Natural Rights

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Gepap -

You know people who want to be murdered?

The quetion is disingeneous. Do you know people who whish to be killed in a purely accidental traffic accident? Do you know people who whish to be eaten alive by a shark? Do you know people who whish to be executed by the state? Do you know people who whish to go to a battlefiled and die there? Do you know people who whish to catch ebola and die horribly? Well, do you? And how is the end result for the individual who dies any different? I most surely would prefer to be poisoned by someone than to die in some horrific utterly accidental traffic accident, if only becuase one woul be less painful and quicker.

Rights - moral claims - are not immunities to the laws of physics, they are moral claims against other people taking what belongs to you.

YOu have yet to porvide a sound basis for why you would have a claim to anything, including your own life. UNtil you do, you can then argue that it is morally wrong to take what people own, since you can;t even tell us what right they have to own those things.

[Berzerker]

The quetion is disingeneous. Do you know people who whish to be killed in a purely accidental traffic accident? Do you know people who whish to be eaten alive by a shark? Do you know people who whish to be executed by the state? Do you know people who whish to go to a battlefiled and die there? Do you know people who whish to catch ebola and die horribly? Well, do you? And how is the end result for the individual who dies any different? I most surely would prefer to be poisoned by someone than to die in some horrific utterly accidental traffic accident, if only becuase one woul be less painful and quicker.

So how does that help your argument? You just made my case, not yours.

YOu have yet to porvide a sound basis for why you would have a claim to anything, including your own life.

Yes I have, universal desires. Certainly better than this nonsense about society giving (or denying) us our moral claims.

UNtil you do, you can then argue that it is morally wrong to take what people own, since you can;t even tell us what right they have to own those things.

Don't you mean until I do, I can't argue that it is morally wrong to take what people own? The same right - moral claim - they have to own themselves. Btw, you're still ignoring my questions about the definitions of murder you supplied.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
So how does that help your argument? You just made my case, not yours.

If you think so, you are in trouble boy. You can not separate the desire not to be murdered form the desire not to die, because if you are murdered, you are dead, but you are also dead if you die in an accident, or are executed by the state. It is "universal" for men in death row not to which to be excetured< but yo would not claim there to be a fundamental right not to be executed.
This is why your arguement is disingeneous: you have provided little arguement why people might see being murdered differently from dying in some other way that they did NOT chose for themselves.

Yes I have, universal desires. Certainly better than this nonsense about society giving (or denying) us our moral claims.

Sorry, but my universal desire for somehting does not mean I hjave r right to own it: that is a GIGANTIC leap, and one you do not seem to be willing or able to make.

Don't you mean until I do, I can't argue that it is morally wrong to take what people own? The same right - moral claim - they have to own themselves. Btw, you're still ignoring my questions about the definitions of murder you supplied.

Repeat them: I have no desire to go back to check, and given how you respond, i don;t think an answer will make a difference anyway.

[David Floyd]

It is "universal" for men in death row not to which to be excetured

But is it "universal" for people to be on death row? Clearly not

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd
But is it "universal" for people to be on death row? Clearly not

It is not universal to live in a system where the concept of murder exists and has validity either, yet another fault with Berz. theory.

[David Floyd]

It is not universal to live in a system where the concept of murder exists and has validity either

This has already been shown to be bullshit, with posts at length especially by loinburger, and also myself and berzerker. The concept of murder has nothing to do with the government.

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd
This has already been shown to be bullshit, with posts at length especially by loinburger, and also myself and berzerker. The concept of murder has nothing to do with the government.

Ahh, sorry, but that was never resolved between Loin and I, and no, you and Berz added very little if anything to the discussion. Keep up were the discussion has moved on to, why don;t you?

[David Floyd]

Just because you didn't agree to the resolution didn't mean the issue wasn't resolved. In any case, I'm not really central to your debate, just posting my observations. The only issue I really care about right now is Agathon's bullshit claims about moral behavior.

[GePap]

Then play with agy all you want. And if neither side conceeds, it is left only to those that already agree with one side or the other simply to keep thier minds unchaged. How..,useless.

[David Floyd]

Hence the reason I wanted us to start playing around with 1 vs. 1 debates, with judges and the like

[Berzerker]

Gepap -

If you think so, you are in trouble boy. You can not separate the desire not to be murdered form the desire not to die, because if you are murdered, you are dead, but you are also dead if you die in an accident, or are executed by the state. It is "universal" for men in death row not to which to be excetured< but yo would not claim there to be a fundamental right not to be executed. This is why your arguement is disingeneous: you have provided little arguement why people might see being murdered differently from dying in some other way that they did NOT chose for themselves.

You offered a number of examples showing people didn't want to be murdered or killed and you think that supports your argument that some people want to be murdered? Now, would you view the murder of your mother the same way as if she died from cancer? Would she? Of course not! She knows she has a moral claim against others murdering her, but not a moral claim against disease ending her life.

Sorry, but my universal desire for somehting does not mean I hjave r right to own it: that is a GIGANTIC leap, and one you do not seem to be willing or able to make.

You do have that right if the "something" can be obtained without violating other universal desires and the rights we have because of them.

Repeat them: I have no desire to go back to check, and given how you respond, i don;t think an answer will make a difference anyway.

