Where Do Natural Rights Come From?

[VJ]

[Az]

GePap:
I don't believe in natural rights.

I do feel that there is a certain way that things should be done by humans. as much happiness for as many people as possible for as much time as possible.

[Boris Godunov]

You guys do know you can respond without parsing out every sentence. Unless of course you are using it as a deliberate tactic to make gobbedy-gook of the other's arguments. Try to respond in coherent paragraphs for pete's sake.

Imran, most Germans did not think it was morally acceptable to commit genocide. While most Germans harbored varying levels of anti-Semetism (as did everyone in the Western world at that time), the more extreme types of opression of Jews and other "inferior" races was not generally supported. That's why the Nazis perpetrated the lie that the Jews and Slavs were being transplanted to the East. Even at the end of the war, most Germans refused to believe the death camps really existed and insisted that the Jews from their areas were sent to the East.

Even those who knew what the camps were didn't necessarily support it. They weren't exactly at liberty to object, after all. When the American soldiers forced the nearby civilians to walk through Auschwitz and see it for themselves, the reactions were of disbelief and horror. Yes, they knew what was going on, but the full reality of it hadn't grabbed them until then, because no one wants to believe their country is perpetrating such an atrocity.

Bezerker seems to be designating "society" rather narrowly as the extent of national borders. That's a fictional barrier, however, in today's world. Modern society and values transcend national borders. Nuremberg was just precisely because of this--the Nazis had violated a basic moral princep of world society, not just German. Saying that societal values stop at an arbitrary geographic border is patently silly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Did this "creator" that gave you your life also put chains around you mandating I rule over you?

Perhaps... if I was born a slave he did.

So morality is defined by majority rule?

In democracies... in authoritarian states, it is defined by what the leader says it is.

Were they moral? You say yes, but also say they were immoral because we today say so. That makes morality - arguably the most important philosophical concept ever discovered by humans - a meaningless idea.

Exactly... morality is meaningless. That is the point.

Well, when having to choose between a system in which slavery and genocide can be morally justified and a system in which they cannot, I'll choose the system in which they cannot be justified. That pretty much sums it up for me. I believe in natural rights because they provide a mechanism for ensuring liberty that no other system can provide.

As long as you admit that natural rights don't majically arise, and you perfer to believe in them because they provide a 'just' society. That's fine, as long as you know it.

----

You guys do know you can respond without parsing out every sentence.

We are talking to bezerker... it's kinda going down to the lowest determinator.

As for the Germans in WW2, it may as well be true that they did not support that acts. But in that society did the people really matter? Since it was an authoritarian regime, the people that determined morality (and thus societal 'rights') were the leaders, who made the decision to exterminate.

Society can indeed be within state borders; however, you are correct. Morals and 'rights' today are international in nature. There are some morals which are purely within the country, but they are getting fewer and fewer. Of course modern society transcends boundaries of states because society believes that is the 'moral' thing to do.

GePap: Spot on!

[Az]

Imran:
this is what I call "local morals", like "thou shall not mastrubate". It's a code that is created to be a way of doing things in a certain society, sometimes having some philosophy underneath, and sometimes not.

I believe they're fluid, and one cannot judge a person for commiting a crime that wasn't considered a crime in his society, in some ancient time.

I do have global morals, which are basically, well, not the purpose of life, because there is none, but the way humans everywhere should behave, a single moral standard by which humans should be judged, in a good, not to say perfect society, imo.

[Ben Kenobi]

I also question whether Monotheism really gives you some sort of self-evident evidence for them either. Just cause God tells you not to take another mans vase doesn't mean God approves of a right of property. Maybe it is just another way for Him to protect his turf: God giveth, God taketh away: not larry, but God. God gives man choices and responsibilities. Those are not the same as rights.

-GePap

With a spot of Ramo:

I define my morality.

Finally, with Jon Miller:

we have no right to liberty, property, or life

All these points are connected. I agree with GePap that the right to property enshrined under the constitution is not necessarily the same as the Natural Right promulgated by God.

However, I must disagree with Ramo, and Jon Miller. One of the Natural Rights that people have, I would say the most fundamental is the right to life. Without the right to life, we cannot exercise any other rights, to property, or to liberty. One cannot be free unless one is first alive.

Where does this right to life come from? If it comes from people, as Ramo sums up, " I define my morality," why does this force us to respect the rights of others to live? Would it not be proper to say that I could kill Ramo because my personal morality agreed?

Yet we do believe that it is wrong to kill others arbitrarily. Where does this belief come from? One could say that society requires an agreement between parties to respect each others rights in order to prosper. You cannot form a functional society while killing people for sport.

