Is morality objective?

[Famine]

You think that Rights are natural and universal to all humans.

Again, where did I say that?

Isnt that a belief in something?

No.

I am very rational. My theory supports that actually.

You believe in something (which is itself not rational), and it's not a theory.

What is hideous for you, does not mean it is hideous for another. If you and I observe that a random act is hideous. Person nr.3 might observe the act as normal or even beautiful.

It's clearly hideous to you as you won't even talk about it and objected to me describing it...

I'm happy to continue talking about it. You keep objecting to anyone bringing up the consequences of your argument.

How do you establish or prove that rights are objective, universal and unalienable If so many people disagree with that theory.

Why is the number of people agreeing with something an indicator of how right it is?

That an embryo is not a living being is also an opinion.

No, it's a fact. The opinion that it is a living being is a belief - one founded on the basis of fortune-telling...

So rights are exclusive to humans?

I answered this question much earlier in the thread, so you have no reason to ask it again.

An embryo is an entity that lives.

Nope. It's a bundle of cells that acts as a parasite. It has absolutely no way to survive as an independent entity.

How do human naturally obtain the right to live and have property and others dont? I am genuinely trying to understand this theory.

Then read the human rights thread.

 

[Danoff]

You definition however is that out of the blue, nature established that only human have rights.

Nope.

According to my theory that people naturally, through ethics, norms and values people have come to recognise rights. However because of perhaps geography, religion or other factors these "rights" can differ from eachother in other societies. Just like the theory of natural righs is perhaps more prevelant in the USA then where I live.

This is why we badly need to agree on a definition. What you're saying is that "rights" are something invented and which do not actually exist. You do not have to agree that rights exist to understand what one means when they say it.

For example, I don't believe that God exist (including the Abrahamic god). But if someone is discussing God with me I don't redefine god to mean nature and then have a confusing conversation with them about god when I mean nature. You don't have to think that rights exist to understand what I'm talking about when I use the term. You don't have to redefine it to mean law and then start using the term as though everyone uses it that way. Rights are not law.

You think that Rights are natural and universal to all humans. Isnt that a belief in something?

It's just a logical derivation.

What is hideous for you, does not mean it is hideous for another. If you and I observe that a random act is hideous. Person nr.3 might observe the act as normal or even beautiful.

It's true that different people find different acts to be beautiful and hideous. You're merely saying that you think rights do not exist.

How do you establish or prove that rights are objective, universal and unalienable If so many people disagree with that theory.

The manner of disagreement is extremely important here. An irrational disagreement is not something that needs to be addressed.

How do human naturally obtain the right to live and have property and others dont? I am genuinely trying to understand this theory.

This was discussed somewhat at length in the human rights thread. That very issue is touched on in the very first post. The short answer is reciprocity.

 

[PocketZeven]

So in society 2, women do not have the right not to be raped, because they have no rights.

Those are your words: "women in society have no rights". The right not to be raped is a right, but they have no rights.

It doesn't matter a whit if you're a member of that society or not.

You really need to think out the logical consequences of what you're saying.

Are you obsessed with rape? You keep bringing it up.

A member of society 2 does observe that prisoners have no rights.

We are not members of those societies so we will always view that the violating act is a violation of these prisoners rights.

In another example. Do you believe a criminal stealing your property, forfeits their right to live?

No, it's a fact. The opinion that it is a living being is a belief - one founded on the basis of fortune-telling...

Rights are not facts, but you "believe" they are. This isnt rocket science. If it isnt a belief, but a fact, then it should be prove-able.

Lets concentrate on difference between fact and belief then. How do you prove an embryo is not a living being? I would agree it is not (yet) a human, but definately a living being.

 

[Danoff]

We are not members of those societies so we will always view that the violating act is a violation of these prisoners rights.

If it's society-dependent, it's not a right. It has to span (at least) humans to be a right. That's just what human rights means. You're using it to mean law, and it's really preventing discussion.

 

[PocketZeven]

If it's society-dependent, it's not a right. It has to span (at least) humans to be a right. That's just what human rights means. You're using it to mean law, and it's really preventing discussion.

You should be asking yourself more questions.

No you are not making enough effort to even consider the notion that rights are society dependant. How do humans have rights. Because people agree on their existence. That is the key difference why a plant does not have the right to live and a human does.

Human species are in itself a society on planet earth. Other intelligent species do not have the same definition of rights like humans do.

 

[Famine]

Rights are not facts, but you "believe" they are.

Quote me.

You won't be able to because I didn't say it, and neither believe nor think it.

