Split from: Male/female brains

Duck and cover
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10144
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:04 am

I don't know what those guys actually thought, nor the details of what they wrote, but it seems to me that if you want a helping of human rights as opposed to being some Sovereigns chattel in a near feudal age, you might not want to take on religion at the same time? A "meme" if you will, the ox cart that new ideas best travel in?

........and you do still hear it today............. because.......... religion has the same sway among the peoples. How many arguments at a time do you want to make.

Yep..... crow about the inalienable even god given natural rights of people while keeping several million Africans in abysmal slavery. Ha, ha..............HYPOCRISY...... is the only natural state of man.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:12 am

Bobbo

That is true. Fortunately for us, we do not have to accept any 'natural' state. We can make our own new reality.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10144
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:26 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo

That is true. Fortunately for us, we do not have to accept any 'natural' state. We can make our own new reality.

thanks Lance....I dunno.... seems to me there is a lot of old time religion still on the books, people going to jail for it. The authorization is "civil" but the source is still values, highly grounded in the religion of the Old Testament. ..........
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 18, 2015 7:38 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
xouper wrote:Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Immanuel Kant, and many others all argue for the existence of natural rights, so I am in good company.

And Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist of all time, believed that you could use alchemy to turn lead into gold, and wasted 20 years of his life trying to do that. ... the people of past times held many superstitions that we reject today. Even the greatest of thinkers in the past were frequently superstitious.

So what. How is any of that relevant to your argument?

Lance Kennedy wrote:'Natural rights' is a superstitious belief,

Wrong.

It is a well thought out philosophical notion.

Kant, for example, very deliberately did not appeal to superstition in deriving his justification for natural rights. Your attempt to smear the idea of natural rights by calling it superstitious is factually incorrect.

Do you reject all the ideas from great thinkers of the past? No? Then on what basis do you pick and choose?

Lance Kennedy wrote: That is no reason for you to adopt those superstitions, Xouper.

You have not yet given me a good reason why natural rights do not exist. You have merely asserted it without any valid justification whatsoever.

Your favorite UN document on Rights states that natural rights exist and that the document's purpose is to protect them from being taken away by tyrants. If rights are merely what the law says they are, as you seem to be claiming, then why should that UN document bother trying to establish that certain rights can never be taken away by law? Are you saying that UN document is based on superstition and thus wrong? If so, then perhaps you should stop citing it as a shining example of superior modern morality.

Please answer this question:

Do you claim you own your own liver regardless what the law says? Or do you not?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3055
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Dec 18, 2015 11:40 am

xouper wrote:Do you claim you own your own liver regardless what the law says? Or do you not?


Of course I have no ownership of my liver, and neither have you of yours - ownership means that I can do with my liver what I want: I can use it any way, I can destroy it, I can sell it - all of that is not true, since the liver is part of my body, severely limiting my options of what to do with it. It is also illegal for me to sell it, and for any surgeon to remove it without strict medical necessity for my well-being.

The idea of 'owning your body' is a fiction created by the Roman Codes of Law: the concept is that there is a dualism of you and your body: you can not be bought and sold, but your body can. That is the reason why we can have slavery:
you have incurred a debt (through poverty or war) that you pay for with your body and the fruit of your body (labor, offspring). Note: you don't pay the the debt off, since whatever your body does once it sold does not belong to you but the owner of your body.

Ownership of body is a perversion of law, a way to enslave us to one another. You can't own a body (your or anyone's) , just like you can't own land or property or anything. Ownership is just a legal fiction.

All you can do is come to an agreement with your neighbors to leave their stuff alone in return for them leaving your stuff alone.

Th concept of 'Natural rights' is a fiction to establish the preeminence of human rights over any other kind of laws, including all national laws: the US government can not change those rights - but the UN General Assembly can. Do you think the original Human Rights had a right to the Internet?
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 18, 2015 2:59 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:Do you claim you own your own liver regardless what the law says? Or do you not?

Of course I have no ownership of my liver, ... It is also illegal for ... any surgeon to remove it without strict medical necessity for my well-being.

If I am understanding your position, that law can be changed at the whim of the lawmakers and you will have no right to protest or resist.

If I am understanding your position, it seems you are in essence arguing that the government can make a law that says they can take your liver whenever they want, even if you are still using it, and you have no grounds for complaining about that, and that you will gladly give up your liver because the law said so, even if it means you will die.

1. Is that really the argument you want to make?

2. What is the justification for making it illegal for a "surgeon to remove it without strict medical necessity for my well-being"?

3. What happens to your position if there were no such law?

ElectricMonk wrote:... you can't own land or property or anything. Ownership is just a legal fiction.

All you can do is come to an agreement with your neighbors to leave their stuff alone in return for them leaving your stuff alone.