I haven't seen your instructions on how I should respond to your arguments, and given your proclivity for avoiding my questions, that is a hypocritical and unsupported jab. Nice...

Here was my response to Bebro's analysis of your flawed argument about "murder":

Yes, what Gepap doesn't understand is that ideas preceded laws, not the other way around. And the act of "murder" is an act based on ideas first and actions second, so the concept of what constitutes murder existed before any law was adopted to reflect that concept.

Now, here once again are my questions about your selective use of definitions concerning murder:

2. to kill inhumanely or barbarously, as in warfare

2. to kill brutaly or inhumanely

2 to kill in a barbarous or inhuman manner

These were definitions of murder you offered and ignored.

This notion of yours that no murder ever occured until government invented it is silly. If no government ever existed, would it be possible to kill someone? Yes. Brutaly? Yes. Unjustifiably? Yes.

And those were my questions.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Gepap -

You offered a number of examples showing people didn't want to be murdered or killed and you think that supports your argument that some people want to be murdered? Now, would you view the murder of your mother the same way as if she died from cancer? Would she? Of course not! She knows she has a moral claim against others murdering her, but not a moral claim against disease ending her life.

Ahh, Berz: you still don;t get it? You said earlier it is OK to "kill a murderer". OK, so what gives you the right to ignore his universally shared desire not to be murdered? And no Berz, innocence has nothing to do with murder, so don;t even try that: becuasde it is the cheapest, most disingeneous thing you could do.

You do have that right if the "something" can be obtained without violating other universal desires and the rights we have because of them.

"you do have the right.." what right do you have to obtain it! You never ever answred Templar's question: What right do you hsave to pick any apple of any tree? You do not own the tree, so why do you have a right to the apple? This is a fundamental and gigantic flaw in your arguement ehich you never have answered.

These were definitions of murder you offered and ignored.

This notion of yours that no murder ever occured until government invented it is silly. If no government ever existed, would it be possible to kill someone? Yes. Brutaly? Yes. Unjustifiably? Yes.

And those were my questions.

Those defintions are for how the word murder is used today: You didn;t put in the one about botching a song, or trouncing an opponent at a game. Why not? Maybe becuase you did not think those euqally valid definitions of the word murder as it is in use in 2003 matter? Well, ditto for those you just posted. They are not particualy usefull for the discussion. Oh,a dn check again Berz, becuase killing during war is not necessarily murder, as one of the definitions you pointed out makes it seem to be.

IN fact Berz, this was the very same answer I gave you before! Words have ,utiple meanings for multiple uses: not all are valid or usefull to the discussion, just like "murder" ebing used for someones treatment of a song has anything to do with this debate.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
A reasonable act does not need to be justified: it needs to conform to reason.

In your example, you provide a justification as to why one person ought to throw the other out of the boat. You then switch it up and say that this is not a moral justification. Regardless, it is a justification, albeit not necessarily a moral justification. ("I should compete in the race, and not Al, because I am faster than Al" is a justification, but not a moral justification.) You can't separate the concepts of "acting rationally" and "acting justifiably."

You may justify afterwards, perhaps build a moral code to justify your act retroactively, but at the moment that it happens, justification is really moot.

If you acted without any kind of justification, then you acted without reason. Reciprocity presupposes that people are (more-or-less) reasonable.

But we live in a situation before justice.

"Justice" and "Law" are different terms, so I don't know how you've arrived at the conclusion that the hypothetical takes place in a situation before justice. This ties back to the argument as to whether "equality" or "fairness" are natural concepts -- as the argument currently stands, they are.

"Righteous"? "Righteous" assumes a already exiting and shared moral code by which you could measure a thing called "righteousness".

It only assumes that a shared set of concepts exists, which is a fair assumption on my part since you've been using the terms "stronger," "smarter," "faster," etc. A shared moral code is unnecessary for the term "righteous" to exist, just as a shared legal system is unnecessary for the term "justice" to exist.

Of course it is reasonable: just examine the facts: We are different, i do not know how he thinks

You're assuming that "alienism" is the default value, rather than "equality." I've addressed this below.

I agree that man is a social being: that very fact argues deeply against liberterianism, since liberterianism is a system deeply built on the notion of the individual being are atom in relation to all others: the very fact that man in the state of nature is NOT alone.

This is the reason that "natural rights" can exist at all -- if I were the only human being alive, then it would be unnecessary for me to reciprocate with anybody (except animals, to a much lesser degree, since communication with animals is so limited and thus reciprocity with animals is so limited).

(as opposed to naturally occuring structures, or artifical structures being built upon natural foundations)

"Natural foundations" = "the default inference of equality" = "the default behavior of reciprocity."

then you have to assume alienism between the atoms coming together, becuase anythign else is not rational.

You haven't supported this point. "Man begins life alone" does not equate to "Man will always be alone."

It is relevant, since this is what Berz feels is the foundation of natural rights, or one of them and this is his thread. And when he says "people have a universal desire not to be murdered", he is being somewhat disingeneous, since he sepaartes this from the universal desire not to die, but for the person murdered, the end result is the same, so it really does NOT make a true difference to them.