If it isnt a belief, but a fact, then it should be prove-able.

Lets concentrate on difference between fact and belief then. How do you prove an embryo is not a living being?

How do you prove any negative? You can't. This is literally the start of reason - and someone who says "I am rational" should know this.

You have to prove that an embryo is a living being. And you won't be able to, because it isn't - it's literally a parasiting bundle of cells. But that's one for the abortion thread, like I said. You're retreading old ground. Again.

How do humans have rights. Because people agree on their existence.

That's laws. Laws don't create rights, they recognise or deny them.

You are again arguing that where rights are not agreed on, they don't exist. You are again arguing that slaves, girls, homosexuals, and women don't have rights when enough people say they don't - which is the definition of the tyranny of the majority.

I wonder if you're aware that you're arguing that if enough people vote for it, they can use you for live organ donation and you would claim you have no rights...

 

[Danoff]

You should be asking yourself more questions.

No you are not making enough effort to even consider the notion that rights are society dependant.

It's just what the word means. It's not about considering one notion or another, it's just semantics. You're using rights to mean laws, or even social norms. We have words for those. We don't need to make rights mean that.

It's not that I won't consider laws or social norms, I'm happy to. But I'd want to use language accurately in that discussion.

How do humans have rights. Because people agree on their existence. That is the key difference why a plant does not have the right to live and a human does.

Human species are in itself a society on planet earth. Other intelligent species do not have the same definition of rights like humans do.

It's covered in the thread I said it was covered it. Short answer: reciprocity.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's just what the word means. It's not about considering one notion or another, it's just semantics. You're using rights to mean laws, or even social norms. We have words for those. We don't need to make rights mean that.

the problem is you are fixated on your definition on rights, that you cannot understand that there are other definitions you can easily find. Lets take the most common definition in the dictionary:

"a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something" and "that which is morally correct, just, or honourable."

Morals like I described earlier is dependant on the person. When you choose to use your on definitions of rights, why immediately disregards the more common definitions, which I was using?

You won't be able to because I didn't say it, and neither believe nor think it.

You are again arguing that where rights are not agreed on, they don't exist. You are again arguing that slaves, girls, homosexuals, and women don't have rights when enough people say they don't - which is the definition of the tyranny of the majority.

I wonder if you're aware that you're arguing that if enough people vote for it, they can use you for live organ donation and you would claim you have no rights...

Litterally any concept like ethics, rights,religion exist and depend on people's recognition of it. When is say belief I mean it like this definition from the dictionary:
"an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."

No now you are confusing rights with laws. "tyranny of the majority" is something you like to use, but is an incorrect application to this statement, it suggest a negative. Rights cant be voted on their own. They are acknowledged or they are not. Do you still call it "tyranny of the majority" when 1 person thinks prisoners should have zero rights, but all other people think prisoners have the right to not be violated?

Why do you keep referring to topics like slaves girls, homosexuals? You can easily apply it to the right to property or simple the rifht to live. And yes in some societies and religions humans that have different lifestyles are seen as subhuman.

During the time of slavery. Slaves were not believed to have any rights and seen as property. Not as law, but within their society. Remember that rights arent universal. Thankfully many other people's ethics, morals and values evolved to believe this is a violation to their right to be free. You could call this

In some communities they believe people have no right to property and all is god property. That doesnt mean I think they dont have that right. They themselves think that. We all agree that we have that right. Regardless is its a rule or even a law.

 

[Danoff]

the problem is you are fixated on your definition on rights, that you cannot understand that there are other definitions you can easily find. Lets take the most common definition in the dictionary:

"a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something" and "that which is morally correct, just, or honourable."

Ok, what would you call a human right? I think you're missing the point here - which is that what I'm describing is what we're actually talking about. Again, we already have words for what you're trying to turn this into - like laws or social conventions or norms. Those are perfectly good words, use them for what they are, and use human rights for what it is.

When you choose to use your on definitions of rights, why immediately disregards the more common definitions, which I was using?

I don't agree that calling laws rights is more common.

In some communities they believe people have no right to property and all is god property. That doesnt mean I think they dont have that right. They themselves think that. We all agree that we have that right. Regardless is its a rule or even a law.

One does not have to exercise their rights to have them. For example I have the right to say things which I do not care to say. However, reciprocity is a requirement for rights. If I refuse to acknowledge property rights, I forfeit my own.

 

[PocketZeven]

Ok, what would you call a human right? I think you're missing the point here - which is that what I'm describing is what we're actually talking about. Again, we already have words for what you're trying to turn this into - like laws or social conventions or norms. Those are perfectly good words, use them for what they are, and use human rights for what it is.

