Where Do Natural Rights Come From?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What's you point?

I'd asked you to provide an example of a ruler who had redefined logic to suit his/her purposes and who actually had people follow suit. Remember? I did it right here, just a few posts up.

And you haven't provided an example. You provided an example of a ruler who inherited an existing belief that did not adhere to logic partularly well. You failed to provide an example of a ruler who inherited a logical belief system and redefined it to be illogical.

[Imran Siddiqui]

People that don't follow religion (and hence are in the logical world) and then pick it up (and hence more to the illogical world), shows that some leaders take a logical system and make it illogical for those people.

Unless you assume we are born with religious faith? Are you claiming it a priori?

Just because the leaders take an existing belief and use it to change people that are rational to people that are irrational doesn't change it. He has taken a logical belief system (in the non-religious area, the belief system is logical) and changed it so that the belief system of the area is now illogical (religion)

Do you believe societies can be illogical? Do you believe that people are born logical or illogical?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
People that don't follow religion (and hence are in the logical world) and then pick it up (and hence more to the illogical world), shows that some leaders take a logical system and make it illogical for those people.

If somebody doesn't follow religion, then they are not being led by religious leaders. By changing their opinions regarding religion they aren't choosing to follow the dictates of their leader by order of said leader, but rather they're choosing the leader based on the leader's dictates (assuming that the religion is heirarchical) -- the yet-to-be-converted person's leader is not arbitrarily redefining logic, since he/she isn't the yet-to-be-converted person's leader.

Unless you assume we are born with religious faith? Are you claiming it a priori?

I don't believe that I've ever said that people are incapable of changing their opinions. You'll recall from the previous thread that it was actually you who claimed that people's opinions do not change (but that they instead see their opinions in a "different light").

Do you believe societies can be illogical?

Yes. Logic is by-and-large a societal invariant, so it is possible for one society to be more/less logical than another.

Do you believe that people are born logical or illogical?

I don't believe that newborns are capable of rational thought -- they're largely driven by instinct, at least for the first few hours of their lives.

[Imran Siddiqui]

By changing their opinions regarding religion they aren't choosing to follow the dictates of their leader by order of said leader, but rather they're choosing the leader based on the leader's dictates

Sounds good in theory, but it doesn't work that way. By changing their opinions, people usually to follow the leader by order of said leader. Look at modern day political parties. You have leaders, and when they change their ideas of what should be done, the true followers will usually change with them.

Hardly any 'moral' change comes without strong leaders who will their morals upon the weak populace, who will follow the charasmatic.

Knowing American politics, you should know people follow charasma over policy (how else do you believe JFK is so popular).

Yes. Logic is by-and-large a societal invariant, so it is possible for one society to be more/less logical than another.

So a society can believe that A == ~A? If there can be illogical societies then if follows that they believe A == ~A (which is the 'logic' definition of illogical).

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, and arguing the Bible is totally correct (infalible), even though it is self-contradictory, and having millions upon millions believe that.

Paul is considered the first Pope. The Pope's trace their authority back to St. Paul.

He created the Christian religion (Jesus didn't do it).

Imran Siddiqui

Okay. Looks like you need a hand here, Loinburger.

Imran: according to the Catholics, Peter is the first pope, not Paul!

Secondly, how do you explain Peter's speech at Pentecost, where he convinced thousands in Jerusalem to follow Christ? Peter attributes the courage and the words to the work of the Holy Spirit.

If Peter created the Church from nothing, then why would he attribute his speech to the Holy Spirit?

Second point:

How is the bible self-contradictory? Which parts cause you to stumble?

[Berzerker]

Boris -

Instinct and rights aren't the same thing.

I didn't say they were, I said natural rights stem from universal phenomenon such as the instinct to defend against theft, i.e., property/food.

Rights are an abstract concept, instinct is not.

Rights are only abstract to those who deny they exist as a consequence of nature. But you just identified a universal natural phenomenon - defending against food thieves. That which you have identified is not abstract, and neither is the natural right - property - stemming from this phenomenon.