The point is that there cannot be a natural right to live forever, so for our purposes the fact that there exists a universal desire to live forever is irrelevant. Furthermore, the point is that somebody violates reciprocity by committing murder, but nobody has violated reciprocity when somebody dies of old age. The dead guy doesn't care, except insofar as the murder was preventable ("If only I'd used that pre-societal concept of murder, then I could have realized that this guy was a murderer"), but everybody left alive is now capable of reasonably concluding that the murderer is incapable of reciprocation. This is why it's reasonable to have separate definitions for "homicide" and "murder" even in a pre-society.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

In your example, you provide a justification as to why one person ought to throw the other out of the boat. You then switch it up and say that this is not a moral justification. Regardless, it is a justification, albeit not necessarily a moral justification. ("I should compete in the race, and not Al, because I am faster than Al" is a justification, but not a moral justification.) You can't separate the concepts of "acting rationally" and "acting justifiably."

I do not agree with how you want to use the notion of justification here. I did not provide a justification for why one should trhow the other out, simply facts, which one units can then use to decide a course of action. Take a computer game AI: a computer AI can either act rationally or irrationally, but it never justifies, not to itself, not to anyone: facts go in, equations pump out results based on preset preferences., which may or may not conform to what might be the optimal output or decision, which is what then is used to decide between "rational" and "irrational". It is the results that matter.

If you acted without any kind of justification, then you acted without reason. Reciprocity presupposes that people are (more-or-less) reasonable.

Again, I disgaree. As I say above, acting rationally does not need "justification", at least as I understand that term to be used. To be reasonable is to look at the facts (or more likely, the evidence and rational inferences from that evidence) and then to act in a manner that maximizes the desired outcome. You are introducing a "why" question into a place where "how" is sufficient, or at least the driving force. I want to be there, X is the fastest way, I will take X. Fact, fact, decision. Yes, you can the go back, while on X, and ask yourself: Why did I take X? Oh, yeah, fastest.., but to make the decision, justification, as I understand that term, is not necessary.

"Justice" and "Law" are different terms, so I don't know how you've arrived at the conclusion that the hypothetical takes place in a situation before justice. This ties back to the argument as to whether "equality" or "fairness" are natural concepts -- as the argument currently stands, they are.

Justice needs soemthing by which to be measured. You need to already know what is just and what is not. NOw, let me backtract here ebcuase I never said that equaility was presupposed in this case. I made the assumption that both people would share a bare bones moral code in which they would belieev that acting morally would be to recipricate actions towards others that are equal. Now, that does not imply fairness: if the toher person does not plan to be fair with me, or at least might attempt to be iunfair with me, to recipricate would be to be unfair to him. So I do not see how "fairness" comes into this. Second, while both may share a belieef that they should act with reciprocity towards and equal, I never said they come into the picture thinking of themselves as equals, and why should they, when they are demonstrably different?

It only assumes that a shared set of concepts exists, which is a fair assumption on my part since you've been using the terms "stronger," "smarter," "faster," etc. A shared moral code is unnecessary for the term "righteous" to exist, just as a shared legal system is unnecessary for the term "justice" to exist.

"Smarter" might be difficult, so I will drop it, but "faster" and "stronger" are both things that can be tested and demostrated in the "real" world, so unless these individual don;t share equal sense and don;t even happen to share vocabulary, you can show who is faster or stronger, without any rgeater set of shared anything but thier sensory organs. As for the second part: If both believe in "righteousness", but don;t agree what that is, How then does this help you? I don;t care for justifications, and have said why above, but lets use your schem right now: if both have a sense of rightenousness, but it is not shared, then what stops them from justifying the act of getting rid of the unrighteous?

I can say: I am faster than a sloth: this is demonstrably true. I can not say "I am more righteous than a sloth". How could I prove so?

This is the reason that "natural rights" can exist at all -- if I were the only human being alive, then it would be unnecessary for me to reciprocate with anybody (except animals, to a much lesser degree, since communication with animals is so limited and thus reciprocity with animals is so limited).

Right now we are arguing about moral systems built on reciprocity, but there would be an additional step to be taken to make anything "a right". All social structures in nature have hierarchies, leaders and followers: Equality among all members is not real. Second, the survival of the group unit comes ahead of the survival of any individual unit, which means that it is utterly natural for the group to ignore reciprocity for one of it's members if conditions make it necessary to do so. From where then do you assume there to be "rights"?

"Natural foundations" = "the default inference of equality" = "the default behavior of reciprocity."

AsI said above, there is no natural inference of equality. In fact, man in this state would spend quite a bit of time trying to prove his superiority (and hence ineqaulity) to further their status within the group. "natural" moral codes built aroudn a social structure would also emphasize the needs of the whole, and unless you can say that you think the needs of the whole will alwasy match with the particualr needs or desires of each individual me,ber, i fail to see how you could infer that whatever set of morals exists will place a premium on the feelings of expendable units.

You haven't supported this point. "Man begins life alone" does not equate to "Man will always be alone."

Man does not begin alone. Man is utterly helpless for the first 2 years of life, man is incapable of feeding itself, and if we think langauge is a crucial aspect of man, alone he will never aquire it. Man is desgned to begin life with others, and stay there. A wilderbeast begins life much more alone than we do. Yet another basic flaw with the liberterian mode of thought.