I don't agree that calling laws rights is more common.

One does not have to exercise their rights to have them. For example I have the right to say things which I do not care to say. However, reciprocity is a requirement for rights. If I refuse to acknowledge property rights, I forfeit my own.

Those definitions come straight out the dictionary. I am making an effort to try find comon ground on the definition of Rights. Like the one used in dictionaries. However you still refuse to call the definition rights but call them laws.

Right is an entitlement right? I acknowledge that one does not need to excercise the right to have them. However other people need to recognise you to have that right.

Lets say for example you are a human, yet the whole world says you are a duck. Are you a duck or a human?

That concept your describing of forfeiting is what I still need to understand. If I refuse to acknowledge property rights I forfeit my own? What if I only acknowledge that I have property rights and you dont, because I dont consider you human. So that would mean I am not human and therefore no rights?

 

[Famine]

"that which is morally correct"

Hmm. Almost like "correct" is a synonym for something...

Litterally any concept like ethics, rights,religion exist and depend on people's recognition of it.

Literally any belief or subjective phenomenon, yes. Objective ones are independent of people's recognition of them - but recognition is an important phrase in the discussion that I don't think you've quite realised.

When is say belief I mean it like this definition from the dictionary:
"an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."

Good for you. Catch the qualifier in that quote?

No now you are confusing rights with laws.

No. I've been completely consistent throughout. Rights are not something that get voted for or against. Laws recognising those rights are.

"tyranny of the majority" is something you like to use, but is an incorrect application to this statement, it suggest a negative.

It is a negative. Tyranny of the majority means that the majority can exercise their will by force over a minority. A majority doesn't actually have to be a physical head count, rather anything that can exercise overwhelming force to implement its will - fairly sure that North Korea's ruling party is still outnumbered by its general population, but when people believe you're a deity and there's an army at your disposal, it has a majority of force.

Your argument is that rights are decided on by society - that they exist only when enough people (or force) says that they do. If enough people (or force) says that they don't, they don't exist. Thus trafficked, raped, mutilated girls don't have any rights because their societies say that they don't. This is a literal tyranny of the majority. You are also still arguing that if enough people voted that you don't have any rights, you wouldn't have any rights.

Why do you keep referring to topics like slaves girls, homosexuals?

To make you uncomfortable in what appears to be a very comfortable but wholly wrong position. Why do you refuse to discuss the fact that your premise that a society determines rights means that girls in a society that decides they do not have the right not to have their genitals mutilated or be sold to rapists and murdered by immolation, they do not have the right not to have their genitals mutilated or be sold to rapists and murdered by immolation?

During the time of slavery. Slaves were not believed to have any rights and seen as property. Not as law, but within their society. Remember that rights arent universal. Thankfully many other people's ethics, morals and values evolved to believe this is a violation to their right to be free.

This is laws again. The slaves always had the right to be free, but the law changed from denying it to recognising it because enough people changed the law.

In some communities they believe people have no right to property and all is god property. That doesnt mean I think they dont have that right. They themselves think that. We all agree that we have that right. Regardless is its a rule or even a law.

Yet your argument remains that they don't have that right because their society deemed it thus.

Do you think actually think that the people who try to escape from North Korea believe that they don't have rights because their society says that they don't? Only most of them seem to say that they knew that their rights are being violated...

Lets say for example you are a human, yet the whole world says you are a duck. Are you a duck or a human?

Given your argument is that things are what enough people say they are, that's a terrible hypothetical.

 

[Danoff]

Those definitions come straight out the dictionary. I am making an effort to try find comon ground on the definition of Rights. Like the one used in dictionaries. However you still refuse to call the definition rights but call them laws.

This is getting tiresome. The word "right" has a lot of definitions. The phrase "human rights" doesn't have so many definitions, and at least is a well recognized concept. The use of the word "rights" as shorthand for "human rights" is not at all strange, so don't try to stuff it into the definition you looked up for "rights". It's human rights that we're discussing.

And honestly, I do not care what you want to call it. When I use the word, I'm talking about the concept which you seem to want to call "natural rights". It's fine with me if that's what you want to call it. Honestly I'm willing to call it spaghetti-torpedo-oligarchy if that's what you want to call it. Whatever floats your boat.

Now can we talk about the concept of spaghetti-torpedo-oligarchy, or natural rights, or whatever you want to call it? Or do we have to keep talking about laws? I already know your answer, you think that STO doesn't exist.