That is your personal opinion, not backed by any facts whatsoever. I totally reject your philosophy on that point.

The purpose of the "agreement with my neighbor" is to not establish ownership, but to establish mutual respect for pre-existing rights. Such an agreement is about the enforcement  of a pre-existing right of ownership, not how that right of ownership is created in the first place.

4. What happens if there is no agreement with your "neighbor"? Does that mean you no longer have any legitimate claim of ownership of your stuff or your life?

5. Are you seriously suggesting that you have no right to ownership unless everyone else agrees?

ElectricMonk wrote:Th concept of 'Natural rights' is a fiction to establish the preeminence of human rights over any other kind of laws, including all national laws:

It is not a fiction, it is a sound moral position.

You have not disproved my position, you have merely disagreed with it. You are certainly entitled to disagree, but I reject your claim that your opinion is superior to mine.

ElectricMonk wrote:Do you think the original Human Rights had a right to the Internet?

6. What do you mean by "right to the internet"? Who is claiming that "right"?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3055
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Dec 18, 2015 5:46 pm

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:Do you claim you own your own liver regardless what the law says? Or do you not?

Of course I have no ownership of my liver, ... It is also illegal for ... any surgeon to remove it without strict medical necessity for my well-being.

If I am understanding your position, that law can be changed at the whim of the lawmakers and you will have no right to protest or resist.


This is not my position, it's a fact. The Universal Declaration of Human rights is a non-binding declaration only. Not all countries have voted for it, and some countries reserve the right to ignore in parts or completely (like Saudi Arabia). Binding documents need to be ratified by each country before they have any legality, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the US has not ratified.
I can protest all I want, but if my government does not implement those rights into national law, I have exactly zero legal recourse for any of them. What did you think?


xouper wrote:If I am understanding your position, it seems you are in essence arguing that the government can make a law that says they can take your liver whenever they want, even if you are still using it, and you have no grounds for complaining about that, and that you will gladly give up your liver because the law said so, even if it means you will die.

As I said, I can complain all I want, right or no right. What you are saying is exactly what is happening, fully legal, in China, where convicts are used as organ donors.


xouper wrote:1. Is that really the argument you want to make?

it's not an argument - this is not a FoxNew 'fair and balanced' discussion. You either have the right given to you via local laws or you don't - you have zero right just by virtue of being alive. If you get arrested in China and throw into prison to rot, all your organs are legally up for grabs,

xouper wrote:2. What is the justification for making it illegal for a "surgeon to remove it without strict medical necessity for my well-being"?

Stupid question: he is causing harm without medical benefit. Otherwise, a mugger could stab you and claim he was doing an operation according to your will.

xouper wrote:3. What happens to your position if there were no such law?

No law to ban a surgeon from removing my liver? I still would not be allowed to trade, nor should anyone be allowed to buy, since that creates a RepoMan scenario - but as the example shows, if codified, such a organ credit system would be entirely legal.


ElectricMonk wrote:... you can't own land or property or anything. Ownership is just a legal fiction.

All you can do is come to an agreement with your neighbors to leave their stuff alone in return for them leaving your stuff alone.

xouper wrote:That is your personal opinion, not backed by any facts whatsoever. I totally reject your philosophy on that point.


Again - no. Nothing to do with opinion, just law: the government can expropriate everything you have tomorrow if it wants- legally.

xouper wrote:The purpose of the "agreement with my neighbor" is to not establish ownership, but to establish mutual respect for pre-existing rights. Such an agreement is about the enforcement  of a pre-existing right of ownership, not how that right of ownership is created in the first place.

dream on

xouper wrote:4. What happens if there is no agreement with your "neighbor"? Does that mean you no longer have any legitimate claim of ownership of your stuff or your life?

5. Are you seriously suggesting that you have no right to ownership unless everyone else agrees?

You have no right of ownership unless the local legal framework agrees - disputes are settled via courts, if they exists. Otherwise they are settled with violence.

ElectricMonk wrote:Th concept of 'Natural rights' is a fiction to establish the preeminence of human rights over any other kind of laws, including all national laws:

xouper wrote:It is not a fiction, it is a sound moral position.

A moral position with the legal authority of a jellyfish - unless codified you can wipe your bottom with your moral position.

xouper wrote:You have not disproved my position, you have merely disagreed with it. You are certainly entitled to disagree, but I reject your claim that your opinion is superior to mine.

I'm trying to educate you on basic facts of national and international law - what I have stated is the current state of affair, no matter what you think. You position is 'not even wrong', it just has no bearing on the issue.




ElectricMonk wrote:Do you think the original Human Rights had a right to the Internet?

