Rights

>"The right to vote in elections. Is that a Truth-based right? No! Why? Because elections have utterly no legitimacy, and there is no country on the planet that practices democracy, despite claims to the contrary."<

Are you suggesting that we do away with elections?

Any legitimate right must be applied without any selectivity. It must also have every aspect of that right fully justified to the Truth.

Why? Are these your rules or is this some kind of positive methodolgy that you're using to determine truth?

For example : If there was a Truth-based society that proposed hitting another human (assault) was illegal. The basis for this right would be in both morality and a natural desire that any sane life-form possesses not to be assaulted. It would be agreed upon that the Truth clearly shows this is a desirable proposition that is sane. Every single form of assault would need to be treated equally, including boxing, child abuse, fishing, cock-fighting, discipline assault of pets, rugby, street attacks, school yard fighting etc etc etc. There would then be a law declared that the assault is not sponsered by society.

Obviously it's not an absolute. Any rational person can see that.

At the same time, this would only ever be a societal-level rule. The individual citizen-slave would still have every right to do as his True Reality dictates, including assaults. Society would never have any legitimate claim to morally judge nor punish its created victim. Society could only take non-punitive rational and Truth-based measures to lessen the problem.

Total nonsense. What is his True Reality? How is that determined? Are you saying that you could assault somebody and get away with it based on the defense of you are only following your True Nature as it dictates? Why would anybody believe that?

On My website, try reading the Ted Bundy file, using the created victim list. Ted makes a very good point about selectivity in current claims to human rights of the "right to life" variety.

Is this a justification for the actions of Bundy?
-------------


Currently, morality as defined by society is completely false. Morality exists, but what is claimed to constitute that morality is lie-based.

In what way?

>"We can think of individual morality as based in Truth-based freedom. The right to do as your True Reality dictates without threat of moral questioning or punitive punishment from society."<

Perhaps if we're living on a desert island somewhere, but we aren't. We live amongst others in a society that follows a set of rules that most people agree on. All rules impinge on our freedoms. That much is understood. The question is how much freedom are we willing to give up for the sake of an orderly society.

>"Morality can be legitimately seen as "learning your lessons".

That's a pretty weak definition. Learning your lessons??What is the morality of learning your violin lesson? What is the legitimacy of teaching a young child how to hate people of a differnt race? The child that learns that lesson well becomes a racist. A person can be taught things that have no moral equivalence to anything.

Truth is of course the basis of all legitimate morality. We have two divisions :"<

1. Individual amorality/immorality

2. Societal-level morality/immorality

What is suitable for one is not necessarily for the other.

You offer only amorality/immorality on the one hand and morality/immorality on the other. Why is that? When you say, What is suitable for one is not necessarily for the other." how can they be when they start off by offering different choices?

>"Wild animals are excellent sources of moral behaviour,"<

What moral behavior. Many wild animals will eat their young. They act on instinct. The instinct is to survive. They don't make moral judgments. We have an African Grey. We taught it to talk. It will run through it's sequence of words and phrases, but it isn't making moral judgments. It mimicks. The bird Learned its lessons well, but what is the moral lesson that it learned?

>"and I suggest the polar bear, tiger, lion and giraffe are good animals to start with. Primates are more complicated and contain traps for the beginner in Forbidden Truth,"<

Define "forbidden truth". Forbidden by whom?

">The giraffe, for example, learns what is best for it quickly and acts accordingly."<

The Giraffe has learned what it needs to survive. It's amoral. It isn't making value judgments beyond what is important to it's survival.

>"A human teenager, for example, who hangs around and then robs and beats a old man and steals his money is not acting immorally, based on the current societal situation."<

According to who?? And what is the current societal situation based on?

>"Although he may risk jail, this is irrelevant because the current moral and legal claim have no Truth-based legitimacy. Only Truth-based elements that are not based on societal lies can be permitted."<

According to who? Is this some kind of game you've invented with some kind of rules that you've come up with? What is the methodology you are using to come up with this nonsense?