However other people need to recognise you to have that right.

No, other people can infringe your human STOs, and when they do, you still have that STO. STOs don't actually matter if nobody infringes them. The whole point of STOs is to understand when they are infringed.

Lets say for example you are a human, yet the whole world says you are a duck. Are you a duck or a human?

Words represent concepts. The words are often arbitrary, the concept is what actually matters. Language fails completely if two parties can't get the accurate portrayal of the concepts they want to represent over to the other person. So if you call what I am a "duck", then that word represents that concept in your mind. I could call myself a "duck" so that you bring up the right concept in your mind. However, if you know that I call myself a "human", then you know that I use that word to represent that concept. I could call myself a "human" so that you bring up the right concept in your mind. Either word could work as long as we both understood how it was being used.

However, if you used duck to mean water fowl, and also used duck to mean human, I might suggest that you adopt my meaning of the word "human" and use that so that we don't confuse it with laws.

That concept your describing of forfeiting is what I still need to understand. If I refuse to acknowledge property rights I forfeit my own? What if I only acknowledge that I have property rights and you dont, because I dont consider you human. So that would mean I am not human and therefore no rights?

Human is not what is important here, reciprocity is. It's discussed in that thread I keep telling you about. If I can recognize property STO and you refuse to, you lose yours and I don't. So for example, if a slave can recognize property STO, and the slave owner does not see the slave as human, and therefore does not recognize the slave's property STO, then the slave owner is the one who has demonstrated a lack of reciprocity, and loses his property STO (eg: has committed a "crime").

 

[BobK]

Are you obsessed with rape? You keep bringing it up.

I think rape is horrifying. I keep bringing it up to try to demonstrate to you just how repugnant it is when you say that some women have no rights. Which I have already quoted your exact words on.

A member of society 2 does observe that prisoners have no rights.

We are not members of those societies so we will always view that the violating act is a violation of these prisoners rights.

So does the right exist, or not? Or do rights exist only when someone else decides what are and are not rights? What we "view" does not matter one bit.

Again, does a woman have the right not to be raped or not? Yes or no. No qualifying with "not in my society" or any of that.

In another example. Do you believe a criminal stealing your property, forfeits their right to live?
Depending on the circumstances, absolutely, they may.

 

[PocketZeven]

I think rape is horrifying. I keep bringing it up to try to demonstrate to you just how repugnant it is when you say that some women have no rights. Which I have already quoted your exact words on.



So does the right exist, or not? Or do rights exist only when someone else decides what are and are not rights? What we "view" does not matter one bit.

Again, does a woman have the right not to be raped or not? Yes or no. No qualifying with "not in my society" or any of that.

In another example. Do you believe a criminal stealing your property, forfeits their right to live?

Depending on the circumstances, absolutely, they may.

Correction I never stated this. Apparantly you have some experience with these kind of violations? I have no idea whats going on in your mind.

You are asking questions I have already answered multiple times. Interesting how you ask me a yes or no question question and you answer my question with "depending on the circumstances". Think about that.

The phrase "human rights" doesn't have so many definitions, and at least is a well recognized concept. The use of the word "rights" as shorthand for "human rights" is not at all strange, so don't try to stuff it into the definition you looked up for "rights". It's human rights that we're discussing.

Human is not what is important here, reciprocity is. It's discussed in that thread I keep telling you about. If I can recognize property STO and you refuse to, you lose yours and I don't. So for example, if a slave can recognize property STO, and the slave owner does not see the slave as human, and therefore does not recognize the slave's property STO, then the slave owner is the one who has demonstrated a lack of reciprocity, and loses his property STO (eg: has committed a "crime").

.

We are talking about the exact same thing. Human rights. But I think we are both stuck with our own interpretation of the definition. Although I understand your defintion within the context of your libertarian views, I do not share those views. Our fundamental views on human rights differ and therefore we might not find common ground. But that does not mean I dont respect you.

To be clear and react to your example:

If the slave has lived his whole life as a slave and does not understand property STO, he cannot recognise it. Thus the slaveowner would not be lacking in reciprocity at all, but actually is reciprociting.

And to return to the subject that started this back and forth. I do not see income tax as stealing. Within a social society fundamentally wealth is created, because of the society within wealth is created. A person has no wealth, if there is no society. There is no property if there is nobody to recognise it. A society is only as strong as their weakest link. Therefore we have the moral obligation to contribute to the society, because otherwise wealth or property can and will not be created or recognised.

You however do think its stealing, because you understand property STO and the government lacks reciprocity. What if you are the last human on earth, would everything be your property or nothing at all?