There are several problems with this definition. It is not clear that while some people may be protected by society, that others who are not quite the same should also be protected. For the society to function, a mere majority must protect themselves, while the minorities will be exposed. A society that kills those who differ so long as they preserve the majority, will survive.

Secondly, not everyone is equally prosperous, nor productive. Why should a society protect the weak and the injured, the old and the enfeebled at cost to itself without a right to life?

[SnowFire]

Well, I believe in God, so this debate is mostly moot for me. I will say though that I buy Ramo's defense of relativism more than Imran's. Imran, you say:
So whose morality is correct?

NO ONES!

This isn't good, in my mind. You're saying that you can't condemn the Nazis (ignore for a moment that they were "right" according to their morality, which does make sense under relativism). The proper answer to "Who's Morality is correct?" is what I think Ramo is giving: MINE! If you simply say that morality is something each person defines for themself, and then they each have full grounds to condemn others who do not live up to that morality, you're consistent while being able to condemn the Nazis, Ted Bundy, and whoever else you think is evil. Saying that there is no such thing is morality might also be consistent, but then you've just constrained yourself to a wet paper bag in terms of views you can hold, since apperantly you don't care about right or wrong and choose your own actions via coin-flips or something.

[Berzerker]

Gepap -

"Morality" 'means' something in so far as human beings have created the notion of values and vices and a methods of trying to classify social actions within this framework, and that this framework informs their future actions. Outside of that morality is meaningless.

Of course human beings thought up the notion of morality, but morality must be based on something more than just our differing opinions or morality is meaningless. Was it immoral for the Nazis to slaughter millions of Germans? If so, why? If you say they were immoral, is that a meaningless statement? According to some people in this thread, the Nazis were not immoral because their "society" defined morality and whatever they did to others qualifies as moral.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I think that morals are defined by the society in which they are applied to. By saying that there is one set of morals and that it is you who believe in them is just dismissing everything else without giving it a look. thats arrogant.

[Sava]

Rights are created by humans.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

Any mother has created life.

No, she has perpetuated life. She didn't create the egg, fertilise it, or create the genetic code.

That's not relevent to the point. I may have been born as your slave.

It is relevant, you're trying to argue that natural rights don't exist because some people violate the rights of others. According to that argument, I could argue there are no civil rights either because somebody violated another person's civil rights. As for being born a slave, did that which created you enslave you or another person?

Why do I need a longer horizon? How is who created my mom relevant?

Because you cannot see that my argument is about that which created life, not life forms perpetuating life.

I still don't understand why who created me is relevant.

Because if I did not create you, I lack any claim over your existence. If you build a car, do I get to morally do as I wish with your labor?

No, you were asking a question about societal morality, and I answered it by saying that societal morality is societal morality (basically).

I don't even believe in "societal" morality. Imran says the majority (or plurality) defines morality.

Why is that relevant? I thought you just said the majority doesn't determine morality (which I agree with).

Because some people are willing to go to almost any length to deny natural rights, even defending the Nazis (although Imran says he wasn't defending them).

No one is claiming that the Nazi's are moral.

Imran did.

What's "right?" Right according to whom? My moral system is logically consistent with my philosophy, if that's what you mean.

Correct, true. Do you believe your view of morality is correct? If so, then opposing views are incorrect, true?
That means morality is not meaningless as some in this thread are claiming.

Why?

Because morality becomes meaningless if it depends only on opinions. Morality must be based on some standard or principle, not the ever changing winds of popular opinion.

Again, because they usurped the liberty of millions in the extreme. Which is "bad" in my moral system.

But liberty is a natural right! It certainly was not a "societal" or civil right in that country. This thread is a debate between those who claim rights are "societal" or natural, and since the victims of the Nazis had no societal right to liberty, the Nazis did nothing wrong to their victims. But you and I agree what they did was immoral because they violated the rights of their victims. So, why did those victims have rights such as liberty when "society" said they had no right to liberty? Because rights come from a source other than our fellow man.

Why?

For the same reason it is meaningless to claim 2+2 = 4 if 2+4 = 4 is also true. If you and I have competing views of morality, one of us is right and the other is wrong (assuming only 2 options).

No, you think murder is moral if you say so, and I think murder is immoral if I say so.

So who is correct?

What is inherent and what is conditioned, and how do you know which one is which?

Self-defense is inherent, non-resistance is conditioned. How do I know? Observing the world.

How is morality inherent to a person if it exists only within the context of a society?