The point is that there cannot be a natural right to live forever, so for our purposes the fact that there exists a universal desire to live forever is irrelevant. Furthermore, the point is that somebody violates reciprocity by committing murder, but nobody has violated reciprocity when somebody dies of old age. The dead guy doesn't care, except insofar as the murder was preventable ("If only I'd used that pre-societal concept of murder, then I could have realized that this guy was a murderer"), but everybody left alive is now capable of reasonably concluding that the murderer is incapable of reciprocation. This is why it's reasonable to have separate definitions for "homicide" and "murder" even in a pre-society.

BUt murder is NOT the only way one calls a killing by one human being by another, which is why i always bring up the soldier notion: If everyone knows a soldier coming back has killed people, that he is not always following the rules of recirprocity, then why would you trust him around?

If we agree man is a social being, there is no such thing as "pre-society", and this still leaves the question of why a soldier does not commit murder when in the regular carrying out of his tasks.

[Berzerker]

Gepap -

Ahh, Berz: you still don;t get it? You said earlier it is OK to "kill a murderer". OK, so what gives you the right to ignore his universally shared desire not to be murdered? And no Berz, innocence has nothing to do with murder, so don;t even try that: becuasde it is the cheapest, most disingeneous thing you could do.

I have the right to ignore his right to not be killed because he committed murder, why do you keep ignoring that little problem with your argument? And you think innocence has nothing to do with what constitutes murder? If I try to murder you and you kill me in self-defense, does my lack of innocence mean you have just murdered me? Nope. Why not? Because I wasn't innocent.

"you do have the right.." what right do you have to obtain it! You never ever answred Templar's question: What right do you hsave to pick any apple of any tree? You do not own the tree, so why do you have a right to the apple? This is a fundamental and gigantic flaw in your arguement ehich you never have answered.

These "flaws" you keep seeing are figments of your imagination. I never saw Templar's question but have answered similiar ones. If no one else owns the tree, you have the right to pick an apple. Why do I have to point out the obvious to you guys?

Those defintions are for how the word murder is used today: You didn;t put in the one about botching a song, or trouncing an opponent at a game. Why not? Maybe becuase you did not think those euqally valid definitions of the word murder as it is in use in 2003 matter?

The definitions I quoted and which you ignored were not about botching a song. Trying to link them with a metaphor about botching a song is ridiculous.

Well, ditto for those you just posted.

So you're ignoring the definitions of murder that ruin your little word game because they don't apply in modern times? But we are debating whether or not "murder" was invented by government or if government merely adopted the concept of murder that existed before government.

They are not particualy usefull for the discussion.

They are useful for determining if murder can occur before or in the absence of government.

Oh,a dn check again Berz, becuase killing during war is not necessarily murder, as one of the definitions you pointed out makes it seem to be.

And killing during war may be murder? Hmm...

IN fact Berz, this was the very same answer I gave you before! Words have ,utiple meanings for multiple uses: not all are valid or usefull to the discussion, just like "murder" ebing used for someones treatment of a song has anything to do with this debate.

That's not an answer, it's a dance routine to avoid my questions which you just avoided again!!! That's great, Gepap, you say the definition of murder requires the law, but when we point out the very definitions you supplied include definitions that require no law, you say those definitions are invalid because we have laws. The fact those definitions show no law is required to define murder must be ignored by you because they shoot down your argument. And you accuse me of using idiosyncratic definitions?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
I did not provide a justification for why one should trhow the other out, simply facts, which one units can then use to decide a course of action.

You provided facts, but you then employed these facts in forming a justification. "The sky is blue" is a fact. "The sky is blue, therefore it is a nice day, therefore I shall go play outside" is a justification using facts. Facts are meaningless until they are employed in reasoning, and to do so requires a justification.

but it never justifies, not to itself, not to anyone:

The programmer is the one who has to justify his programming decisions. "I want my algorithm to do [x], therefore I have programmed it to do tasks {a, b, c} in that order" is the reasoning employed by the programmer. Are you arguing that humans have no free will, but are simply programs designed by somebody else (or that have spontaneously formed)?

I want to be there, X is the fastest way, I will take X.

I've bolded the justification. It is implied that you are taking X because it is the fastest way, otherwise the bolded fact is useless in your decision process. "I want to be there, my hair is orange, I will take X" is not reasonable because the implicit justification is faulty (unless additional facts are given, e.g., "I want to be there, my hair is orange, people with orange hair who take X get free ice cream, I like ice cream, I will take X"). Facts are useless without some means of applying them.

NOw, let me backtract here ebcuase I never said that equaility was presupposed in this case.

I never said that equality was presupposed, I said that the earlier discussion as to whether concepts such as "equality" or "fairness" could exist in a pre-society left off at the conclusion that these concepts could indeed exist.

I made the assumption that both people would share a bare bones moral code...
...I never said they come into the picture thinking of themselves as equals, and why should they, when they are demonstrably different?

You're mixing arguments. You said "look at the very word, "justify", can such a word be utterly separate from its very roots, Justice? But we live in a situation before justice." which would imply that the term "justice" (and hence "justification") could not exist without the term "law."