Hopefully you can make some sense in above. Writing is not my strongest point.

Your argument is that rights are decided on by society - that they exist only when enough people (or force) says that they do. If enough people (or force) says that they don't, they don't exist. Thus trafficked, raped, mutilated girls don't have any rights because their societies say that they don't. This is a literal tyranny of the majority. You are also still arguing that if enough people voted that you don't have any rights, you wouldn't have any rights.


Do you think actually think that the people who try to escape from North Korea believe that they don't have rights because their society says that they don't? Only most of them seem to say that they knew that their rights are being violated...

Given your argument is that things are what enough people say they are, that's a terrible hypothetical.

I already disputed that human rights are voted on.

Rights cant be voted on their own.

So you misrepresent my position again. I said recognition not voting. I recognise you and I live. There are societies that believe we are holograms or ghosts. We recognise they live anyways.

The point is that these girls do have rights according to us. Hypothetically the society that abuse them, might not. We consider these societies as extremist criminals. They themselves consider themselves perhaps as the true children of god and therefore more entitled.

My theory is that you perhaps have not much empathy towards religions and other cultures. Your way of thinking is the correct one and other people's are wrong.

edit:

I will try to use the hypothetical above. If you were the last human on earth would you still have the same human rights? How would you define the right to freedom and property?

 

[Danoff]

We are talking about the exact same thing. Human rights. But I think we are both stuck with our own interpretation of the definition.

Read that back to yourself. We're talking about the exact same thing, we're just stuck on how they're not the exact same thing.

Although I understand your defintion within the context of your libertarian views, I do not share those views. Our fundamental views on human rights differ and therefore we might not find common ground. But that does not mean I dont respect you.

We don't have to agree, but you do need to understand what I'm talking about, and since you do, we can discuss the concept.

To be clear and react to your example:

If the slave has lived his whole life as a slave and does not understand property STO, he cannot recognise it. Thus the slaveowner would not be lacking in reciprocity at all, but actually is reciprociting.

If the slave is incapable of recognizing spaghetti-torpedo-oligarchies of others, then the slave does not have them. If the slave refuses to recognize the STOs of others, the slave does not have them. Either way, STOs require reciprocity. If the slave owner recognizes this, then you are correct that the slave has forfeit his STOs and the slaveowner has not necessarily forfeit his. This would be akin to owning a dog, for example. The dog doesn't understand property STOs, and so the dog has none. That doesn't immediately eliminate all STOs for dogs by the way, if dogs are capable of intentionally avoiding the torture of others, for example, a case could be made for an STO against torture for dogs.

There is also a degree of training here, where if you could demonstrate that a dog can be trained to observe STOs, the dog could have them.

And to return to the subject that started this back and forth. I do not see income tax as stealing. Within a social society fundamentally wealth is created, because of the society within wealth is created.

Nope, wealth is created by individuals, not "society" (which is just a collection of individuals).

What if you are the last human on earth, would everything be your property or nothing at all?

If you are the last entity capable of observing STOs on Earth, then your STOs have no significance. They don't cease to exist, they merely aren't useful. You could still have property STOs (if you mix labor with unowned resources), but none of the creatures of the Earth will recognize them.

The point is that these girls do have rights according to us. Hypothetically the society that abuse them, might not. We consider these societies as extremist criminals. They themselves consider themselves perhaps as the true children of god and therefore more entitled.

My theory is that you perhaps have not much empathy towards religions and other cultures. Your way of thinking is the correct one and other people's are wrong.

Try not to think of it as a matter of right or wrong, but a matter of consistent with reciprocity or not consistent with it. Objectively it's hard to judge "might makes right" as somehow "superior" or "inferior" to adherence to reciprocity and STOs. The universe does not care. But you can say that North Korea is not behaving in a manner consistent with STOs, and reciprocity, and is abiding by "might makes right" and therefore has logically opened themselves to the fair use of force against them. It's just a logical conclusion from their actions, that's all it is. Try not to think of it as judging. In otherwords "you think it's ok to kill innocent people, I'm going to kill you then". It's not necessarily judging, perhaps it's respectful, but it's still a logical conclusion.

 

[PocketZeven]

If the slave is incapable of recognizing spaghetti-torpedo-oligarchies of others, then the slave does not have them. If the slave refuses to recognize the STOs of others, the slave does not have them. Either way, STOs require reciprocity. If the slave owner recognizes this, then you are correct that the slave has forfeit his STOs and the slaveowner has not necessarily forfeit his. This would be akin to owning a dog, for example. The dog doesn't understand property STOs, and so the dog has none. That doesn't immediately eliminate all STOs for dogs by the way, if dogs are capable of intentionally avoiding the torture of others, for example, a case could be made for an STO against torture for dogs.

