoff have in mind are actually natural rights, as opposed to legal rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontic_logic
Deontic logic is the field of logic that is concerned with obligation, permission, and related concepts. Alternatively, a deontic logic is a formal system that attempts to capture the essential logical features of these concepts. Typically, a deontic logic uses OA to mean it is obligatory that A, (or it ought to be (the case) that A), and PA to mean it is permitted (or permissible) that A. The term deontic is derived from the ancient Greek déon - δέον (gen.: δέοντος), meaning, roughly, that which is binding or proper.
Deontic logic faces Jørgensen's Dilemma.[4] Norms cannot be true or false, but truth and truth values seem essential to logic. There are two possible answers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights
- Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. They're sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontic_logic
Deontic logic is the field of logic that is concerned with obligation, permission, and related concepts. Alternatively, a deontic logic is a formal system that attempts to capture the essential logical features of these concepts. Typically, a deontic logic uses OA to mean it is obligatory that A, (or it ought to be (the case) that A), and PA to mean it is permitted (or permissible) that A. The term deontic is derived from the ancient Greek déon - δέον (gen.: δέοντος), meaning, roughly, that which is binding or proper.
Deontic logic faces Jørgensen's Dilemma.[4] Norms cannot be true or false, but truth and truth values seem essential to logic. There are two possible answers:
- Deontic logic handles norm propositions, not norms;
- There might be alternative concepts to truth, e.g. validity or success, as it is defined in speech act theory.
Last edited:
- 87,107
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Roger Scruton: rights imply obligations.
Roger Scruton[edit]
Roger Scruton, the British philosopher, argues that rights imply obligations. Every legal privilege, he writes, imposes a burden on the one who does not possess that privilege: that is, "your right may be my duty." Scruton therefore regards the emergence of the animal rights movement as "the strangest cultural shift within the liberal worldview", because the idea of rights and responsibilities is, he argues, distinctive to the human condition, and it makes no sense to spread them beyond our own species. He accuses animal rights advocates of "pre-scientific" anthropomorphism, attributing traits to animals that are, he says, Beatrix Potter-like, where "only man is vile." It is within this fiction that the appeal of animal rights lies, he argues. The world of animals is non-judgemental, filled with dogs who return our affection almost no matter what we do to them, and cats who pretend to be affectionate when, in fact, they care only about themselves. It is, he argues, a fantasy, a world of escape.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#Critics
BHRxRacer
(Banned)
- 1,214
Rights imply obligation...When did he say that? I used to say this on the internet a lot like 10 years ago. I'll sue him for copyright infringement
Roger Scruton: rights imply obligations.
Roger Scruton[edit]
Roger Scruton, the British philosopher, argues that rights imply obligations. Every legal privilege, he writes, imposes a burden on the one who does not possess that privilege: that is, "your right may be my duty." Scruton therefore regards the emergence of the animal rights movement as "the strangest cultural shift within the liberal worldview", because the idea of rights and responsibilities is, he argues, distinctive to the human condition, and it makes no sense to spread them beyond our own species. He accuses animal rights advocates of "pre-scientific" anthropomorphism, attributing traits to animals that are, he says, Beatrix Potter-like, where "only man is vile." It is within this fiction that the appeal of animal rights lies, he argues. The world of animals is non-judgemental, filled with dogs who return our affection almost no matter what we do to them, and cats who pretend to be affectionate when, in fact, they care only about themselves. It is, he argues, a fantasy, a world of escape.[8]
- 1,049
- England
I've always found Human rights very confusing, and struggled to understand them.
Human rights have always seemed very artificial to me but maybe I'm taking what rights are too literally, there are people in this world who have less rights than me just because they were born on a different piece of land, is that because they have less rights or because their rights are being violated. I would assume it's the latter but when human rights can be taken away so easily it doesn't seem like much of a right to me.
We have rights because we are the top species of this planet, the most advanced and most intelligent, we give ourself rights to protect ourselves from each other. Not that it's likely to ever happen but what if another species evolves to be our equals, or surpasses us? Would we still have human rights and would they be respected? I can't imagine we would still have them when we struggle to give every human equal rights currently.
Human rights have always seemed very artificial to me but maybe I'm taking what rights are too literally, there are people in this world who have less rights than me just because they were born on a different piece of land, is that because they have less rights or because their rights are being violated. I would assume it's the latter but when human rights can be taken away so easily it doesn't seem like much of a right to me.
We have rights because we are the top species of this planet, the most advanced and most intelligent, we give ourself rights to protect ourselves from each other. Not that it's likely to ever happen but what if another species evolves to be our equals, or surpasses us? Would we still have human rights and would they be respected? I can't imagine we would still have them when we struggle to give every human equal rights currently.
- 7,602
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
BHRxRacer
(Banned)
- 1,214
I learned that from you guys. Specifically Famine and Scaff. What'd he say, it's not semantics if it makes a difference? Well there you go.
What opinion exactly? I believe there should laws governing how humans interact with each other, and we can argue day and night about what laws suit the majority of humans (or a country) better.
- 13,884
- Adelaide
- Neomone
The opinion that there is no such thing as logically derivable rights. You've been fairly clear about your stance on that.
Presumably if such things can't be logically proven, they can be logically disproven, or you can at least demonstrate why logic cannot be used to prove or disprove the statements made.
If someone says that 2+2=5, that can be logically disproven. If you disagree with @Danoff statements about logical rights, even if (especially if) you think that his logic is his own special brand of twaddle, you will have some logical reasons for thinking that. Either you will be able to prove in your own logic (or preferably, objective logic) that he is wrong, or you will be able to demonstrate that logic is not the correct tool for analysing the truth or falsehood of his statements.
BHRxRacer
(Banned)
- 1,214
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Not exactly. You already made the same statement, and I already corrected you. You're not even trying to comprehend.
Still choosing to ignore substance and comment on minutia. Yes, logic is either correct or it isn't. Mine is correct. I take it by your complete refusal to respond to my question that you don't actually disagree - you just like to talk.