6. What do you mean by "right to the internet"? Who is claiming that "right"?[/quote]

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)under the auspice of the United Nations has declared that:
1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world, assembled in Geneva from 10–12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society, declare our common desire and commitment to build a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

- among other things. This has been extended since and has a similar force of law as the UNDHR - none until locally ratified.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Dec 18, 2015 6:08 pm

To Xouper

Human rights exist, and human laws exist. But what you have not come to terms with is the simple fact that all of those rights and all of those laws are human inventions. What happens is that those in power determine rights and laws, and those of us not in power accede to them. But there is no deity called Mother Nature, as there is no deity called Yahweh. So there is no divine right or natural right. There are just human inventions.

As to proving it, let me remind you of the principle that you cannot prove a negative. Just as you cannot prove there is no god, you cannot prove there is no natural right. Because of this, the burden of proof falls on those who assert the opposite. That burden falls on those who assert there IS a god, or that there IS natural rights. To prove there is a god would be easy, assuming that the god existed. The god simply appearing would do it. If you want to assert that natural rights exist, that is your task to achieve. If you cannot achieve it, then we will treat your belief in natural rights in the same way we treat the belief in Yahweh. That is, it is pure superstition.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 18, 2015 7:41 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:To Xouper

Human rights exist, and human laws exist. But what you have not come to terms with is the simple fact that all of those rights and all of those laws are human inventions.

Please do not lecture me about what I have (or have not) "come to terms with". Please keep the conversation about the issues and not my character.

It does not matter if you think my claim to the right to life is "invented". As a sentient being capable of moral judgments, I claim it anyway.

Lance Kennedy wrote: What happens is that those in power determine rights and laws, and those of us not in power accede to them.

In essence you are arguing that the law is always right and that you have no grounds for ever saying that any particular law is ever wrong.

Sorry, but you just contradicted yourself because you have often said that certain laws are wrong.

Nice double standard there, Lance.

Lance Kennedy wrote: But there is no deity called Mother Nature, as there is no deity called Yahweh.

I agree with that. I have never claimed otherwise.

Lance Kennedy wrote: So there is no divine right or natural right.

Half wrong.

There are no divine rights but there are natural rights.

Your conclusion is a non sequitur. It is also a straw man fallacy since I never claimed that any deity is the source of any rights.

Lance Kennedy wrote:As to proving it, let me remind you of the principle that you cannot prove a negative. Just as you cannot prove there is no god, you cannot prove there is no natural right.

Thank you for admitting you cannot disprove my position.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Because of this, the burden of proof falls on those who assert the opposite.

I agree that for scientific claims, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

Lance Kennedy wrote: If you want to assert that natural rights exist, that is your task to achieve. If you cannot achieve it, then we will treat your belief in natural rights in the same way we treat the belief in Yahweh. That is, it is pure superstition.

Your argument would be correct if I were making a claim of fact. But I am not. I am making a philosophical claim, a moral claim, and as such it is not subject to the requirements of science.

It is my philosophical opinion that as a sentient being (who is capable of having informed opinions about ethical or moral issues), I have certain inherent rights, such as the right of individual sovereignty.

It seems you do not agree. It seems your position is that (legal) might makes right, that the law trumps any personal objection to that law. Sorry, but I reject that position.

(If that's not a correct interpretation of your position, then please clarify why that is not your position.)

Please answer this question:

Do you claim you own your own liver regardless what the law says? Or do you not?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 18, 2015 7:43 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:Do you claim you own your own liver regardless what the law says? Or do you not?

Of course I have no ownership of my liver, ... It is also illegal for ... any surgeon to remove it without strict medical necessity for my well-being.

If I am understanding your position, that law can be changed at the whim of the lawmakers and you will have no right to protest or resist.

This is not my position, it's a fact.

It is not a fact. It is merely your opinion.

Thank you for clarifying your position that you will not resist or protest if the law says you no longer have the right to life.

You are in essence arguing that you have no right to say any law is ever wrong. You are in essence arguing that (legal) might makes right.

Sorry, but I cannot agree with that position. I have the right to life regardless what any law says, and I will protest most vigorously anyone who tries to violate that right. It's possible I might not be successful in defending my right to life, but I claim the moral right to defend myself against anyone who would take my life.

Apparently you do not feel the same way about your own life. You are certainly entitled to decide for yourself what your position is, but I reject your assertion that your position is morally superior to mine.

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:If I am understanding your position, it seems you are in essence arguing that the government can make a law that says they can take your liver whenever they want, even if you are still using it, and you have no grounds for complaining about that, and that you will gladly give up your liver because the law said so, even if it means you will die.

As I said, I can complain all I want, right or no right. What you are saying is exactly what is happening, fully legal, in China, where convicts are used as organ donors.