Nope, wealth is created by individuals, not "society" (which is just a collection of individuals).

I guess we found common ground here. It took a lot of hypothetical examples, but we got there. I should have thought of the example of dog as pets earlier.

Wealth cannot be created by just an individual. You need a) somebody to recognise the wealth b) people to grant you the wealth.
In other words how can you gain a lot of property, if no-one is there to sell/give it to you.? There also need to be people with less wealth for you to have more wealth. How more prosperous the whole society, the more wealth an individual can build. Wealth is not created by society, but because you are part of a society, wealth can be created.

edit: forgot essential word

 

[Danoff]

Wealth cannot be created by just an individual. You need a) somebody to recognise the wealth b) people to grant you the wealth.
In other words how can you gain a lot of property, if no-one is there to sell/give it to you.? There also need to be people with less wealth for you to have more wealth. How more prosperous the whole society, the more wealth an individual can build. Wealth is not created by society, but because you are part of a society, wealth can be created.

edit: forgot essential word

Nope.

An individual can create wealth for themselves. An individual can value something, and the individual can multiply that value. For example, suppose an individual values food, and the individual labors to produce additional food. That individual has created wealth.

 

[PocketZeven]

Nope.

An individual can create wealth for themselves. An individual can value something, and the individual can multiply that value. For example, suppose an individual values food, and the individual labors to produce additional food. That individual has created wealth.

Sorry I may not explained it well enough. If an individual produces a large amount of food. That would not be wealth. Just a guy with more food then he can eat. To be wealthy, another one needs to acknowledge it. Or in the same kind of principle, to have STO you need other people to acknowledge it or grant it.

I am not disputing that an individual cannot create wealth for themselves. Value (wealth) itself is established by supply and demand. If there is no demand, there would be no wealth. You need to stimulate that demand to create more wealth. That is one way to justify taxes.

 

[Rallywagon]

Sorry I may not explained it well enough. If an individual produces a large amount of food. That would not be wealth. Just a guy with more food then he can eat. To be wealthy, another one needs to acknowledge it. Or in the same kind of principle, to have STO you need other people to acknowledge it or grant it.

I am not disputing that an individual cannot create wealth for themselves. Value (wealth) itself is established by supply and demand. If there is no demand, there would be no wealth. You need to stimulate that demand to create more wealth. That is one way to justify taxes.

How exactly does taxes make someone want to buy something?

 

[Famine]

So you misrepresent my position again. I said recognition not voting.

And how do socities recognise rights? Oh yes, by creating - and voting on - laws.

Your argument that societies determine rights requires rights to be subject to majority (numbers or power) vote, which means if enough people say you don't have rights, you don't.

That also means girls who live in societies which do not recognise their right not to have their genitals carved up, but grant their parents the legal permission to circumcise them, do not have the right not to have their genitals carved up.

This is what it means to say societies determine rights.

I think rape is horrifying. I keep bringing it up to try to demonstrate to you just how repugnant it is when you say that some women have no rights. Which I have already quoted your exact words on.

Correction I never stated this.

Mmmhmm. So these examples of occasions where women would have no rights were posted by someone else?

I will explaint it as simplified again as I did earlier:

Society1: Prisoners have limited, but basic rights
Society 2: women in prison have no rights

I believe rights are decided by society. 1 and 2 have concensus that a person has the right not to be violated. 3 however has isolated borders and therefore unawhere of the rights the societies 1 and 2 have. In society 3 prisoners have no right to not to be violated.

You've said it repeatedly - and it's consistent with your viewpoint - that in a society which determines that women have no right not to be raped, women have no right not to be raped, because according to you a society determines its own rights. It's... just crazy that you'd think their rights aren't being violated because their society has deemed them not to have that right.

What society determines is laws. These women do have the right not to be raped - all women do, as do all other people - but the society has determined that it will not create laws to recognise this.

 

[Danoff]

To be wealthy, another one needs to acknowledge it.

That's definitely not true.

I am not disputing that an individual cannot create wealth for themselves. Value (wealth) itself is established by supply and demand.

An individual can supply goods to satisfy their own demand.

You need to stimulate that demand to create more wealth. That is one way to justify taxes.

That makes no sense. Taxes do not stimulate demand.

 

[ryzno]

Taxes do not stimulate demand.

I don't know about that. I can't speak for the entire US but we have a tax free day around the beginning of the school year. Clothes, TVs, laptops, tablets etc... disappear off store shelves.

 

[PocketZeven]

How exactly does taxes make someone want to buy something?

Redistribution of wealth. The concept is simple. Instead of of one or a minority sitting on wealth. Redistribute a small portion to make everybody a little more wealthy or stimulate policy that would benefit all and others to be able to build their wealth. Some argue that it’s “forced charity” I see it as a moral obligation of a society or country a citizen is part of.

Trickle down economics does not work. Do you think that without governments influence income inequality would grow or would correct itself?

That's definitely not true.



An individual can supply goods to satisfy their own demand.



That makes no sense. Taxes do not stimulate demand.

Wealth is relative. How can one be wealthy without acknowledgement?

one can supply their own demand. But isn’t wealth also one has more then one needs?

Taxes indirectly do supply demand. Redistribution of wealth also redistributes demand.

Edit: I have 1 Billion dollars and grow and export bananas that are delicious. However many people cannot afford bananas. I pay 100 million in tax and representatives decide to allocate dollars over 100 million people. These people now have more money to spend and can now afford bananas. The demand for bananas has now risen.

And how do socities recognise rights? Oh yes, by creating - and voting on - laws.

Your argument that societies determine rights requires rights to be subject to majority (numbers or power) vote, which means if enough people say you don't have rights, you don't.

That also means girls who live in societies which do not recognise their right not to have their genitals carved up, but grant their parents the legal permission to circumcise them, do not have the right not to have their genitals carved up.

This is what it means to say societies determine rights.


Mmmhmm. So these examples of occasions where women would have no rights were posted by someone else?


You've said it repeatedly - and it's consistent with your viewpoint - that in a society which determines that women have no right not to be raped, women have no right not to be raped, because according to you a society determines its own rights. It's... just crazy that you'd think their rights aren't being violated because their society has deemed them not to have that right.

What society determines is laws. These women do have the right not to be raped - all women do, as do all other people - but the society has determined that it will not create laws to recognise this.

You are perverting my post again. I clearly explained it multiple times. I (in me personally) do not share that view. I am using empathy that someone in a different society hypothetically does not share the same views as me.

Your theory (yes it’s only a theory) that every human should have universal human rights is something I support personally. I never opposed that.

my whole point is that not all societies, cultures, religions share that view.

Ever heard of empathy. You seem to always look from your point of view. Danoff used an example with dogs.

This would be akin to owning a dog, for example. The dog doesn't understand property STOs, and so the dog has none. That doesn't immediately eliminate all STOs for dogs by the way, if dogs are capable of intentionally avoiding the torture of others, for example, a case could be made for an STO against torture for dogs.

There is also a degree of training here, where if you could demonstrate that a dog can be trained to observe STOs, the dog could have them.

Calling n-Koreans dogs is a bit of a stretch, but humor me here. These are indoctrinated people that have worshipped their president as a god.
Edit:
If a person does not observe their own right, they forfeit their right.

 

[Danoff]

I don't know about that. I can't speak for the entire US but we have a tax free day around the beginning of the school year. Clothes, TVs, laptops, tablets etc... disappear off store shelves.

That'd be the opposite.

Redistribution of wealth. The concept is simple. Instead of of one or a minority sitting on wealth. Redistribute a small portion to make everybody a little more wealthy or stimulate policy that would benefit all and others to be able to build their wealth.

That changes demand, it doesn't increase it (as a whole).

Trickle down economics does not work.

It literally has to. Economics trickles, up, down, sideways... all over the place. It's very leaky.

Wealth is relative. How can one be wealthy without acknowledgement?

"Weathly" is a little different than "creating wealth".

one can supply their own demand. But isn’t wealth also one has more then one needs?

Wealth is what one has.

Taxes indirectly do supply demand.

What on earth are you getting at?

my whole point is that not all societies, cultures, religions share that view.

This point is understood, and totally irrelevant to the existence of spaghetti-torpedo-oligarchies.

Calling n-Koreans dogs is a bit of a stretch, but humor me here. These are indoctrinated people that have worshipped their president as a god. If a person does not acknowledge their own right, they forfeit it.

No that's not true. You don't have to be aware of your rights to have them, you merely have to be capable of and willing to observe the rights of others. Reciprocity is what is needed, not awareness.

 

[PocketZeven]

No that's not true. You don't have to be aware of your rights to have them, you merely have to be capable of and willing to observe the rights of others. Reciprocity is what is needed, not awareness.