>"At the same time, a Truth-based society that encountered such an individual acting amorally would be able to have moral claim to protect the old man, and take any measures that did not involve the punishment or moral judgement of the individual robbing the old man. It would have an obligation to do so."<

You're making a bunch of absolute claims without any justification as to why they are true. You're saying that the kid can beat up the old man and society has no authority to punish the actions of the kid? Why not?

>"There is no contradiction. What is correct on a personal scale is not necessarily correct on a societal scale."<

First of all there is nothing correct about the kid beating up the old man. Secondly you would have to apply the same reasoning in reverse to avoid the contradiction. What is INcorrect on a personal scale is not necessarily INcorrect on a societal level. In fact, that is the case more often then not. You may decide that wacking off in your bedroom is perfectly fine, but it won't go over too well in a restaurant. In fact you'll be arrested.

>"Another example is masturbation is a noble and moral act, where as society currently lies and suggests otherwise."<

I think I just covered that. Society doesn't suggest otherwise. Society simply doesn't allow you to impose your view of morality or self interest on it.

>"I think it can. As long as we are talking about method and principal. Of course, exactly what is moral and what actions an individual might choose to undertake is a matter of True Reality relativity."<

You're proposing a positive methodology to arrive at a definition of morality? Do you think that Truth is demonstrable? I for one don?t think values can be demonstrated as true. Is that not hypocritical? If you accept that humans have values, then it?s their values. They are not dependent on demonstration, otherwise, why would we consider them our values?
?Truth is demonstrable? logically entails that ?truth is not determined by humans?. If you hold that ?humans decide about the truth? then you can?t hold that ?truth is demonstrable.? These are mutually contradictory ways of viewing the world. To make it clearer we could instead say, ?truth is determined by human judgment? or ?truth is determined unequivocally by demonstration.? Not only are these two ideas incompatible, as truth is a value we as humans place on certain ideas or viewpoints, it makes no sense to say it can be determined by demonstration. It is determined by humans.
We might discuss certain consequences of holding or not holding the value. However as it is a value, it is determined by human judgement, not any particular demonstration. So there can be no basis or criteria or standard. Otherwise that would be to remove the human element from this. Truth is determined by humans, not criteria or standards or bases. Moreover, a criteria cannot be its own criteria. Again, it is an issue of responsibility. Even assuming you have a criteria you think is adequate, how did you determine that? Are you responsible for that judgement, or is the criteria responsible? Merely claiming a standard or a criteria or a basis does not help one to demonstrate the truth of values. Instead, it creates a certain amount of hypocrisy. If we claim a basis gives us truth, we then are making the implicit claim that truth requires bases. But then it is plainly obvious our own basis lacks a basis, as it cannot be its own basis. By claiming truth must be demonstrated by bases we undermine our own moral integrity.

While I think that one can be willing to question ?humans have values?, and therefore hold the position non-dogmatically, I don?t think that the notion that ?humans have values? is logically compatible with ?values are determined by demonstrations.?

Truth is a value. It is not the content of the assertion or idea. Therefore it is separate from the assertion or idea.

And positive methodologies don't work. What I have known are several people who are dogmatic and dictatorial because they think they have a positive methodology. Moreover, as I pointed out before, the positive methodology can?t demonstrate it?s own truth. It?s own standards can?t justify it?s own standards. So those with positive methodologies either have to resort to circular arguments or hypocrisy or both.

Adagio : Your posts are dismissive and too length, not to mention dumb. The correct format is to email any philisophical enquires via My website's email box.

The quality of your responses also needs attention.

Seer Travis Truman said:

Adagio : Your posts are dismissive and too length, not to mention dumb. The correct format is to email any philisophical enquires via My website's email box.

The quality of your responses also needs attention.

Click to expand...