Again, I didn't say morality is inherent, I said morality may be discerned by identifying universal characteristics shared by people. The Golden Rule identifies one of these characteristics, the desire to be treated a certain way.

Again, that's not true. What of people who are suicidal? And why is this relevant?

It is true, how do you equate suicide with attempted murder?

Not necessarily. If someone's really, really apathetic, this wouldn't be true.

So this really apathetic person wouldn't want to be saved from a murderer? C'mon...

But this doesn't imply that everyone believes we should all treat others as we would like to be treated.

Never said it did, but what it does say is that we want others to treat us a certain way even if there are people who murder others. The morality of the Golden Rule is that we should be consistent by granting to others what we want for ourselves.

It is if the state thinks so. Like ours does. Murder, like ownership, is an inherently legal concept.

Then suicide would be called murder. If I try to commit suicide and fail, does the state charge me with attempted murder? Of course not. Let's deal with ideas, not what some group of politicians tell us. Murder is intentionally killing another person without justification.

But I'll assume that instead of murder, you mean a nonconsentual killing. Yes, everyone by definition doesn't consent to a nonconsentual killing. You're arguing semantics again.

You are the one who offered suicide as a refutation of my argument that no one wants to be murdered.

Why not?

Survival instincts are not a product of natural selection.

You missed the whole point of that. What is ownership outside the context of society and state?

Do you need the state or "society" to tell you it's okay to defend yourself from attack before you act in self-defense? No, because self-defense ("ownership") is hardwired.

No, it isn't. The conditioning I was referring to is any sort of "non-natural" interaction. For instance, human interaction.

Why is human interaction "non-natural"?

What's the distinction? You're arguing that certain universal morals can be logically derived from these universal views, aren't you? Aren't you trying to argue that "Natural Rights" are universal morals?

Here is how you characterised my position:

But there aren't any universal moral views.

That isn't what I said, I said this:

there were universal views which may form the basis for determining morality.

The bold in your statement is my argument, but not that everyone shares the same view of morality.

I've cited the example of self-preservation as a universal trait, from this we can determine that self-ownership is a natural right. You don't like the word "ownership" claiming it is only a legal term. Fine, call it whatever you like, but self-ownership, self-determination, or fill in the blank, is a universal trait and is the basis of the natural rights to life and liberty. Slavery is conditioned, not life and liberty...

[Berzerker]

LoA -

I think that morals are defined by the society in which they are applied to. By saying that there is one set of morals and that it is you who believe in them is just dismissing everything else without giving it a look. thats arrogant.

So you believe the Nazis were moral? And who said there is one set of morals without looking at competing views? But once you've looked at these competing views, is it arrogant for you to choose the one you believe to be correct?

[Ramo]

Berz:

She didn't create the egg,

Sure she did. Are you suggesting a stork or a deity did?

fertilise it, or create the genetic code.

She didn't create the food that fed me either. She didn't create the house or city or the planet, or galaxy, or universe that housed me. What does this demonstrate? Are you trying to tell me that no one has created anything? If so, I would disagree with your definition of creation.

It is relevant, you're trying to argue that natural rights don't exist because some people violate the rights of others.

No, I am not. You're trying to claim that natural rights exist because I was not born your slave. Which just as easily could be false.

Because you cannot see that my argument is about that which created life, not life forms perpetuating life.

Why is the former relevant?

Because if I did not create you, I lack any claim over your existence.

Why? And why would you have a moral claim to me if you created me? If some deity "created me" (whatever that means), I certainly would not consider Him to have a moral claim over me. IMO, slavery is always immoral regardless of how much power the master has.

If you build a car, do I get to morally do as I wish with your labor?

Huh?

I don't even believe in "societal" morality.

I consider societal morality to be aspects of a moral system held in common within a society. I don't see what there is to believe or not believe in...

Correct, true. Do you believe your view of morality is correct? If so, then opposing views are incorrect, true?

Define correct. My morality is a belief, there's nothing objective about it.

That means morality is not meaningless as some in this thread are claiming.

I don't consider my morality to be "meaningless." There's no "Objective Truth" (not that I think any such thing exists) in it, but that doesn't make it "meaningless."

Because morality becomes meaningless if it depends only on opinions. Morality must be based on some standard or principle, not the ever changing winds of popular opinion.

Why?

For the same reason it is meaningless to claim 2+2 = 4 if 2+4 = 4 is also true. If you and I have competing views of morality, one of us is right and the other is wrong (assuming only 2 options).

Why do you assume there are only two options. Neither one is "correct." It's just as arbitrary to call 2 the additive identity of complex numbers (and reals, rationals, and integers) as 0. It's also just as arbitrary to define the function "+" as addition as any other function you want.

So who is correct?

Correct isn't a logically defined concept in this context.

Self-defense is inherent, non-resistance is conditioned. How do I know? Observing the world.

It's true that biological conditioning (natural selection) has given humans a propensity to survive. But of course not all humans have this propensity.

It's also true that biological conditioning has given humans a propensity to spread our genes. Does that make rape a natural right?

So this really apathetic person wouldn't want to be saved from a murderer? C'mon..

Sure. Are you disputing that such people have never existed?

Never said it did, but what it does say is that we want others to treat us a certain way even if there are people who murder others.

As opposed to not wanting others to treat us a certain way? Again, this isn't true if one is really apathetic.

The morality of the Golden Rule is that we should be consistent by granting to others what we want for ourselves.

How does the fact that some people aren't totally apathetic make the golden rule a universal moral?

It is true, how do you equate suicide with attempted murder?

I don't. Murder has a specific legal context. Murder is any killing that the state calls murder. Few if any states have considered attempted suicide attempted murder.

Let's deal with ideas

In that case, we need to use specific language to represent these ideas. Murder has a specific definition. But I did deal with what you intended to write.

You are the one who offered suicide as a refutation of my argument that no one wants to be murdered.

Again, please deal with what I've written. A nonconsentual killing is nonconsentual, I agree with that. But that's a definition (The fact that a logical assertion "A" implies "A", doesn't imply that "A" is true).

Survival instincts are not a product of natural selection.

I imagine just about every biologist in the world would disagree. Where do you think they come from?

Do you need the state or "society" to tell you it's okay to defend yourself from attack before you act in self-defense?

No, a state or any other authority can tell me what my morals are. They're products of my mind (and all that influence it), nothing else.

No, because self-defense ("ownership") is hardwired.

Again, natural selection has given us the propensity (which is NOT universal) to survive. I accept that. Now, what does this imply?

Why is human interaction "non-natural"?

I'm using your definition of natural as in "natural rights"; i.e. they don't come from humans.

I've cited the example of self-preservation as a universal trait, from this we can determine that self-ownership is a natural right.

Bad logic. I've cited the biological imperative to spread our genes is a universal trait, from this can we determine that rape is a natural right?

And you need to prove your assertion. Just stating it isn't a proof.

obiwan:

However, I must disagree with Ramo, and Jon Miller. One of the Natural Rights that people have, I would say the most fundamental is the right to life. Without the right to life, we cannot exercise any other rights, to property, or to liberty. One cannot be free unless one is first alive.
Where does this right to life come from? If it comes from people, as Ramo sums up, " I define my morality," why does this force us to respect the rights of others to live?

What is "this" that you refer to? My morality and my thoughts on the nature of morality don't force you to respect the rights of others.

Would it not be proper to say that I could kill Ramo because my personal morality agreed?

Barring the intervention of anyone else (including me), there's no reason that you couldn't kill me. I wouldn't consider it moral, though.

Yet we do believe that it is wrong to kill others arbitrarily.

Who is "we"? Did Stalin or Hitler believe this?

Where does this belief come from?

Biological and social conditioning.

One could say that society requires an agreement between parties to respect each others rights in order to prosper. You cannot form a functional society while killing people for sport.
There are several problems with this definition. It is not clear that while some people may be protected by society, that others who are not quite the same should also be protected. For the society to function, a mere majority must protect themselves, while the minorities will be exposed. A society that kills those who differ so long as they preserve the majority, will survive.
Secondly, not everyone is equally prosperous, nor productive. Why should a society protect the weak and the injured, the old and the enfeebled at cost to itself without a right to life?

1. During pre-civilization, or the during vast majority of the existence of humanity, there were no significant disparties in the wealth. And the old/"enfeebled" tended to have experience and knowledge that younger people had.
2. During most of civilization, groups with less power were indeed accorded fewer rights by the state. People with less authority were often slaughtered by people with more authority, and these ideas fit within the moral paradigm.
3. There tends to be an inverse relation between productivity and rights during most of civilization. A landless peasant was far more productive for society than a landed knight. Again, this fit within the moral paradigm.
4. Humans have brains. And we use them. Our moralities are not purely products of social need. Often moralities run contrary to social need (again, look at most of civilization).

SF:

Well, I believe in God, so this debate is mostly moot for me.

I've always wondered about this. Is it that you think God plants a certain moral system into every person, or that God has ultimate moral authority, so whatever he says is moral is by definition moral?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ramo... I do suggest you follow Boris' suggestion as well and stop nitpicking like Bezerker tends to do. It'll make the argument much easier to follow. I also now understand why debates involving berzerker turn into a one on one debate in the end.

---

Snowfire, you have to prove to me your morality is 'correct'. It may be correct to you, but it isn't to me. The question 'Who's Morality is Correct' I interpreted as 'which morality is best', because bezerker does believe that one moral code is superior.

That being said, I don't think you can say one moral code is superior to another. Your morals may work for you, but that doesn't mean anything. And it may just be like flipping a coin. After all, no one knows where our morals come from. Environment is part of it, but people can stray greatly from others in the same environment.

[Ramo]

Alright, here's a summary of my argument with Berz.

1. Berzerker seems to have the odd idea that if "something" created me, he morally has authority over me. This idea is antithetical to my personal moral views as I oppose slavery and any other form of human subjagation regardless of the power of this coercive authority. Futhermore, he seems to have a strange idea of what creation is. If I build a car, does this mean that I have not actually "created" it because I start out with parts that I haven't "created?"

2. Every assertion relies on assumptions (even this one). My moral system is built on a belief, just as everyone else's (including "objectivists." ). The premise behind my moral system is that the maximization of liberty is "good." That doesn't make all other moral systems objectively wrong as they are based on different premises. I, however, can use my moral system to declare certain kinds of social interactions as "wrong" (regardless of the moral systems the people involved subscribe to). That's the "meaning" of a moral system. No, it doesn't have any cosmic significance, but it's a useful philisophical construct.

3. The fact that humans have a propensity to survive doesn't prove that there's a "natural right" to life. Just as the fact that humans have a propensity to spread their genetic code doesn't prove that there's a "natural right" to rape. All this proves is that biological conditioning (natural selection) has given humans certain traits.

Furthermore, the fact that I wasn't born with chains to someone else doesn't prove I have "natural right" to liberty. If I was born in the Sudan or a few centuries ago, this may well have been true. Also, if this premise were true, the fact that I wasn't born with subservient to a landlord would prove that I have a "natural right" to my apartment.

And even if I couldn't find examples to the contrary, rigorous proof is needed to show why these nonintuitive assertions are valid.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Good summary... now if we can get Berz to agree to have a regular debate .

Oh.. and I agree with your points (especially point 3).

[loinburger]

Imran: Earlier you suggested that we "agree to disagree" on whether morality is objective or relative, but your now claiming that morality is meaningless is a pretty severe change from your last statement on the matter -- it's difficult to agree to disagree if you're going to go right back to your old position ten months down the road without showing any sign that the previous argument ever took place.

Previously I'd made the claim that not all moral codes are equal, that a moral code that is reasonably justified is objectively superior to a moral code that is unjustified (and thus unreasonable). This is where the Golden Rule comes from -- it is inconsistent (and therefore unreasonable) for you to perform a set of actions that would cause you to become morally indignant were said actions to be performed unto you, unless you're somehow able to reasonably justify the claim that you operate under a different set of moral rules from everybody else (e.g. "My name is Imran so I have authority over all those whose name is not Imran," justifying the causal link between "being named Imran" and "having authority over those not named Imran").

You, however, rejected the claim that somebody's moral code could be swayed by the reasonable justification of an opposing moral code.

Originally posted by Imran Siddique
And yes, people do change their minds when hearing of something else, when another answer is presented. It isn't because the case has more justification than their own and thus they flip morals... it is because the opinion makes them think of the issue in a different light, and that different light fits with their own moral code better than the way they were thinking about it. They convincing is seeing the opinion in a different way.

For example, when I shifted from pro-life to pro-choice in abortion, I didn't shift because the pro-choice side had more justification.. rather I shifted because I saw the issue in another light, that dealing with consent as opposed to simply life and death. Seeing it in that way showed me that my moral code was more disposed to the pro-choice idea than the pro-life.

In other words, you essentially admitted that not all moral codes are equal since a reasonably justified contrary moral code altered your own (presumably less reasonably justified) moral code, but rather than relent in your moral relativism you invented a way for you to change your morals without changing your morals. Saying "My morals didn't change when I shifted from pro-life to pro-choice" is utterly ridiculous.

You'll need to justify how your previous moral code (your "pro-life" moral code) is identical to your current moral code (your "pro-choice" moral code), i.e. if both codes/opinions are equivalent, then why did your opinion change on the matter of abortion?



Not to side-track from everybody ganging up on Berzerker, of course...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Gepap -

Of course human beings thought up the notion of morality, but morality must be based on something more than just our differing opinions or morality is meaningless. Was it immoral for the Nazis to slaughter millions of Germans? If so, why? If you say they were immoral, is that a meaningless statement? According to some people in this thread, the Nazis were not immoral because their "society" defined morality and whatever they did to others qualifies as moral.