As for the second part: If both believe in "righteousness", but don;t agree what that is, How then does this help you? I don;t care for justifications, and have said why above, but lets use your schem right now: if both have a sense of rightenousness, but it is not shared, then what stops them from justifying the act of getting rid of the unrighteous?

In what way isn't their sense of righteousness shared? How did each arrive at these senses of righteousness? You cannot simply take it as read that both parties have different yet equally well-justified senses of the term "righteousness" for the same reason that you cannot simply take it as read that it is possible that X implies Y.

I can say: I am faster than a sloth: this is demonstrably true. I can not say "I am more righteous than a sloth". How could I prove so?

You couldn't prove it to be so -- a sloth would presumably never act out of malice.

Equality among all members is not real.

I've granted this as being the case, but you still haven't justified how moral equality among all members is not real.

Second, the survival of the group unit comes ahead of the survival of any individual unit, which means that it is utterly natural for the group to ignore reciprocity for one of it's members if conditions make it necessary to do so.

You'll need to better qualify this statement before I'll accept it.

AsI said above, there is no natural inference of equality.

You said (bolding is my own):

Previously posted by Gepap
If we view man as atoms, as distinctly alone, seperate from each other, if we accept the notion that all of men's social structures are created by different atoms choosing to come together (as opposed to naturally occuring structures, or artifical structures being built upon natural foundations) then you have to assume alienism between the atoms coming together, becuase anythign else is not rational.

Your justification as to why there is not a natural inference of equality is flawed, because "natural foundations" = "the default inference of equality" = "the default behavior of reciprocity." You've provided a working justification for how society can form from a state of nature -- it is an artifical structure (e.g. a set of laws) built upon natural foundations (the default inference of equality).

"natural" moral codes built aroudn a social structure would also emphasize the needs of the whole

Why?

BUt murder is NOT the only way one calls a killing by one human being by another, which is why i always bring up the soldier notion:

The soldier example is flawed, since you can't have soldiers in a state of nature.

[Odin]

Berserker's Libertarianism sickens me, the idea of natural rights is so anthropocentric, other organisms don't have natural rights, why should we? Humans are just one of 100 million species on this planet, we are no more special than all the reast, dispite what people want to believe (stupid religious nuts and Creationists ). As I sead before, people who talk about natural rights are, or have been duped by, religious nuts or people with a political ax to grind.

[Odin]

Berserker,

You provide no evidence, YOU PROVIDE NOTHING, yet you want to distroy Biology... You criminal.

[David Floyd]

Berserker's Libertarianism sickens me, the idea of natural rights is so anthropocentric, other organisms don't have natural rights, why should we? Humans are just one of 100 million species on this planet, we are no more special than all the reast, dispite what people want to believe

OK, so when a rabid dog gets out of a yard, bites you, and gives you rabies, you're gonna sue the dog instead of the owner, right? And when a lion escapes from its cage at the zoo and mauls you, surely the lion should stand trial for assault? But of course, since animals and humans have the same rights, zoos are immoral anyway, aren't they?

[Berzerker]

Odin -

Berserker's Libertarianism sickens me, the idea of natural rights is so anthropocentric, other organisms don't have natural rights, why should we?

Hitler and Stalin shared your contempt for natural rights. Will you do as they if given the power?

Humans are just one of 100 million species on this planet, we are no more special than all the reast, dispite what people want to believe (stupid religious nuts and Creationists ).

I'm neither of those, and the fact humans are but one of many species doesn't mean we cannot recognise and respect the moral claims - "rights" - we have against others. Now, unless you believe humans have no moral claims against other people murdering us regardless of what government says, upon what basis would you condemn the likes of Hitler and Stalin?

As I sead before, people who talk about natural rights are, or have been duped by, religious nuts or people with a political ax to grind.

Can I grind that axe on your skull? What's that? No? Because you have a right not to be used as an axe sharpener? Hmm... how do you explain that?

You provide no evidence, YOU PROVIDE NOTHING, yet you want to distroy Biology... You criminal.

I want to destroy biology? And to think we viewed you as a God.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Odin
Berserker's Libertarianism sickens me, the idea of natural rights is so anthropocentric, other organisms don't have natural rights, why should we? Humans are just one of 100 million species on this planet, we are no more special than all the reast, dispite what people want to believe (stupid religious nuts and Creationists ). As I sead before, people who talk about natural rights are, or have been duped by, religious nuts or people with a political ax to grind.

Humans are superior to animals that roam the earth. Look at what man has been able to do, no animal could come close.
First off many people who dont believe in God still uphold human rights, why? In order to have a civilized world were people can live in. We are not simply anther animal on the earth that fights with each other in order to see who is the best and surivive. Humans are more then that.

One place our rights are based on is on a basic and universal morals that all people in the world hold. It is called a conscience. We all have one. I am sorry that you hate human rights so much, but we chose to have human rights because we civilization realizes that humans have worth, that they are not simply anther type of animal, that each life is worth something. That all humans are equal.

Also I think religion greatest gifts to the world is the idea of Human rights and that human life is worth something and is to be respected.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

You provided facts, but you then employed these facts in forming a justification. "The sky is blue" is a fact. "The sky is blue, therefore it is a nice day, therefore I shall go play outside" is a justification using facts. Facts are meaningless until they are employed in reasoning, and to do so requires a justification.