I think that's a violation of rights, but apparently you are OK with it as long as the law allows it.

In my opinion, such a position is morally bankrupt, and I want no part of it.

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:1. Is that really the argument you want to make?

it's not an argument - this is not a FoxNew 'fair and balanced' discussion. You either have the right given to you via local laws or you don't

And here you are "arguing" that we do not have any rights that are not granted by law, and then saying you are not making an "argument". :roll:

ElectricMonk wrote:- you have zero right just by virtue of being alive.

That is your personal opinion, not a fact.

ElectricMonk wrote: If you get arrested in China and throw into prison to rot, all your organs are legally up for grabs,

And you are OK with that because the local law says it's OK?

Sorry, I cannot agree with you that might makes right.

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:2. What is the justification for making it illegal for a "surgeon to remove it without strict medical necessity for my well-being"?

Stupid question: he is causing harm without medical benefit. Otherwise, a mugger could stab you and claim he was doing an operation according to your will.

No it's not a stupid question. It goes directly to the heart of your position and reveals the fundamental defect in your argument.

You claim "he is causing harm without medical benefit". (That, by the way, is a moral argument.) Are you saying that no law can be passed if it allows "harm without medical benefit"? On what basis do you impose such a limit on what the law can do?

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:3. What happens to your position if there were no such law?

No law to ban a surgeon from removing my liver? I still would not be allowed to trade, nor should anyone be allowed to buy, since that creates a RepoMan scenario - but as the example shows, if codified, such a organ credit system would be entirely legal.

If I am understanding your position, you are OK if the law legalized organ trading and allowed surgeons to remove your liver, even if you do not consent and it kills you?

You are in effect arguing that if the law says you have no right to life, then you will not object.

Sorry, I vehemently reject that position.

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:... you can't own land or property or anything. Ownership is just a legal fiction. All you can do is come to an agreement with your neighbors to leave their stuff alone in return for them leaving your stuff alone.

That is your personal opinion, not backed by any facts whatsoever. I totally reject your philosophy on that point.

Again - no. Nothing to do with opinion, just law: the government can expropriate everything you have tomorrow if it wants- legally.

And you are OK with that?

Sorry, but I'm not OK with that at all.

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:The purpose of the "agreement with my neighbor" is to not establish ownership, but to establish mutual respect for pre-existing rights. Such an agreement is about the enforcement  of a pre-existing right of ownership, not how that right of ownership is created in the first place.

dream on

That is not a valid rebuttal to my argument.

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:4. What happens if there is no agreement with your "neighbor"? Does that mean you no longer have any legitimate claim of ownership of your stuff or your life?

5. Are you seriously suggesting that you have no right to ownership unless everyone else agrees?

You have no right of ownership unless the local legal framework agrees - disputes are settled via courts, if they exists. Otherwise they are settled with violence.

Thank you for clarifying your opinion on this point.

Obviously I have a different opinion.

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:Th concept of 'Natural rights' is a fiction to establish the preeminence of human rights over any other kind of laws, including all national laws:

It is not a fiction, it is a sound moral position.

A moral position with the legal authority of a jellyfish - unless codified you can wipe your bottom with your moral position.

Since when did a moral position require legal authority? Answer: never. The law is based on moral positions, not the other way around as you seem to be claiming.

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:You have not disproved my position, you have merely disagreed with it. You are certainly entitled to disagree, but I reject your claim that your opinion is superior to mine.

I'm trying to educate you on basic facts of national and international law - what I have stated is the current state of affair, no matter what you think. You position is 'not even wrong', it just has no bearing on the issue.

Wrong.

Your argument is a moral argument, not a legal argument. The law is based on moral positions, not the other way around as you seem to be claiming.

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:Do you think the original Human Rights had a right to the Internet?

6. What do you mean by "right to the internet"? Who is claiming that "right"?

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)under the auspice of the United Nations has declared that:
1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world, assembled in Geneva from 10–12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society, declare our common desire and commitment to build a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

- among other things. This has been extended since and has a similar force of law as the UNDHR - none until locally ratified.

Thank you for clarifying what you meant. It was not clear from your initial remark that was what you were referring to.

What you are describing is a "legal right", not a "natural right". I assume I do not need to explain the difference.

In any case, what does that have to do with my position on natural rights?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 18, 2015 8:15 pm

Lance, I notice you have not yet addressed the following question that I posted earlier.

xouper wrote:Your favorite UN document on Rights states that natural rights exist and that the document's purpose is to protect them from being taken away by tyrants. If rights are merely what the law says they are, as you seem to be claiming, then why should that UN document bother trying to establish that certain rights can never be taken away by law? Are you saying that UN document is based on superstition and thus wrong? If so, then perhaps you should stop citing it as a shining example of superior modern morality.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10144
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 18, 2015 8:21 pm

Xouper: has it not come to your attention that you can write any words you wish on a piece of paper and that act alone says nothing about their veracity? Neither does a group vote by a bunch of politicians seeking a specific goal?