See edit above.

Sorry I miswrote that sentence:

If a person does not observe their own rights, he forfeits his.
If a n-korean prisoner thinks: prisoners have no right to not be violated to death, so I have no right to not be beaten to death. And the guard thinks a prisoner Does not have the right to not be violated, thus he has no right to not be violated. Isn’t this reciprocity?

edit:
I did some simple search of libertarianism and the origin of their definition of human rights:

“So where do these rights come from? Well, libertarians don’t always agree on that. Some say they come from God, are God-given rights, endowed by our Creator. Some say they come from nature. They are natural rights. Declaration of Independence finesses that a little bit at one point by saying, “Nature and Nature’s God,” whichever way, we’re covered. Some libertarians would say we know what rights we have because we can study the consequences of different systems of rights and the protection of rights. That’s the way a lot of economists would get to a conclusion that people should have these protections from government. “

What do you think of the quote above?

source: https://www.libertarianism.org/guides/lectures/what-rights-do-we-have

 

[Danoff]

See edit above.

Sorry I miswrote that sentence:

If a person does not observe their own rights, he forfeits his.

How does one not observe their own rights? The only way I know of to "not observe" rights is to violate them, and as far as I know, one cannot violate their own rights. If you mean "enforce", that's not the same thing.

If a n-korean prisoner thinks: prisoners have no right to not be violated to death, so I have no right to not be beaten to death. And the guard thinks a prisoner Does not have the right to not be violated, thus he has no right to not be violated. Isn’t this reciprocity?

The guard is subscribing to "might makes right". He has to ability to abuse the prisoner, and does. And he knows he can also be abused if someone gets that ability over him. This is the alternative path to human rights. It is how most of the animal kingdom behaves.

 

[PocketZeven]

How does one not observe their own rights? The only way I know of to "not observe" rights is to violate them, and as far as I know, one cannot violate their own rights. If you mean "enforce", that's not the same thing.



The guard is subscribing to "might makes right". He has to ability to abuse the prisoner, and does. And he knows he can also be abused if someone gets that ability over him. This is the alternative path to human rights. It is how most of the animal kingdom behaves.

After some research I have more understanding of the libertarian view on rights and the trolly problem. The basis is the non aggression principle (nap) and the existence of universal human rights (the origin of god or just nature is apparantly irrelevant) Am I correct in this assessment?

It does explain to me why people would argue that doing nothing in the trolly problem is the only “correct” answer. Which based on NAP is very logical. However in my own ethical view it is not.

To stop derailing even more (which is my fault) I have a better understanding and should perhaps show more empathy towards you and famine and when engaging should consider your apparantly libertarian view on many topics.

 

[Danoff]

After some research I have more understanding of the libertarian view on rights and the trolly problem. The basis is the non aggression principle (nap). Am I correct in this assessment?

It does explain to me why people would argue that doing nothing in the trolly problem is the only “correct” answer. To stop derailing even more (which is my fault) I have a better understanding and should perhaps show more empathy towards you and famine and when engaging should consider your apparantly libertarian view on many topics.

👍

So... how to you feel about the modified Trolley problem with the organ donor?

You have 5 otherwise healthy people who each need a different organ transplant. You have one innocent person who has all 5 organs and a matching blood type? Do you kidnap and murder the "donor" to save the 5?

 

[PocketZeven]

👍

So... how to you feel about the modified Trolley problem with the organ donor?

You have 5 otherwise healthy people who each need a different organ transplant. You have one innocent person who has all 5 organs and a matching blood type? Do you kidnap and murder the "donor" to save the 5?

That is an entirely different situation. In my own ethical opinion I would say no. Killing an innocent to save the other 5 is immoral in this instance.

more comparable to the trolley problem would be: there are 5 people that will die without an organ transplant. A van with 5 organs is on its way to one person that needs all 5. The original driver is unaware of the other 5, but has an accident and ask you to take over the drive. Do you drive to save that one person or the 5 people?

edited post.

 

[Danoff]

That is an entirely different situation. In my own ethical opinion I would say no. Killing an innocent to save the other 5 is immoral in this instance.

Ok, so what if the donor was unwilling but would survive. Let's say for example they needed an eye, and a kidney, an arm, a leg, and uh... a lung. So our donor would be left one-eyed, and one kidney'd, and one armed, and one lung'd and one leg'd, but he'd survive. Meanwhile the recipients would also have 1 working one of each of those. So we'd compromise our unwilling donor heavily, but not to the point of death.

Black bag time?