Some animals (possibly early humans) instinctually fight, even to the death, over a sexual partner. That doesn't mean you have the natural right to kill someone over your lover, now does it?

You made the same mistake Ramo made, UNIVERSAL! Why do you guys keep editing that requirement out of my argument? Fighting over sexual mates is not universal, finding ways to deter/avoid food thieves is. Btw, fighting to the death over anything is extremely rare in the animal kingdom...

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Sounds good in theory, but it doesn't work that way. By changing their opinions, people usually to follow the leader by order of said leader. Look at modern day political parties. You have leaders, and when they change their ideas of what should be done, the true followers will usually change with them.

Yes, you've already said that. I asked you to provide an example of a leader who has redefined logic and had people follow suit, e.g. who declared that black == white and had people act as though black == white from that point onward. You haven't done so -- in your example somebody changed their opinion, but it wasn't by dictate of their leader.

Hardly any 'moral' change comes without strong leaders who will their morals upon the weak populace, who will follow the charasmatic.

I asked you about changes in 'logic,' not changes in 'morals.'

So a society can believe that A == ~A?

No, as I've said, no society has ever existed for any length of time with self-contradiction as one of its logical tenets, because self-contradiction is a non-functional system of logic. Societies have existed that have held beliefs that are self-contradictory (though most logical errors committed by societies are those of making unjustified assumptions, e.g. "Well of course he's God! He's King, after all..."), but societies have not existed that have held the belief that self-contradiction is logically acceptable.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But is this present 'self-interest' hardwired? Many (well anarchists mostly) would argue that the instinct is to share your bounty with your friends. That would functionally mean there is no theft.

As this thread has proven, one could argue any position one wants, no matter how ludicrous it may be. Such anarchists would have to explain why biology and observable fact is against them. They could resort to dismissing the observations of science as mind tricks and meaningless, but even they would probably see how silly that is in a debate...

The American revolution is a history of great men, not a 'real' uprising of the people. Using propaganda, people like Sam Adams and Tom Paine got Bostonians to view morality in their way. They defined the debate and pulled the people to them.

In the rest of country, which was much less radical than Boston, people simply followed the respected leaders of the community. Because they said so, the people followed. That is essentially what happened in New York and Virginia.

By 1774, the moral perspective of the colonies vis-a-vis rule from England and self-government had indeed shifted away from those of the people in Europe. The Founding Fathers would never have been able to coerce an unwilling majority of the population to form a democratic, representative government if the populace didn't feel such a government was moral. After all, you can't coerce something that is chosen democratically!

How are my moral views relavent if the majority moral view (or leading moral view) is diametrically opposed to mine? It holds no water, except within my head... unless it becomes the majority moral view.

Because you don't exist in a vacuum! The moral choices you make effect you AND others, whether those choices run with our against the law or standard morality. That's EXACTLY how moral change is brought about, by people choosing to exercise a different morality based on reason that the moral precepts are superior to the old ways. The American Revolution occured because a large portion of colonists began to believe there was a better way. The Revolution did not magically tell the people to suddenly believe in a better way. The groundwork and basis for the Revolution was the change already present in American society.

Every moral choice you make effects something greater than yourself, even if the choice is personal. That's because every moral choice you make effects you as a person, and your very existence effects others. You CANNOT remove your morality from your existence. They are inseperable.

Doubtful. Mostly, if your views are not in lock step with the morality of the state, you don't tend to say it that easily, ESPECIALLY, if that can get you into trouble.

And most people, when hearing someone who has a 'wierd' view, immediately dismiss it as being from a crazy.

You can try to convince others of your views to get your ideas in the majority, but until then, it doesn't matter.

The only case in which the first paragraph applies would be in totalitarian regimes wherein even the expression of a differing moral point of view would lead to punishment. How it would apply to a democracy, I don't know.