"Natural Rights". An aspirational concept totally culturally driven. Achieved and maintained only by group acceptance. Natural law in the Middle East is for women to be chattel. Children treated likewise almost universally.

Silly.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 18, 2015 8:32 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Xouper: has it not come to your attention that you can write any words you wish on a piece of paper and that act alone says nothing about their veracity?

Actually that has come to my attention. But thank you for reminding me. You have often proven that point by example with certain of your own "writings".

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Natural law in the Middle East is for women to be chattel. Children treated likewise almost universally.

Silly.

For the record, I have never claimed that anyone has the natural right to women as chattel.

Are you saying that those laws in the Middle East are wrong? If so, then on what basis do you make that claim?

I already know why I think those laws are wrong, but I want to hear why you  think they are wrong.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10144
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 18, 2015 8:40 pm

xouper wrote:If rights are merely what the law says they are, as you seem to be claiming, then why should that UN document bother trying to establish that certain rights can never be taken away by law?

Rights are in fact merely what the law says they are...... as actually enforced.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3055
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Dec 18, 2015 8:50 pm

Legal rights are enforceable, natural rights are not.
If you claim that you have a natural right , you have to explain where it comes from. You just state that it exists because you say it does and other people said it does, but you have no basis for your assumption.

Yuval Noah Harari (check him out on youtube or get his book) offers a thumb-rule for distinguishing a real entity from an imaginary one: can it suffer? “A nation cannot suffer,” he says, “even if it loses a war. A bank cannot suffer, even if it crashes. Humans, however, can suffer. Animals can suffer. Their suffering is real.

If you claim that natural rights are 'real', you have to prove it - but you won't do that, claiming that it's just a question of opinion. You are fundamentally wrong in that, like someone claiming that theist and atheists both believe, only one in the existence and one in the absence of God.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:10 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:Legal rights are enforceable, natural rights are not.
If you claim that you have a natural right , you have to explain where it comes from. You just state that it exists because you say it does and other people said it does, but you have no basis for your assumption.

... If you claim that natural rights are 'real', you have to prove it - but you won't do that, claiming that it's just a question of opinion. You are fundamentally wrong in that, like someone claiming that theist and atheists both believe, only one in the existence and one in the absence of God.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

But thank you for totally not getting the point.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:13 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote:If rights are merely what the law says they are, as you seem to be claiming, then why should that UN document bother trying to establish that certain rights can never be taken away by law?

Rights are in fact merely what the law says they are...... as actually enforced.

That doesn't answer my question. Let's try again.

1. Why does that UN document say that natural rights exist?

2. And why does it say that laws violating those rights are wrong?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10144
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:34 pm

Because that is their desired outcome.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:46 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Because that is their desired outcome.

:roll: Well Duh!

Why is that their desired outcome?


Your answer reminds me of a waitress I once encountered. I asked her what the soup du jour  was, and she said she'd have to go ask. She came back and said, "The soup du jour  is the soup of the day."

:roll: Well Duh!

I then asked her what today's soup was, and she said she'd have to go ask.

You seem to be playing a similar game here. Are you that waitress? :shock:

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:51 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:Yuval Noah Harari (check him out on youtube or get his book) offers a thumb-rule for distinguishing a real entity from an imaginary one: can it suffer? “A nation cannot suffer,” he says, “even if it loses a war. A bank cannot suffer, even if it crashes. Humans, however, can suffer. Animals can suffer. Their suffering is real.

Perhaps I should check into that. Maybe later. In the meantime . . .

Please clarify. Is he actually arguing that a bank is not real because it cannot suffer?

That doesn't make any sense, so I assume that is not what he is trying to say.

Please clarify.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:54 pm

Bobbo, were you planning to answer these questions anytime soon?

xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Natural law in the Middle East is for women to be chattel. Children treated likewise almost universally. Silly.

For the record, I have never claimed that anyone has the natural right to women as chattel.

1. Are you saying that those laws in the Middle East are wrong?

2. If so, then on what basis do you make that claim?

I already know why I think those laws are wrong, but I want to hear why you  think they are wrong.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10144
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 18, 2015 10:14 pm

Xouper..... no insult intended, but your questions are beneath my contempt. Are you actually this stupid, or playing games because you think I am?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 18, 2015 10:22 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Xouper..... no insult intended, but your questions are beneath my contempt. Are you actually this stupid, or playing games because you think I am?