Mr. Truman. The quality of your response is predictable based on what I've seen from your posting. This happens to be a forum. I have no interest in scheduling appointments with you. You have many holes in your reasoning, and I'm pointing them out. End of story. Enjoy your padded cell.

Nemo said:

All rights exist only by law.

Click to expand...

Agreed, though with the caveat noted by David's post.

myp said:

Short and to the point, lol. But, I disagree because I believe in natural rights- life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc., which I do not believe one group of people can give to others. All people are born with those rights- they are only taken away by other men at times, although without law I do believe they could still potentially exist. The law does not create those rights, it sometimes just seeks to protect them.

Click to expand...

The problem with the idea of "natural rights" is that the concept is entirely and completely predicated upon God as the creator of those rights.

David said:

Rights are just that, rights. Privileges are given by law.

Click to expand...

Excellent point.

Originally Posted by Nemo
All rights exist only by law.

Negative. Our declaration of independence sets out the foundation of our rights as part of natural law. Governments and laws do not create rights. They exist to protect those inalienable rights we have been endowed with by "nature's god."

Originally Posted by White Rabbit
The problem with the idea of "natural rights" is that the concept is entirely and completely predicated upon God as the creator of those rights

Why is that a problem? If they are not natural rights then they are rights granted and defined by men. That being the case there is little reason to think that men can diminish those rights.

obtuseobserver said:

Originally Posted by White Rabbit
The problem with the idea of "natural rights" is that the concept is entirely and completely predicated upon God as the creator of those rights

Why is that a problem?

Click to expand...

Maybe because there is nothing that shows for sure that God exists...or maybe because not everyone believes in this god...

Why not say certain rights are given by Zeus? Or any other god?
Would you be accepting of that idea?

connermt said:

Maybe because there is nothing that shows for sure that God exists...or maybe because not everyone believes in this god...

Click to expand...

There's no maybe involved. Many people will disagree on the definition or identity or description etc of God. But the framers referred to nature's God. That's intentionally ambiguous. A significant number of the framers were Enlightenment Deists.

connermt said:

Why not say certain rights are given by Zeus? Or any other god?
Would you be accepting of that idea?

Click to expand...

Why not go with the FSM?

The framers took their task very seriously and constructed the foundations of our nation on principles of natural law.

You can reject that as valuable, important, reasonable etc but the fact remains that the framers premised our system on natural law be it good, bad or indifferent. For me that is very important and a very good idea.

obtuseobserver said:

For me that is very important and a very good idea.

Click to expand...

And that's great. But what you like/agree with isn't what everyone likes/agrees with.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
And some people don't subscribe to the idea of any god, natural or not.

connermt said:

And that's great. But what you like/agree with isn't what everyone likes/agrees with.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
And some people don't subscribe to the idea of any god, natural or not.

Click to expand...

None of that is in dispute.

I was simply pointing out the fact that our framers modeled our system on natural law.

I noted that I favor natural law and why. Then I asked why some would disfavor natural law.

So, now that were caught up... why would you reject natural law and what wold you put into its place and why?

myp said:

Short and to the point, lol. But, I disagree because I believe in natural rights- life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc., which I do not believe one group of people can give to others. All people are born with those rights- they are only taken away by other men at times, although without law I do believe they could still potentially exist. The law does not create those rights, it sometimes just seeks to protect them.

Click to expand...

The thing that prevents me from moving through a discussion on rights is the following question: what is a right? Now I'm a mathematician, and in mathematics everything must be defined rigorously in order to be coherently used - otherwise communication is meaningless, if definitions are not agreed upon. So what I'm looking for - in my own thoughts, as well as from you people here - is a cold hard definition of a "right", otherwise we're just blabbering on about nothing. Here's what I want:

A "right" is a ______.

TortoiseDream said:

The thing that prevents me from moving through a discussion on rights is the following question: what is a right? Now I'm a mathematician, and in mathematics everything must be defined rigorously in order to be coherently used - otherwise communication is meaningless, if definitions are not agreed upon. So what I'm looking for - in my own thoughts, as well as from you people here - is a cold hard definition of a "right", otherwise we're just blabbering on about nothing. Here's what I want:

Click to expand...

TortoiseDream said:

A "right" is a ______.

Click to expand...

A right is a non-mathematical term.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Click to expand...

A. Einstein.
　

Ignoramus said:

A right is a non-mathematical term.

Click to expand...

I'm not implying that a right is a mathematical object, I'm simply demanding the same level of rigor that goes into mathematical thinking go into our starting point in a discussion of rights namely the definition of rights. How can we discuss them if we don't know what they are?

You can make the demand but you're going to be disappointed.

Rights, as a general matter are claims enforceable at law. But that's just a starting point and the answer to the majority of questions will be, "could be" or "it depends."

Law is not subject to mathmatical precision. People have tried to create computer programs to feed facts and rules of law into to produce consistent results. Its been a disaster because law employs such concrete terms as "reasonable" or "articulable."


In any event... presuming "right" is defined as noted above your comment is.....?

obtuseobserver said:

You can make the demand but you're going to be disappointed.

Rights, as a general matter are claims enforceable at law. But that's just a starting point and the answer to the majority of questions will be, "could be" or "it depends."

Law is not subject to mathmatical precision. People have tried to create computer programs to feed facts and rules of law into to produce consistent results. Its been a disaster because law employs such concrete terms as "reasonable" or "articulable."


In any event... presuming "right" is defined as noted above your comment is.....?

Click to expand...

Unless we can agree on a precise definition of "rights" this conversation is just going to be a whole lot of talking (typing) about nothing - that is, about an undefined term. Why not talk about "blobbygrinks" instead? That term is just as undefined, and a conversation about it (while it remains that way) will be just as useful as one about rights.

No one ever said philosophy was meant to be easy, why should we shy away from the task? I think we have enough good-minded people here to make a decent stab at it.

For starters, I'd like to propose that a "right" is not a physical thing. Any objections?

TortoiseDream said:

Unless we can agree on a precise definition of "rights" this conversation is just going to be a whole lot of talking (typing) about nothing - that is, about an undefined term. Why not talk about "blobbygrinks" instead?

Click to expand...

Because people don't fight over blobbygrinks, as far as I know anyway.

"Rights" are a soft term. They are squishy not hard and absolute. Some more than others (either squishy or hard or absolute).

Rights are not without definition but they lack mathmatical precision.

TortoiseDream said:

No one ever said philosophy was meant to be easy, why should we shy away from the task? I think we have enough good-minded people here to make a decent stab at it.

Click to expand...

You're the one shying away from the discussion if the term "right" cannot be defined in a manner that suits your demands. I'm perfectly happy to talk about it in far less exacting terms.

TortoiseDream said:

For starters, I'd like to propose that a "right" is not a physical thing. Any objections?

Click to expand...

But that isn't defining what something is. That's saying what it isn't.

I'll add, a right is not a blobbygrink; as far as I know at least.

obtuseobserver said:

Because people don't fight over blobbygrinks, as far as I know anyway.

Click to expand...

That's my entire point, though. People don't debate about blobbygrinks because it's nonsense, and as far as I'm concerned until someone here defines "rights" they are also just nonsense. How can you talk about something without knowing what it is?

obtuseobserver said:

"Rights" are a soft term. They are squishy not hard and absolute. Some more than others (either squishy or hard or absolute).

Rights are not without definition but they lack mathmatical precision.

Click to expand...

If they have a definition, then what is it? Otherwise, like I've been saying, the conversation is just nonsense.

obtuseobserver said:

You're the one shying away from the discussion if the term "right" cannot be defined in a manner that suits your demands. I'm perfectly happy to talk about it in far less exacting terms.

Click to expand...

I'm shying away from a discussion that won't go anywhere. When I have discussions I like to make progress, and the first step towards progress here is to define "rights".

obtuseobserver said:

But that isn't defining what something is. That's saying what it isn't.

I'll add, a right is not a blobbygrink; as far as I know at least.

Click to expand...

I did not claim to define rights anywhere in my remarks. I have some ideas, but I am stuck; that's why I want to hear some other opinions. I think what I said suffices as a starting point, however, for a brainstorm of ideas that we might embark upon. Sure I can say that the square root of 2 is not a rational number, and while that doesn't define the square root of two, it certainly helps me pinpoint how to define it.

Note: For those curious readers, the square root of two is actually defined as the set of all rational numbers whose squares are less than two.

Sqrt(2) = {x|x is rational and x^2 < 2}

TortoiseDream said:

That's my entire point, though. People don't debate about blobbygrinks because it's nonsense, and as far as I'm concerned until someone here defines "rights" they are also just nonsense.

Click to expand...

ok.

I disagree. So does our system of government and our legal system. It has developed over a thousand years into a pretty good system even if you think it is nonesense.

Rights are not easy to pin down the way you'd like to pin them down. This is probably not a discussion you'd find much enjoyment from because it's like running with a bowl of water. It is hard to keep in one place.

This is also a pretty good example of why modern trends in philosophy drive me up the wall. They descend into nothing more than slicing as close to the bone as possible to define terms. Philosophy may work that way. The real world doesn't.

TortoiseDream said:

I'm shying away from a discussion that won't go anywhere. When I have discussions I like to make progress, and the first step towards progress here is to define "rights".

Click to expand...

No, you're demanding a discussion comply with your demands.

obtuseobserver said:

ok.

I disagree.

Rights are not easy to pin down the way you'd like to pin them down. This is probably not a discussion you'd find much enjoyment from because it's like running with a bowl of water. It is hard to keep in one place.

This is also a pretty good example of why modern trends in philosophy drive me up the wall. They descend into nothing more than slicing as close to the bone as possible to define terms. Philosophy may work that way. The real world doesn't.

Click to expand...

And like I said before, philosophy was never meant to be easy. If you're content with just "winging it", then I guess that's your standard. However, I think establishing sound ethical foundations is a very important thing. Why? Because when you get it wrong, lots of people die.

From the way this forum presents itself, I would expect to be met with discussions like the one I'm trying to initiate with you now.

TortoiseDream said:

And like I said before, philosophy was never meant to be easy. If you're content with just "winging it", then I guess that's your standard. However, I think establishing sound ethical foundations is a very important thing. Why? Because when you get it wrong, lots of people die.

From the way this forum presents itself, I would expect to be met with discussions like the one I'm trying to initiate with you now.

Click to expand...

Lol, I'm not winging it - my standards are very high but I don't require the subject conform with my requiorements. The subject is what it is whether you call it gooblygrinks or peanuts or rights. You're trying to force round pegs into square holes.

Ethics and rights are not synonymous. It is perfectly reasonable to have a right whose enforcement may be unethical. (reasonable isn't the correct word in the sense that it is reasonable to enforce an unethical right. It is reasonable in the sense that a right may be unethical if enforced.)

As a general matter however, those states that have employed the English Common Law and liberal democratic principles have avoided lots of dead people. States that tried to relegate religion to the ash heap of history and deny natural law (which then leads to the obvious realization that ethics are no more than human constructs that serve the needs of man. Once one has gotten that far it becomes a great deal more important to one of the people who decides what man needs and what is or is not ethical..... for example... another suggested here that we should sterilize those who are dependent upon the state. Besides that person's failure to understand our nation's history with that notion it quite clearly outlines exactly what I am talking about. And what you are concerned about.... lots of dead people. A fair concern.

As far as the forum, I don't think all discussions lend themselves to the construct into which we'd like to place them for observation. Rights are about people and people are anything but consistent, even within themselves.