The other point doesn't make a damn bit of sense, because if the moral opinion of people in the minority didn't matter, it would never become the moral opinion of the people in the minority. Civil Rights legislation didn't arise because some noble, far-thinking man rose to power and decided to benevolently grant rights to black people. It arose because people challenged convential morality with a way they felt was better. Eventually, the government was pressured into changing the law because of the change in popular moral views.

If the moral view of the minority didn't matter, significant moral change would never be effected in a society--society would be stagnant. A society is effected by its own morality IN ADDITION to opposing morality.

I must disagree. Laws are how the leaders of society assert their morallity.

If a law was passed by Congress and approved by the President, stripping Arab-Americans of rights, that, because of Congress' moral mandate (and believe me, in every democratic government, the legislature has a moral mandate... if the government isn't democratic, then the people's idea of moral doesn't matter nearly as much) makes it moral in that society.

I truly hope you are not so hopelessly naive as to believe this. Government derives its power from a moral mandate from the masses, yes (thanks for agreeing to my point, as you've been asserting the opposite!). But that does not mean that laws passed by the government are necessarily moral.

Look at Congress. Laws don't get passed because people think they are morally right or wrong, they get passed because special interest groups bargain with politicians for thier votes. They get passed because a congressman's constituents pressure him to vote a certain way because it's in their self-interest, and it is in the self-interest of the politician to act in such a way that keeps his voters content. There's also the fact that, thanks to a representative system, the laws a congressman votes for may not (and often will not) reflect the will of the people, which renders any moral authority behind them moot.

That you would mindlessly accept an unjust law as moral because the government tells you so is frightening, at the very least. I find it astounding that you would cite Les Miserables as your favorite novel and yet appear not to have learned Hugo's most basic lesson in the book: The Law is not the final arbiter of right and wrong, as morals transcend the law. That's exactly why Inspector Javert is such a frightening spectre--he believes the law and morality are one in the same.

Believing this will only reduce men to mindless automatons who will commit acts of evil in the belief the law gives them the moral authority to do so. That's what Nazism taught the world, too. Fortunately, such ideas have been rejected both philosophically and politically.

A. I believe they are (for the most part interchangable).
B. I believe he is (acting counter to his moral code).

A. They are not, as no legislative body could possibly convey with total accuracy the moral compass of a society.

B. He is acting counter to what his morals say, but he is not behaving in a morally inconsistent way, as his morals also say that, even if he disagrees with what the law dictates, he has to abide by it for his own well-being. That does not mean his morals are magically altered into him believing taxes are just.

The article asserts that our knowledge of numbers is based on our biological environment and the rules that it follows. Humanity having one form of biology, doesn't mean alien beings must have the same.

As has been pointed out ad infinitum, of you change the rules of the system or the definitions, then of course it will change the mechanics. But that's not what we're talking about here. Stating the above is akin to my saying "Verdi died before Puccini died," and you responding, "Not necessarily, as in an alien world time could be circular, not linear." The absurdity of that is that, 1. We don't live in a world with circular time, and 2. Verdi and Puccini didn't live in a world with circular time. Why would it possibly matter to us how an alien race may perceive time, and how would it possibly be relevant to establishing a chronology of when Verdi or Puccini died?

You can throw out any caveat you want about how the system in which one is arguing may not be the only system, but unless you can show why we should care that it is different elsewhere, or why that alien system has any impact on our own, then it's utterly pointless to do so and is only obscurring a debate with gibberish.

And basic math doesn't ALWAYS work. Quantum physics for example is extrodinarily randomn, in which our object enumeration would not work.

2+2=4 doesn't matter in quantum mechanics, and quantum mechanics doesn't matter to 2+2=4. They exist in separate systems.

Unless you can show 2+2=5 in a situation where it would matter, then it is still an absurd thing to say.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The Pope... though he is not a traditional ruler, I admit.

A == ~A is shorthand for saying illogical thought (in the end, the formula didn't work). The whole idea of 'faith' in the face of science is totally illogical.

In shorthand: scientific proof == ~scientific proof.

Oh, and arguing the Bible is totally correct (infalible), even though it is self-contradictory, and having millions upon millions believe that.

Okay, so the Pope appeared (whichever one), and through just his edicts--edicts that had apparently no moral authority prior to his proclaiming them--changed a bunch of logical Romans who believed in a pantheon of thousands of narcissistic, homicidal pagan gods, made sacrifices to them, believed a human emperor would ascend to godhood by virtue of his death, etc. into illogical Christians who believed in only one all-loving God, that men couldn't become gods in their own right, that material sacrifices weren't necessary, etc.

Ok, you have one strange sense of what is logical and what isn't.

Christianity supplanted Paganism in Europe and elsewhere, and became the most successful religion in the word, precisely because it presented a more rational and socially beneficial view of the world to the people at the time. It was a better alternative. That you now see it as illogical doesn't mean people did at the time.

Christianity was successful with Romans because it actually didn't alter much in Roman relgious practice, especially by retaining a pantheon of "saints" similar to Roman gods, and by co-opting Roman religious festivals. So with the positives of their own religion mixed in, plus the new positives of Christianity (eternity in heaven rather than in a dark, dank underworld, an all-loving God who was omnipotent, etc.), can you say adopting Christianity was illogical compared to staying with paganism? Keep in mind science hadn't discovered the secrets of the universe then, so it wasn't exactly logical to believe in no god(s) then, either.

[SnowFire]

That's not what I was arguing in the first place. I was arguing that math is totally subjective because societies (in this case the human society) define what it is.

Stop. Why is this subjective? Suppose society A has mastered basic arithmetic and knows some geometry, while society B has arithmetic and some algebra. Are their arithmetics magically contradictory because the other has advanced less in a different field?

I really am not certain how to address this fundamental misunderstanding in the nature of math. You are familiar with hypotheticals, correct? You don't have to believe that proposition A is true to be able to say things about what would happen IF propisition A were true. Now what I think you're trying to get at is the existence of different axiom systems, and the fact that you can prove different fields of math depending on how you manipulate them. The classic example of this is comparing Euclidean geometry with non-Euclidean geometry- you get some fascinating results via assuming a denial of a certain axiom used in Euclidean geometry (the parallel postulate), although both types of geometry use the same foundational 4 axioms (along with the appropriate version of the 5th axiom). So does this mean math is subjective? Nothing of the sort! Regardless of which geometry you believe to be true, both geometries are math. You can prove all sorts of theorems- and people do- about what is true if those axioms are true. And these piles of theorems and results are all relevant, and true under their systems! Whichever one society recognizes as more "useful" is irrelevant, because they're provably true. (Btw, in real life, we have found uses for both types of geometry anyway...).

If you define it differently, then it is different.

Need I remind you that in that case, we are referring to a different "it?" The definition is what we care about, and that is constant. Sure, if I define 0 to mean "1" and 1 to mean "2" and so on, I haven't discovered an entirely new system of natural numbers, I've merely relabeled things. The concept, which is the definition, of the number 1 remains the same.

At one point the number 0 existed in Islam and China, but not Europe.

Irrelevant. The level of advancement of a society doesn't mean that the systems are contradictory. This is like saying "1 minute into the car race, Joe's sports car had gone over the big ramp, but Jack's car hadn't. Maybe they were actually on different racetracks." A better explanation is "maybe Jack's car hadn't gotten to that ramp yet."

Just because it turned out one way, doesn't mean it had to. If the European view won out, then maybe today we wouldn't have a 0, and maybe that'd be all right, because society would just define nothingness into it. THAT is what I was talking about.

"Would just define nothingness into it?" Either this society would create a new word to describe the concept of 0 (in which case 0 exists after all), or else they still were just missing the concept. In which case, who cares? So they haven't discovered all of mathematics yet. It's still all true, waiting to be discovered.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As this thread has proven, one could argue any position one wants, no matter how ludicrous it may be. Such anarchists would have to explain why biology and observable fact is against them.