Your refusal to answer the questions is noted.

Those questions reveal a defect in your argument, so I'm not surprised you would refuse to answer them and instead resort to insults. As Lance has said, that is a sign you are losing the argument. Well done, Bobbo.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Dec 18, 2015 10:27 pm

xouper wrote:Lance, I notice you have not yet addressed the following question that I posted earlier.

xouper wrote:Your favorite UN document on Rights states that natural rights exist and that the document's purpose is to protect them from being taken away by tyrants. If rights are merely what the law says they are, as you seem to be claiming, then why should that UN document bother trying to establish that certain rights can never be taken away by law? Are you saying that UN document is based on superstition and thus wrong? If so, then perhaps you should stop citing it as a shining example of superior modern morality.


Xouper

Governments and international bodies say lots of things. Political claims need to be treated with extreme skepticism.

I am fully in favour of the UN human rights declaration, but that does not mean I have to go along with superstitious rationales. There are no 'natural rights.' Full stop.

Mind you, I have encountered your argument before. It is a common one used by those who want to support the second amendment. It makes no sense, and is total and absolute crap. But it is still a very common argument. Because it is so widely used by gun advocates, I suspect it is an invention of the gun manufacturers, and spread by their minions. But a lot of gun enthusiasts treat owning and using guns as a kind of religion, so I suppose it makes sense that they use religious nonsense, like 'natural rights' to support their ridiculous "religion of the gun" beliefs.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 18, 2015 10:42 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:I am fully in favour of the UN human rights declaration, but that does not mean I have to go along with superstitious rationales.

You keep claiming it is a superstition but you have never properly substantiated that claim. You have merely asserted it and tried to support it with faulty arguments.

Whatever.

Please answer these questions:

1. Since you don't like the UN's stated reasons for having a rights document, then on what basis do you claim such a document is valid?

2. On what basis do you claim that laws are wrong if they violate those rights in the UN document?


Lance Kennedy wrote:Mind you, I have encountered your argument before.

Right back at you, sport.

Lance Kennedy wrote: It is a common one used by those who want to support the second amendment. It makes no sense, and is total and absolute crap. But it is still a very common argument. Because it is so widely used by gun advocates, I suspect it is an invention of the gun manufacturers, and spread by their minions. But a lot of gun enthusiasts treat owning and using guns as a kind of religion, so I suppose it makes sense that they use religious nonsense, like 'natural rights' to support their ridiculous "religion of the gun" beliefs.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. On all points.

Nothing about my position on rights is any way "religious" or "superstitious".

Those comments are a total straw man argument.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10144
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 18, 2015 10:46 pm

xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Xouper..... no insult intended, but your questions are beneath my contempt. Are you actually this stupid, or playing games because you think I am?

Your refusal to answer the questions is noted.

Those questions reveal a defect in your argument, so I'm not surprised you would refuse to answer them and instead resort to insults. As Lance has said, that is a sign you are losing the argument. Well done, Bobbo.

The xouper response would be: "I never said I refused to answer the question. therefore.... you are too lazy to follow the multiple posts I have made elsewhere."
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 18, 2015 11:19 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Xouper..... no insult intended, but your questions are beneath my contempt. Are you actually this stupid, or playing games because you think I am?

Your refusal to answer the questions is noted.

Those questions reveal a defect in your argument, so I'm not surprised you would refuse to answer them and instead resort to insults. As Lance has said, that is a sign you are losing the argument. Well done, Bobbo.

The xouper response would be: "I never said I refused to answer the question. therefore.... you are too lazy to follow the multiple posts I have made elsewhere."

:roll:

You haven't answered the questions in any other post either.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10144
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 19, 2015 12:17 am

The Xouper response: Oh I find that highly insulting and I see no reason to respond to such low brow behavior! You certainly are now cherry picking your issues. I have already responded to this issue in many many threads. See here: https://www.google.com/search?q=guns&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 19, 2015 12:24 am

xouper wrote:
1. Since you don't like the UN's stated reasons for having a rights document, then on what basis do you claim such a document is valid?

2. On what basis do you claim that laws are wrong if they violate those rights in the UN document?




As I have said, Xouper, humans rights and laws are arbitrary human inventions. They come into being when the powers that be decide they are appropriate. The important thing is for them to be for the benefit of as many people as possible. It is easy to read the United Nations human rights list and decide for yourself if they are to the benefit of as many people as possible. It is very clear that the answer is yes.

So why are wrong laws wrong? They are wrong if they cause harm. That is why the second amendment is wrong. It leads to the position where 8,000 people per year are murdered with hand guns and 12,000 commit suicide with hand guns. Also another 90,000 people are wounded by guns, and many of those are permanently maimed. That is why the second amendment is wrong.