"The sky is blue, it is a nice day". There is no justification there. If you define "nice day" to equal "sky is blue", then all you did was say "it is A, and A=B, so it is also B", and no, that is not a justification, that is a proof. Fine, if you add a "therefore", it becomes a justification, but the therefore is NOT needed.

The programmer is the one who has to justify his programming decisions. "I want my algorithm to do [x], therefore I have programmed it to do tasks {a, b, c} in that order" is the reasoning employed by the programmer. Are you arguing that humans have no free will, but are simply programs designed by somebody else (or that have spontaneously formed)?

Who cares about the programmer? We don;t program ourselves (not to a great extent) so we are the AI, without any programmer who made any consiocus decision, which is necessary for him to e able to "justify" anything.

I've bolded the justification. It is implied that you are taking X because it is the fastest way, otherwise the bolded fact is useless in your decision process. "I want to be there, my hair is orange, I will take X" is not reasonable because the implicit justification is faulty (unless additional facts are given, e.g., "I want to be there, my hair is orange, people with orange hair who take X get free ice cream, I like ice cream, I will take X"). Facts are useless without some means of applying them.

Whether X is the fastest way does not need any justfication. The shortest route from a to z in a plane is a streight line: that is not a justificastion, that i a statement of fact. I want to get there fast, I will take the fastest route: that is a decision, sans "justification". "justifying" is not necessary for reason, and honestly, I do not know where this comes from, this universal link between justification and reason.

I never said that equality was presupposed, I said that the earlier discussion as to whether concepts such as "equality" or "fairness" could exist in a pre-society left off at the conclusion that these concepts could indeed exist.

You think that is were it ended. "Equality" maybe, certainly not "fairness".

You're mixing arguments. You said "look at the very word, "justify", can such a word be utterly separate from its very roots, Justice? But we live in a situation before justice." which would imply that the term "justice" (and hence "justification") could not exist without the term "law."

And can it? Once you have a sense of what is just and what is not, is not the next step to make rules about it? I can't very weel imagine a system in which we say :that is just, but it is fine for you to do so....no consquences! What then is the point of the distinction?

In what way isn't their sense of righteousness shared? How did each arrive at these senses of righteousness? You cannot simply take it as read that both parties have different yet equally well-justified senses of the term "righteousness" for the same reason that you cannot simply take it as read that it is possible that X implies Y.

In what way is it shared? How did each arrive at thier sense of rightteousness? Perchance by reaosning based on the evidence they gather form thier own sense: even if we assume equality of basic assumptions and equal sensory ability, being two distinct individuals, they wil have distinct and different experiences, different evidence, and it is not reasonable to believe that two individual with different evidence will draw the same conclusion.

You couldn't prove it to be so -- a sloth would presumably never act out of malice.

How much do we know of sloths? But I satdn by the point: some characteristics can be examined without anything mroe than your 5 senses.

I've granted this as being the case, but you still haven't justified how moral equality among all members is not real.

How could there be moral equality among unequal members of the society? The leader has more improtant things to decide than a follower, and an individual is leader becuase it has shown superiority over others in those things the group values. A leader has more responsibility than anyone else: how could an individual of equal moral weight be given more responsibility than others? Why should others accept the decsions made if they believe that individual to be equal to them? NO, in a society with a hierarchy the leader is of greater worth, and at leastnfor that moment, that also implies to greater moral worth.

You'll need to better qualify this statement before I'll accept it.

Why? If we accept the survival of the whole is more important than that of any member, then it is moral to sacrefice or toehrwise endanger members if in doing so the whole will be protected.

Your justification as to why there is not a natural inference of equality is flawed, because "natural foundations" = "the default inference of equality" = "the default behavior of reciprocity." You've provided a working justification for how society can form from a state of nature -- it is an artifical structure (e.g. a set of laws) built upon natural foundations (the default inference of equality).

No. Society is the state of nature, there is nothing prior to it. The natural foudnations would be norms, cutoms, and taboo's that maintain the social structure of primitive groups; These things may be later codified into LAW, yes, but the foundations remians a social convention, since man is a social being.

Why?

Becuase since man as a speacies can not exist outside of social groups, the surviva and perpetuation of these groups is the most important thing of all. Individuals may find immortality through sex, but only within society, sicne raising human children does in the words of Hillary, "take a village".

The soldier example is flawed, since you can't have soldiers in a state of nature.

If the state of nature of man is social, then "soldier", or warrior, is a natural part to be played when different human bands interact.

Beofre more parcel post, two things:

I do not accept how you claim that all reasoning is "justifying". They are two distinct things to me, something can be justified even if inherently irrational, and some decison can be rational, even if it casn not be justified.

Two, the natural state of man is social, not alone. For that there is plenty of anthorpological evidence.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Odin
Berserker,

You provide no evidence, YOU PROVIDE NOTHING, yet you want to distroy Biology... You criminal.

There are somethings that you cant use science to prove. Science is to study the world arround us. Allthough you could use science to prove that humans are superior to animals and things of this sort. I mean what kind of proof do you want that all humans have basic rights?

[GePap]

Hey Bezr, dont' expect an answer to that parcel post: I answred your questions to the best of your ability, so for me that is done.

But I do have a little riddle.

We have three men, one with a bag, one with a plow, one with a scythe.

Man one walks throught a field of wild grain, and picks seeds, which he puts in his bag. He arrives at an open and fertile field. He empties his bag, leaving a pile of seeds on the field. He walsk off for a moment. The second man comes by, with a plow. He see's the seeds, so he plows the field and plants the seeds. he goes of for a while. The third man comes over, with a scythe. He sees a field of grain, so he harvests it. As he is walking away with the harvest, the other two men come back. Who owns the grain?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Odin
As I sead before, people who talk about natural rights are, or have been duped by, religious nuts or people with a political ax to grind.

I'm an atheist, I'm left of center economically, and you're a twit.

Originally posted by GePap
"The sky is blue, it is a nice day". There is no justification there. If you define "nice day" to equal "sky is blue", then all you did was say "it is A, and A=B, so it is also B", and no, that is not a justification, that is a proof.

"The sky is blue, it is a nice day" is a justification for the conclusion that it is a nice day. "It is a nice day, I will go outside to play" is a justification for the action of going outside to play.

Fine, if you add a "therefore", it becomes a justification, but the therefore is NOT needed.

Correct, "therefore" can be implied as well. It needn't be explicitly stated.

Who cares about the programmer? We don;t program ourselves (not to a great extent) so we are the AI, without any programmer who made any consiocus decision, which is necessary for him to e able to "justify" anything.

Are you arguing that everything that humans do is a stimulus-response reflex? A reflex certainly doesn't need to be justified, because a reflex is irrational. So, if we're nothing but a complex set of reflexes, then we're irrational.

Whether X is the fastest way does not need any justfication. The shortest route from a to z in a plane is a streight line: that is not a justificastion, that i a statement of fact.

The second sentence is a justification for the conclusion that X is the fastest route (assuming that X is a straight line). It is a statement of fact, but it is being used to justify the choice of X as a route.

I want to get there fast, I will take the fastest route: that is a decision, sans "justification".

The justification is implied in the terms that you are using: the fastest route will get you there fast, by definition. "I want to get there fast, I will take the slowest route" is a decision with an inferior justification (assuming that there is no additional data available), since the slowest route will not get you there fast, by definition.

And can it? Once you have a sense of what is just and what is not, is not the next step to make rules about it?

You've answered your own question. If the next step is to create laws, then justice exists prior to laws.

In what way is it shared?

Each recognizes the other's desire not to be killed without just cause. They arrived at this conclusion through their desire to not be killed, to their recognition of reciprocity, and to their default inference of equality. Perhaps other aspects of their moral systems are not shared (e.g., "I say that I have a right to this orchard" or "I say that you only have a right to the portion of the orchard that you're using"), but what matters is that they each recognize the other's right to life.

How much do we know of sloths?

They're mammals, they're herbivores, they hang from trees, and they move incredibly slowly (hence the name "sloth").

A leader has more responsibility than anyone else: how could an individual of equal moral weight be given more responsibility than others?

Does the leader have greater moral worth by virtue of the fact that he is the leader, or is he the leader by virtue of the fact that he has greater moral worth? If the former, then how is the leader chosen (your question seems to imply that the leader was chosen because he has greater moral worth)? If the latter, then your reasoning is circular -- "the leader has greater moral worth because he is the leader because he has greater moral worth" is not sound reasoning.

Why? If we accept the survival of the whole is more important than that of any member

When did we accept this?

I do not accept how you claim that all reasoning is "justifying". They are two distinct things to me, something can be justified even if inherently irrational, and some decison can be rational, even if it casn not be justified.

I don't understand why you're claiming that there is a difference. To justify means "to prove to be valid" or "to provide sufficient reason for." If an act of reasoning is not justified, then this means that the act of reasoning is insufficient (i.e. inferior). Hence, sound reasoning is reasoning that is justified. What's the problem?

Two, the natural state of man is social, not alone. For that there is plenty of anthorpological evidence.

This is true, but fails to address the point that equality is the default inference (you haven't provided a workable alternative, since "alienism" is not workable), as well as the point that reciprocity is still required in order to maintain internal consistency. Additionally, regardless of whether the state of nature is "social," the state of nature is still "anarchy" (i.e. pre-legal), since a. there is no "natural" heirarchical system within a given society, and b. there is no "natural" inter-societal heirarchy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

One wonders why people are actually quoting and debating a mocking of a Fez quote .

[loinburger]

Alas, not enough people have it in their sigs. Some people are still out of the loop.

And I'm not prepared to remove Wimp Lo for the likes of Fez...

[GePap]

I won;t parcel post:

On the issue of "justification" I do not agree with your use of the word at all, and as far as I can see, we will reach no conclusion on that.

When you said "The second sentence is a justification for the conclusion that X is the fastest route (assuming that X is a straight line). It is a statement of fact, but it is being used to justify the choice of X as a route.", that for me is enought to see a conclusion on this can not be reached, as we differ fundamentally on how we use and understand the term "justify". I see no act of justification, to myself or anyone else, whatsoever, even inherent in what i said.

I don't understand why you're claiming that there is a difference. To justify means "to prove to be valid" or "to provide sufficient reason for." If an act of reasoning is not justified, then this means that the act of reasoning is insufficient (i.e. inferior). Hence, sound reasoning is reasoning that is justified. What's the problem?

Justify meas to "show to be just, right, or in accordance with reason, vindicate: to free form blame, warrant, absolve" There are moral connotations to justify" which i do not think have a place in the discussion. After all, "proven" means "know to be valid", but "valid" means: "Having legal force: Well grounded on principles or evidence; sound arguement.". There is no mention of morality in the notion of "valid", but it does exist in "justified". To sue the word justified then adds a moral dimension which i think can then be missused.

On the "default inference of equality;: that depends on the notion that each individual will believe the other to be a fellow human being: But outside of society. what "proof" do you have for that? What could early man base his beliefs on? The most basic evidence you can use is sensual evidence: what you can see, hear, smell, touch, and taste. Now look at someone who is not you: how much sensual evidence goes to back up the notion that both fo you are "human beings", and that that is enogh to warrant a belief in equality? And lets be ncie and have a member of your own sex. You both have the same overall plan, (face, torse, two arms, two legs, 2 eyes, ears, 1 nose, mouth, plentyful hair in some places, little in others). But each feature is distinct on either individual (the eyes, skin, hair likely to be different shades, not the same height, weight, different smell, different texture to the skin, won;t sound alike), and this is if you speak fo the same sex: now take members of the opposite sex: then the overall frame does not even match. So why on earth would early man, if they only evidence they can gather is sensual, think of equality, when more things point to inequality? Now you may say this is not "deep", but how could they gather "deeper" evidence? How would "deeper" evidence be more valid than that which is all to apparent and obvious and clear? t taes a certain leap of logic to come to beieve that sharing the same overall plan is "more important" than the obvious difference (just look at our race threads), and I do not think this ia a "natural" jump.

Ss for the idea that society has no natural hierachy: if anything thsi argues aainst "natural rights", since if man had one given hierarchy, you could claim it to be "natural", and customs and such that maintain it to be "natural", hence any "rights' derived from said customs would be "natural"

Now, just as I think you too broadly use "justify", I think you narrowly define LAW, as only legal codes and cops and courts and so forth. I would NOT call pre-law days anarchy: anarchy is the absence of authority, not of law. Even before law there are societally shared norms, customs, tabboos which as society changes to accomodate significant shifts may turn into codefied laws. If one wants to argue rights are natural, it would help if all human groups shared the same norms, customs, tabboos, becuase then you can say that is "natural human behavior" (like you can for ants and such), and thus call any rights that come from said norms to be "natural", but as you pointed elsewhere, you do not view all huamn groups as having the same customs, norms, tabboos.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Gepap
that depends on the notion that each individual will believe the other to be a fellow human being

I see no point to getting into this facet of the argument unless you concede that two humans who recognize each other as human will employ a default inference of equality. Otherwise all I can hope to do is prove that two humans will naturally recognize each other as human, and then you'll just return to the position that these humans won't employ a default inference of equality.

Ss for the idea that society has no natural hierachy: if anything thsi argues aainst "natural rights", since if man had one given hierarchy, you could claim it to be "natural", and customs and such that maintain it to be "natural", hence any "rights' derived from said customs would be "natural"

Therefore, since man has no one given heirarchy, he derives his rights from the lack of a natural heirarchy, i.e. his rights are derived from reciprocal equality (and not some "divine right of kings" or whatever).

As for my use of definitions: I'm not the one who's using justify in too broad a sense. On the contrary, I'm using it in a very narrow sense (I've been careful to use "morally justified" when I intended the term to be used in the broader moral sense), and you're assigning a much broader definition to it. "Rationalize" would be a fine term if not for the "To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one's behavior" definition, which is wholly inappropriate. If you provide me with an alternative term that fits the narrow definition of "justify" that I'm using, then I'll use it. Otherwise, there's not much point in continuing this debate if I'm not even allowed to state my position.

[Berzerker]

Gepap -

Hey Bezr, dont' expect an answer to that parcel post: I answred your questions to the best of your ability, so for me that is done.

You didn't answer my questions to the best of my ability, you avoided them to the best of your ability. As for "parceling" posts, go right ahead and explain how your posts are any different than mine or Loin's (except of course for the fact that we answer your questions).

But I do have a little riddle.

We have three men, one with a bag, one with a plow, one with a scythe.

Man one walks throught a field of wild grain, and picks seeds, which he puts in his bag. He arrives at an open and fertile field. He empties his bag, leaving a pile of seeds on the field. He walsk off for a moment. The second man comes by, with a plow. He see's the seeds, so he plows the field and plants the seeds. he goes of for a while. The third man comes over, with a scythe. He sees a field of grain, so he harvests it. As he is walking away with the harvest, the other two men come back. Who owns the grain?

You want me to answer your questions while you keep avoiding mine? Any answer I give you'll dispute only to ignore any questions or arguments I offer as support. But the first man owns the crop since he was the first one there and he came back to plant the seeds he gathered. Now, give us a definition of "parse" so we can see you "murder" that too...