Ramo always points to hunter-gathers being communal and his examples of Catalonia, etc.

Every moral choice you make effects something greater than yourself, even if the choice is personal. That's because every moral choice you make effects you as a person, and your very existence effects others. You CANNOT remove your morality from your existence. They are inseperable.

BS. Even if my morals affect me, and my existance affects others, you can't say that my morals affect others. Why? Because I think you can seperate morals from existance, and SHOULD DO SO. I've always believed in a governance that is as amoral as possible.

By 1774, the moral perspective of the colonies vis-a-vis rule from England and self-government had indeed shifted away from those of the people in Europe. The Founding Fathers would never have been able to coerce an unwilling majority of the population to form a democratic, representative government if the populace didn't feel such a government was moral.

The people shifted away from Britain because their respected elites said the British were bad. The people really didn't mind British rule (your history books make waaaay too much of Boston's intrasingence), and it was only because their heads said the British were bad did they follow. If the leaders were silent, we'd be like Canada today.

After all, you can't coerce something that is chosen democratically!

You don't think the President coerces Congress?

The only case in which the first paragraph applies would be in totalitarian regimes wherein even the expression of a differing moral point of view would lead to punishment. How it would apply to a democracy, I don't know.

*cough* McCarthey

Civil Rights legislation didn't arise because some noble, far-thinking man rose to power and decided to benevolently grant rights to black people.

No, it arose because some noble, far-thinking man rose to power in the black movement and convinced the sheep to follow his words. If you don't know who I'm talking about: Martin Luther King, Jr.

If the moral view of the minority didn't matter, significant moral change would never be effected in a society--society would be stagnant. A society is effected by its own morality IN ADDITION to opposing morality.

Who's jumping to extreme conclusions now? The view of the minority hardly ever matters. It is until that rising view becomes majority that it matters. Blacks didn't get Civil Rights until a majority of people believed blacks should have them.

Government derives its power from a moral mandate from the masses, yes (thanks for agreeing to my point, as you've been asserting the opposite!).

Go and read my posts again then. I've always said Democratic governments depend on which moral view the majority pushes.

Laws don't get passed because people think they are morally right or wrong, they get passed because special interest groups bargain with politicians for thier votes.

And you don't think that special interests (or the people who make up the interests) have their own moral views?

The Law is not the final arbiter of right and wrong, as morals transcend the law. That's exactly why Inspector Javert is such a frightening spectre--he believes the law and morality are one in the same.

You don't have to agree with a book to enjoy it . And actually Javert was my favorite character.

And yes, I believe that law is the final arbiter of right and wrong. "Higher" morals mean jack if the law isn't on your side.

You can throw out any caveat you want about how the system in which one is arguing may not be the only system, but unless you can show why we should care that it is different elsewhere, or why that alien system has any impact on our own, then it's utterly pointless to do so and is only obscurring a debate with gibberish.

The fact is that you can't assert anything as absolute because it CAN be different elsewhere, to something else. It doesn't matter what impact something else has, it most definetly can be different, precluding a proclamation that anything is absolute.

can you say adopting Christianity was illogical compared to staying with paganism?

Yes. I'd take Roman learning and beliefs over Christian ones any day.

And yes, I believe that a relgion that has many different human-like Gods is more logical than one with one all-powerful God that really, really wants you to believe in him!

So they haven't discovered all of mathematics yet. It's still all true, waiting to be discovered.

Is this like the Communists saying 'We are right, it just hasn't happened yet'?

Stop. Why is this subjective? Suppose society A has mastered basic arithmetic and knows some geometry, while society B has arithmetic and some algebra. Are their arithmetics magically contradictory because the other has advanced less in a different field?

Different definitions of math make the end product a subjective determination. Western math and science won out (I wonder why...), so it seems that our math and science are NATURALLY the end result.

It always could have gone different ways.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:
A few points.

Keep in mind science hadn't discovered the secrets of the universe then,

What about the numerous Greek scientific discoveries?
The Greeks were an intelligent, rational people.

can you say adopting Christianity was illogical compared to staying with paganism?

Secondly, do you know what you are saying Boris?

What about the cross? The idea that Jesus could come to earth as both man and God, die on the cross, and be resurrected on the third day? None of this is found within the Roman pantheon.

Why would the Romans persecute the Christians, if Christianity was so similar to Roman beliefs?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18

What about the numerous Greek scientific discoveries?
The Greeks were an intelligent, rational people.

And they also believed in a pantheon of Gods to explain the origins of the world and many of of the mysteries of existence, including where the "soul" went upon death, etc. Considering science at the time, even Greek science, had yet to explain such phenomenon, it was probably logical to believe some powerful, supernatural force created everything. Maybe the elite scientists didn't believe that, but certainly the masses did.

Secondly, do you know what you are saying Boris?

What about the cross? The idea that Jesus could come to earth as both man and God, die on the cross, and be resurrected on the third day? None of this is found within the Roman pantheon.

I didn't say the Roman and Christian religions were identical. I specifically said that Christian religion took a lot of Roman religion and added it to their beliefs, which made the religion more palatable to the everyday Roman. The above idea is an example of what Christians brought that was new. So yes, I know what I am talking about, thanks.

Why would the Romans persecute the Christians, if Christianity was so similar to Roman beliefs?

The first and foremost reason is obvious--it was a minority faith that tended to breed political trouble-makers, and it made a convenient scapegoat for tyrants such as Nero. Nero didn't persecute the Christians because he cared about religion, he did it because he needed a scapegoat for the disaster of the fire and because he knew that a populace united in fear and ignorance against a common threat is a populace that is easy to manipulate for one's own wishes.

It is also because early Christianity, which was not as successful in spreading as its later incarnation, had not yet adopted the Romanized tenets of belief, such as the pantheon of saints, the same holidays, etc. Once Christians learned the skill of good marketing, they realized the best way to win the Romans over was through familiarity. Kinda interesting how the co-opting of such things coincided with the establishment of Christianity as the religion of the empire and the end of Christian persecution.

[Ben Kenobi]

It is also because early Christianity, which was not as successful in spreading as its later incarnation,

Boris,
That's pretty debatable. Look at the spread of Christianity from a few Jewish desciples to across the Roman world in maybe 20 years. That is pretty substantial growth.

Secondly, I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Constantine became a Christian and then watered-down many Christian ideas to conform with Roman beliefs. Some of the features you mention came around the time of Constantine as well as infant baptism, something of great concern for my church.

Indeed, the Romans wanted to co-opt the Christian beliefs so that they could change the features of Christianity to conform with their own.

Nero didn't persecute the Christians because he cared about religion, he did it because he needed a scapegoat for the disaster of the fire and because he knew that a populace united in fear and ignorance against a common threat is a populace that is easy to manipulate for one's own wishes.

Why the Christians then? Why not the Jews? The Jews accepted Roman authority, while the Christians insisted they had one ruler, Christ, and not the emperor of Rome. This is what made them effective scapegoats, what set them apart from the rest of the empire.

[SnowFire]

Different definitions of math make the end product a subjective determination. Western math and science won out (I wonder why...), so it seems that our math and science are NATURALLY the end result.

Ad hominem attacks don't work, even when you include yourself in them. If this is the best you can say, I'm afraid I'm done, because this doesn't add anything. The whole point of my last point is that different axiom systems are okay, becuase we can still prove what is true under different systems IF they are true. What can be proven if we assume X, Y, and Z is something constant and unchangable; the fact that some societies might be more interested in what happens if you assume only X & Y, or what happens if you assume X, Y, & W only means that they're interested in different kinds of math. It's all still math, and it's all still true. The end product under any specific set of assumptions is NOT a subjective determination, it's something that can be proven true or false.

If you wish to disprove what I'm saying, name a simple situation in mathematics with clearly defined axioms where whether a statement's truth is subjective.