You will argue that, but you cannot argue against the fact that in every other developed western country, those murders and maimings do not happen. It takes a sick attitude to guns to cause that much harm.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:39 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
xouper wrote:1. Since you don't like the UN's stated reasons for having a rights document, then on what basis do you claim such a document is valid?

2. On what basis do you claim that laws are wrong if they violate those rights in the UN document?

As I have said, Xouper, humans rights and laws are arbitrary human inventions. They come into being when the powers that be decide they are appropriate.

So if the "powers that be" decide to make a law that says they can come and take your liver whenever they want regardless of how much harm that does to you, you are OK with that? After all, you did say that the "powers that be" decide what your rights are, not you.

Lance Kennedy wrote:The important thing is for them to be for the benefit of as many people as possible.

And what if the "powers that be" make a law that is not for the benefit of as many people as possible? You have already admitted you have no right to protest such a law.

Lance Kennedy wrote:So why are wrong laws wrong? They are wrong if they cause harm.

Are you claiming that the people have a right to be free from harm regardless what the law says? If so, then where does such a right come from? Obviously not from the law, so where from?

Lance Kennedy wrote: That is why the second amendment is wrong.

Earlier you said that rights are what the law says they are and here you are arguing the opposite, that you  are the arbiter of what is right and wrong, not the law.

Nice double standard you have.

Sorry, Lance, but your position on rights and laws is self contradictory.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:54 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:That is why the second amendment is wrong. It leads to the position where 8,000 people per year are murdered with hand guns and 12,000 commit suicide with hand guns. Also another 90,000 people are wounded by guns, and many of those are permanently maimed. That is why the second amendment is wrong.

You will argue that, but you cannot argue against the fact that in every other developed western country, those murders and maimings do not happen. It takes a sick attitude to guns to cause that much harm.

Oh my. More insults. According to your own words, that's yet another sign you are losing the argument.

In any case, I have already explained more than once why that argument against guns is hypocritical and wrong.

Furthermore, you keep claiming that guns are the cause of the homicide rate, but you have never given any empirical evidence for that claim, nor have you ever given any valid rebuttal to the evidence that contradicts your claim.

You have not made your case, and you cannot make your case, so I can see why you resort to insults instead.

Well done, Lance.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:00 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The Xouper response: Oh I find that highly insulting and I see no reason to respond to such low brow behavior! You certainly are now cherry picking your issues. I have already responded to this issue in many many threads. See here: https://www.google.com/search?q=guns&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Sorry, that's not an answer to the specific questions I asked you. You have not answered them anywhere on this forum.

Here they are again:

1. Are you saying that those laws in the Middle East are wrong?

2. If so, then on what basis do you make that claim?

I already know why I think those laws are wrong, but I want to hear why you  think they are wrong.

I can see why you refuse to answer them, because doing so will reveal the defect in your argument about laws and rights.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:17 am

xouper wrote:So if the "powers that be" decide to make a law that says they can come and take your liver whenever they want regardless of how much harm that does to you, you are OK with that? After all, you did say that the "powers that be" decide what your rights are, not you.





THe powers that be do indeed decide on rights and laws. That does not mean they do what is best for the people. In fact, through most of history, the powers that be did what was best for the powers that be, not for the people. Fortunately, we live in more enlightened times.

I live in a more civilised and less corrupt country than you do, Xouper. The values of the USA are often quite barbaric, and that rubs off on its people. The vigilante attitude is one such value. American made movies and TV shows, focussing on drama, rather frequently turn the hero into a vigilante. Even something as apparently harmless as comic book heroes, like spiderman, batman or superman, are vigilantes.

In the same way, America glamorises the gunman. The Clint Eastwood hero. And so many Americans want to be that hero, and take up guns as a result. What happens because of this is tragedy.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3055
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Dec 19, 2015 10:27 am

@xouper

you are talking about different things here, and use different definitions of 'real'.

Are we talking Rights or Morals? A priori, one has nothing to do with the other. Rights are Laws, which require a Law-giver and a Law-enforcer.

There are things that a real: you can see them, touch them, etc. These things exists with or without humans thinking about them.
And then there are social constructs: corporations, nations, money, debt, morals, laws etc. - these things only exists as long as humans believe they exit.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 19, 2015 3:15 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
xouper wrote:So if the "powers that be" decide to make a law that says they can come and take your liver whenever they want regardless of how much harm that does to you, you are OK with that? After all, you did say that the "powers that be" decide what your rights are, not you.

THe powers that be do indeed decide on rights and laws. That does not mean they do what is best for the people.

Those two statements contradict each other.

If you claim that you know better than the law what is best for the people, then you are in fact claiming that you are the arbiter of what rights the people should have.