What could morality be based on? Human history has existed for 5000 years and what the Nazi's did between 1941-1945 made them modernities monsters, but it is hard to think that most peoples before the modern ear (aboutt he 1500's) would have seen what they did as beyond the pale. Did we change as human beigns during that time? If so, why do stories written 2500 years ago still resonate with us? If man were trully different, the wroks of Homer and the Bible and so forth would have no meaning for us.

I see morality based on a few things: 1. there are certain limiting parameters for mankind: we are social mammals of the primate group. That fact imposes certain working limits. All morality seeks to regulate social interactions, a basic and crucial task for a social being like Man. Now, beyond these basic parameters come fundamental values. Each individual society, based on whatever (the reasons could be infinate), chooses some fundamental values (Honor, Bravery, Honesty, Individualism, Liberty, Piety, Strength, Penance, Forgiveness, Stability....) which it sees as best for maintaining social order. These values change over time, which is what brigns about changes in morality (making up such a thing as "children", a seperate groups from "adults", for example).

Now, the way I would measure the morality of an act is twofold: how it concides with my own values and how it concides with theirs as well. I would say then that in both cases, the Nazi's were immoral and their actions prove it. They tried to hide the truth, from evryone and themselves, and they did so because Nazism still did exist within the set fo moralities constructed sicne the enlightenment. I find it impossible to seperate Nazism from modern morality, since only under modernity could such a group exist. Of course the Nazi's had rationalizations and theories about why their actions were correct, but they were patently false, misleading, incomplete, so forth and so on. If the Nazi's had acted as if they temselves did not believe anything wrong was being done and acted in ways that were utterly consistent with their own stated fundamental values, then I would be incapable of stating that they are acting trully immorally. But thankfully, most mass murderers act on a set of whims based on a very weak set fo beliefs, many of them contradictory. So even as i believe that morality is mutable and subjective I believe that the Nazi's were utterly immoral.

[Master Zen]

Nice post GePap!

I pretty much agree with everything you say, I just want to add that so much of morality is affected by culture that there will arise differences in what one group considers moral and what another one doesn't. Dancing around topless is immoral in an Amish street, it is not immoral in an African tribe (or in a Cancun club... )

So which of these viewpoints is correct? Depends on your culture. I think that moral issues that do not do damage in a physical or mental sense are pretty stupid. In this case, the topless dancing thing would not seem immoral to me (duhh!).

Two quotes come to mind, "your freedom ends where another's begins" and "respect to another's rights is peace" (hear that Bush!!! )

As for the Nazis, they, even Hitler knew that what they were doing was wrong. I believe they had the crazy idea that had their plans been realized, then posterity would view them as heroes and patriots and all the evil would be made up by making Germany great. They did believe the end justified the means.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Loin: I agreed to disagree with you. Though there was no truce with others .

The main question is WHO is to decide what is reasonable? Only the person that is listening. One person may believe the justification is reasonable, while someone else may believe it is totally unreasonable. So where do you draw the line? Who's reasonablness do you follow? Rationality is different to different societies. What it depends upon is what TRUTH the society (in the form of the people... or the rulers) decides is the proper truth. IMO, truth is just like morality, in that it is highly personal, and the truth that wins out in the end is that which the elite or the populace agrees with.

And not all moral codes are equal TO ME! However all moral codes that exist in society are equal, even if they seem inequal to me.

My opinion changed, because, as I said, I saw the issue in a different light. In a discussion, I came to realize the life issue doesn't matter, and consent is the all important issue. Seeing as consent matters more to me than life status, it was obvious that in looking at the issue that way, I had to shift my belief to that which more reflected it.

Morality is highly personal thing and may shift to and fro determined by how issues are seen by the viewer. I guess you can equate this with Plato's 'memory being merely recollection' somewhat, with the caveat that I don't hold much stock on a priori knowledge. In short, I believe a person's morality is established early on and the changes in it later in life is simply the viewing of things in different ways.

However, like I said, I agreed to disagree with you. Part in parcel in that is my belief that morality is, on the whole, meaningless. I didn't say I'd stop arguing against others on the matter though .

[Master Zen]

As for RELIGIOUS morality,

as a non-religious person I think it's a load of BS. I personally can't stand the idea that a "church" tells me what's right and what's wrong.

What do I get for following the moral rules of the church? I'll feel spitifually better? People should be made to feel good about themselves, to believe in themselves, so they don't need a chuch to do it for them.

[Ramo]

Hmmm.. that was an interesting discussion, loin. It's a shame I seem to have forgotten about the thread. I think the main point I was getting to was, why is the Golden Rule objectively relevant, why do you need reciprocity in a moral system? I would certainly consider moral systems lacking reciprocity to be inferior to those that do, but I would also consider it a subjective criticism.

[GePap]

The Golden Rule only works among equals. You don't have to treat the inferior as they have to treat you: they are inferior for some reason, and thus not deserving of reciprocity. Aftyer all, if you must act them with reciprocity, you are basically asuming they are equals in some way, no?

Since a moral system with defined hierarchies and gross inequality can exist, I don't think one does need the Golden Rule to be a central tennet, at leats not under its common understanding.

[Ramo]

Agreed.

[Berzerker]

First, I try to address each argument/point as a matter of courtesy, not for nefarious reasons as Boris claims, and I find it easier to do that by disecting the post I'm responding to so the person I'm debating knows which points I am addressing. If Boris doesn't like that, he doesn't have to read my posts. If lurkers don't like that, they can open a second window and align my post with the post I'm addressing.

Ramo -

Sure she did. Are you suggesting a stork or a deity did?

That which created life created her eggs. Would you suggest mothers created their own brains and limbs too?

She didn't create the food that fed me either.

Is that an admission mothers did not create the genetic code they pass along to their children? If so, obviously your mother did not create you.

She didn't create the house or city or the planet, or galaxy, or universe that housed me.

And this all proves she did create you? Don't you think whomever or whatever did create the universe, or at least life on this planet, is ultimately responsible for your existence?

What does this demonstrate? Are you trying to tell me that no one has created anything? If so, I would disagree with your definition of creation.

Simple, people did not create you, therefore they have no moral claim to your existence.

No, I am not. You're trying to claim that natural rights exist because I was not born your slave. Which just as easily could be false.

Yes you are. Natural rights exist because that which created you granted you life and liberty regardless of whether or not another person enslaves you.

Why is the former relevant?

Ownership!

Why?

Ownership! Why do you instinctively react in your defense when attacked? Because "ownership" is hardwired...

And why would you have a moral claim to me if you created me?

I may or may not, but I certainly don't if I didn't create you.

If some deity "created me" (whatever that means)

You tell me, you're the one who keeps trying to introduce a "deity".

I certainly would not consider Him to have a moral claim over me. IMO, slavery is always immoral regardless of how much power the master has.

That might be relevant if there was some "deity" trying to compel you to act a certain way.

I consider societal morality to be aspects of a moral system held in common within a society. I don't see what there is to believe or not believe in...

I thought you didn't believe in morality by majority rule?

Define correct. My morality is a belief, there's nothing objective about it.

You need a definition of "correct" or "true"?

I don't consider my morality to be "meaningless."

Then explain why to Imran and Gepap.

There's no "Objective Truth" (not that I think any such thing exists) in it, but that doesn't make it "meaningless."

So you believe in a moral system and don't know or care if it's valid? If you do care, did you not seek some truth as the basis for your moral system?

Why?

Because morality becomes meaningless if it has no foundation.

Why do you assume there are only two options.

To make my example easier to understand.

Neither one is "correct." It's just as arbitrary to call 2 the additive identity of complex numbers (and reals, rationals, and integers) as 0. It's also just as arbitrary to define the function "+" as addition as any other function you want.

So 2+2 = 4 is an invalid statement?

Correct isn't a logically defined concept in this context.

Sure it is, either an act is moral or it is either immoral or morally neutral. An immoral act doesn't become moral just because the actor says so.

It's true that biological conditioning (natural selection) has given humans a propensity to survive. But of course not all humans have this propensity.

The conditioning you were talking about was societal, not biological. I'd love to see these people who have no propensity for survival. And don't point to suicide again, we're talking about people without special circumstances altering their situation.

It's also true that biological conditioning has given humans a propensity to spread our genes. Does that make rape a natural right?

Is rape a universal trait? You forgot my argument, natural rights are based on universal traits.

Sure. Are you disputing that such people have never existed?

Yes, can you prove they have existed?

As opposed to not wanting others to treat us a certain way?

Yes, the Golden Rule.

Again, this isn't true if one is really apathetic.

So you believe this apathetic person wants to be murdered?

How does the fact that some people aren't totally apathetic make the golden rule a universal moral?

You need to prove there are apathetic people who want to be murdered.

I don't. Murder has a specific legal context. Murder is any killing that the state calls murder. Few if any states have considered attempted suicide attempted murder.

You did offer suicide to my argument about murder.

In that case, we need to use specific language to represent these ideas. Murder has a specific definition. But I did deal with what you intended to write.

By equating murder with suicide.

Again, please deal with what I've written.

I am. Did you not argue that suicide proves my claim that no one wants to be murdered is false?

I imagine just about every biologist in the world would disagree. Where do you think they come from?

Citing unnamed biologists and putting words in their mouths proves nothing. Survival instincts are hardwired into our genetic code, natural selection is a theory about how environmental factors favor certain traits over others leading to the evolution of species.

No, a state or any other authority can tell me what my morals are. They're products of my mind (and all that influence it), nothing else.

"My mind"? Isn't that a statement of ownership? Since we don't hesitate upon being attacked to ponder whether or not the state allows us to react, self-defense is hardwired into our being. That is a universal trait from which I conclude "life" is a natural right granted us by that which created us (in addition to the fact we did not create each other).

Again, natural selection has given us the propensity (which is NOT universal) to survive. I accept that. Now, what does this imply?

The propensity to survive is not universal? It sure is and introducing special circumstances such as suicide (and the reasons for suicide) doesn't change that fact.

Bad logic. I've cited the biological imperative to spread our genes is a universal trait, from this can we determine that rape is a natural right?

Bad logic, rape is not a universal trait. How do you explain homosexuals who don't want to procreate? It appears even this propensity to spread our genes is not universal.

1. Berzerker seems to have the odd idea that if "something" created me, he morally has authority over me.

I do? Where did I say I have the moral authority to rule over you because something created you?

Futhermore, he seems to have a strange idea of what creation is. If I build a car, does this mean that I have not actually "created" it because I start out with parts that I haven't "created?"

That's my view of creation?

3. The fact that humans have a propensity to survive doesn't prove that there's a "natural right" to life.

The proof for this natural right to life is that other people didn't create you, therefore, other people lack any moral claim to your existence. The fact we are hardwired to survive - a universal trait - is just more evidence.

Just as the fact that humans have a propensity to spread their genetic code doesn't prove that there's a "natural right" to rape. All this proves is that biological conditioning (natural selection) has given humans certain traits.

And there are only a few that are universal, rape is not one.

Furthermore, the fact that I wasn't born with chains to someone else doesn't prove I have "natural right" to liberty.

It discredits any moral claim they make to enslave you.

Also, if this premise were true, the fact that I wasn't born with subservient to a landlord would prove that I have a "natural right" to my apartment.

You don't have a natural right to the labor of others for the same reason slavery violates the victim's natural rights. Build your own apartment...

[Master Zen]

That has got to be the longest reply post I have ever seen...

[Berzerker]

GePap -

What could morality be based on?

A standard or principle that applies to everyone, a standard or principle based on universal traits. No one wants to be murdered, that is a universal trait. Therefore murder is immoral... No one wants to be enslaved (no, Mr Garrison's fetishes don't count), therefore, slavery too is immoral... Additionally, a simple principle upon which to base morality comes from certain observable facts. We did not create each other, therefore, we lack moral claims to each other's existence. People "own" themselves because their existence comes directly from that which created them...

the Nazi's were immoral and their actions prove it. They tried to hide the truth, from evryone and themselves, and they did so because Nazism still did exist within the set fo moralities constructed sicne the enlightenment.

They sure didn't try to hide their persecution of undesirables, only the holocaust.

The Golden Rule only works among equals.

Yup, which is why the Golden Rule dis-allows slavery.

Since a moral system with defined hierarchies and gross inequality can exist, I don't think one does need the Golden Rule to be a central tennet, at leats not under its common understanding.

That's illogical, you just said the Golden Rule requires equality but conclude it isn't needed when other moral systems have gross inequalities. Am I reading you wrong?

[Berzerker]

MZ -

That has got to be the longest reply post I have ever seen...

Hehe, stick around. I'll try to accomodate y'all and condense my posts.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Master Zen
As for RELIGIOUS morality,

as a non-religious person I think it's a load of BS. I personally can't stand the idea that a "church" tells me what's right and what's wrong.

What do I get for following the moral rules of the church? I'll feel spitifually better? People should be made to feel good about themselves, to believe in themselves, so they don't need a chuch to do it for them.

it has nothing to do with following the morla rules of a chruch

and everything about following true morality

Jon Miller
you can be religious without goign to church

[Berzerker]

it has nothing to do with following the morla rules of a chruch

and everything about following true morality

Which leaves us with discovering this true morality. The Golden Rule is a fine principle, but I'd be happy if people just stopped doing to others what they don't want others doing to them.