And if you are the one who says that a certain law is (or is not) a violation of rights, then it cannot be the case that the law makes that determination. You can't have it both ways.

For example you criticize certain US laws as being wrong about the rights of the people. If that is the case, then you are contradicting your claim that the law gets to decide what rights the people have.

You can't have it both ways.

1. Either the law decides what your rights are and you have no basis for saying they are wrong.

2. Or, you  decide what your rights are.

Which is it?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10144
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 19, 2015 3:15 pm

Nothing to do with a priori. Actually the opposite if anything: a posteriori. but right on point: Its definitional.

such a great book, seldom read anymore.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10144
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 19, 2015 3:18 pm

Rights? Another definitional dispute. Heres another one: is it anyone's right to use their brain as a door stop? Or does Natural Law require they actually use it to think with??

You decide.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 19, 2015 3:28 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:@xouper

you are talking about different things here, and use different definitions of 'real'.

That's what I was asking you to clarify.

ElectricMonk wrote:There are things that a real: you can see them, touch them, etc. These things exists with or without humans thinking about them.

Agreed. Such things are real (not imaginary) regardless whether the things can experience "suffering".

ElectricMonk wrote:And then there are social constructs: corporations, nations, money, debt, morals, laws etc. - these things only exists as long as humans believe they exit.

In the context of the point you are trying to make, I will accept that interpretation.

You could have explained all that without ever mentioning "suffering" as a yardstick for determining the difference between those two ideas.

ElectricMonk wrote:Are we talking Rights or Morals? A priori, one has nothing to do with the other.

That is factually incorrect. Laws regarding rights are in fact codifications of moral (or ethical) principles.

When I say that I have the right of self ownership (individual sovereignty), that is both a moral and a legal position.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3055
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Dec 19, 2015 5:19 pm

@xouper


It was perfectly clear for everyone but you - how am I supposed to know that you have a hard time telling laws and moral apart?

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:Are we talking Rights or Morals? A priori, one has nothing to do with the other.

That is factually incorrect. Laws regarding rights are in fact codifications of moral (or ethical) principles.

When I say that I have the right of self ownership (individual sovereignty), that is both a moral and a legal position.


I am afraid it is you who are wrong: laws are determined by their form and issuer, not by their content: a law that decrees, on pain of death, that everyone has to wear green underpants each Wednesday (no reason given) has exactly the same authority than a law based on the religious texts of the society.
Some laws are based on morals, others are not. Most are concerned with making the other bits work.

You do have to separate your legal and moral positions: your morals are determined by your origin of birth, how you were raised, what you learned - they are extremely personal.
Your legal rights are determined by your residence, not your opinions: they are entirely impersonal.

Assume you have a metal handicap or simply zero interest in philosophy and never bothered to ever think about morals. Or you come from a culture with very different morals than the ones used by the society you live in - in either case, your personal morals (or lack of) are different from and do not in the least affect the laws of the land.

Since you live in a place with morals you share, it so happens that your moral and legal position align - but that is due to your sedentary lifestyle, not some Law of Morality.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 19, 2015 7:25 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:Are we talking Rights or Morals? A priori, one has nothing to do with the other.

That is factually incorrect. Laws regarding rights are in fact codifications of moral (or ethical) principles.

When I say that I have the right of self ownership (individual sovereignty), that is both a moral and a legal position.

I am afraid it is you who are wrong:

Nope.

Laws are intended to reflect the values of the people (or of the people writing the laws).

For example: http://www.cscja-acjcs.ca/rule_of_law-en.asp

Our laws embody the basic moral values of our society. They impose limits on the conduct of individuals in order to promote the greater good and to make our communities safe places to live. It is against the law to steal, to injure another person, to drive recklessly or to pollute the environment, ...


That part in yellow is so fundamental, I thought it went without saying.

There are of course exceptions, but in general, laws are a reflection of society's sense of right and wrong. That is not to say that all of a society's morals are codified into law.

Example: Laws against alcohol for minors are a reflection of society's moral code. Do you dispute that fact?

ElectricMonk wrote:You do have to separate your legal and moral positions: your morals are determined by your origin of birth, how you were raised, what you learned - they are extremely personal.
Your legal rights are determined by your residence, not your opinions: they are entirely impersonal.

Assume you have a metal handicap or simply zero interest in philosophy and never bothered to ever think about morals. Or you come from a culture with very different morals than the ones used by the society you live in - in either case, your personal morals (or lack of) are different from and do not in the least affect the laws of the land.

Since you live in a place with morals you share, it so happens that your moral and legal position align - but that is due to your sedentary lifestyle, not some Law of Morality.

None of that is in any way relevant to my position. You are arguing against a claim I have not made.


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest