What are "rights"?

Curious George · Jan 10, 2018

Revoltingest said:
I'll stop doing that then.
But I really don't understand what you're pursuing then.

The realization that several statements regarding morals are not logically correct.

Revoltingest · Jan 10, 2018

Curious George said:
The realization that several statements regarding morals are not logically correct.

OK.

Curious George · Jan 10, 2018

Nous said:
That is correct. It only subsequently occurred to me that you were not responding to my original question or the statement I made after that.

My original question was (#61):

My question here is for everyone who has expressed or believes any such thing as that the term “rights” is not a method or an attempt to communicate some objective moral fact. That is, my question is for everyone here who has expressed something to the effect that the term “rights” does not and cannot possibly refer to something beyond what a government can bestow.

If that were true (that the term “rights” does not and cannot possibly refer to something beyond what a government can bestow), then why fight a bloody, horrible, expensive war such as the US Civil War in order to secure the fundamental human rights of slaves? What possible rational reason would there be for such a war, if there were nothing immoral about depriving those slaves of fundamental human rights such as life, liberty and property or the pursuit of happiness?

My subsequent statement on the matter was (#74):

. . . if there were no objective moral facts, there would not have been a Civil War, because there would not have been a rational reason for to engage in such a war.

Now answer my question.

I believe the term right does communicate morality. I do not believe rights are mere privileges the government can bestow.

I think that the framers of the Constitution and many people since have believed that the constitution to some degree recognizes objective moral rights and utilizes those rights to form a government.

However, if you want a counter example to understand how a costly civil war could be fought without recognizing moral facts we can utilize almost any other moral framework and get to the same point.

For instance, the north could have believed subjectively that slavery was wrong and therefore wanted to abolish it and there contribution to it. While allowing the southern states to secede would have achieved the same goal, they might have believed it to be in their best interest to preserve the agricultural rich southern states within the Union. The Southern states could have believed that it was subjectively permissible to own slaves and wanted to preserve as much territory as possible in a secession. Consequently, the two fought. Not because either believed that it was an objective moral right to own slaves but because they had conflicting desires that made fighting seem like the best solution.

Now that is not what happened. But we are talking about possible rational reasons for a costly fight.

Curious George · Jan 10, 2018

Revoltingest said:
OK.

If I made an error in logic, as I have, I appreciate when someone says "hey, you made a mistake in your logic there." Regardless of whether it is a non sequitur or begging the question etc. When someone points it out I go back and check the logic, try to understand what the other person is telling me. If there is, as there sometimes is, a mistake. I say ok.

We make them in arguments all the time and let's face it; we are here to improve our own thinking more so than change anyone else's opinion. I was frankly surprised by the emotion that was tied to the responses. After all, it wasn't like I was suggesting that anyone was wrong regarding the big picture (right and objective morality).

And I would think that it was apparent to people the type of simple if then statement we were discussing has been considered by others. And the issue of objective morality is not resolved. Usually when such is the case the argument has a logical flaw--not always, but often enough that I would have anticipated people would be ready to reexamine there logic carefully.

Nous · Jan 10, 2018

Curious George said:
However, if you want a counter example to understand how a costly civil war could be fought without recognizing moral facts . . .

That isn't what my question asks. My questions asks for a rational reason to engage in the Civil War if it were true that there is no objective moral fact about slavery.

Curious George · Jan 10, 2018

Nous said:
That isn't what my question asks. My questions asks for a rational reason to engage in the Civil War if it were true that there is no objective moral fact about slavery.

And, I offered a hypothetical where a country could engage in a civil war, if it were true that there was no objective moral fact regarding slavery. You did not say I had to believe it was true. You did imply that belief regarding an objective moral fact that was simply untrue was excluded.

I am struggling to see what the problem is.

You want rational thought that for a costly civil war that only relies on subjective morality, correct? Did I not provide that? The north believes that slavery is wrong but do not consider it universally wrong. I.E. they believe that it is wrong for them to support or participate in slavery. That doesn't mean that they believe it to be objectively wrong. They may have no qualms with another country permitting slavery or even a close friend or family member engaging in slavery. However, they believe that by affiliation with the U.S. that allowing slavery in the south makes them a participant. I am pretty sure such a rationalization counts as subjective. The South believe that slavery may be morally wrong for some just not them. They see no moral impediment to slavery and view it wholly as a financial benefit which they wish to maintain. Then we toss in the land issue and you have one group that subjectively believes it is wrong to continue their own participation so they out law it, and the other wants to maintain the benefit of slavery so they try to secede. Consequently we see a war over land and money. It may not be what happened, but it recognizes a rationale to fight a costly war based only on appeal to subjective morality.

How is this not that for which you were asking?

Revoltingest · Jan 10, 2018

Curious George said:
If I made an error in logic, as I have, I appreciate when someone says "hey, you made a mistake in your logic there." Regardless of whether it is a non sequitur or begging the question etc. When someone points it out I go back and check the logic, try to understand what the other person is telling me. If there is, as there sometimes is, a mistake. I say ok.

We make them in arguments all the time and let's face it; we are here to improve our own thinking more so than change anyone else's opinion. I was frankly surprised by the emotion that was tied to the responses. After all, it wasn't like I was suggesting that anyone was wrong regarding the big picture (right and objective morality).

And I would think that it was apparent to people the type of simple if then statement we were discussing has been considered by others. And the issue of objective morality is not resolved. Usually when such is the case the argument has a logical flaw--not always, but often enough that I would have anticipated people would be ready to reexamine there logic carefully.

Logic is a wonderful thing....but tricky to apply in informal conversation.
But I've nothing to object to at the moment, boring though that be.

Shadow Wolf · Jan 10, 2018

Curious George said:
This does not mean that there is no such thing as moral objectivity. Suppose for instance that moral objectivity exists. Suppose it is objectively morally wrong for me to eat potatoes. That such a moral fact exist entails neither that I cannot eat potatoes or that I do not know that I ought not eat potatoes.

That supposes it is objectively morally wrong to eat potatoes. Of course you can still eat potatoes or not eat them, but there is no way to demonstrate or prove it is objectively immoral to eat them. I can say it's objectively moral to eat them with every meal. There is no way to actually prove this or demonstrate it. It's not like something such as debating which shiny objects in the night sky are planets. They look different, have a different light than other lights up there, and even track their movements. We can test and measure the flow of electricity. We can demonstrate that the three primary colors form all other colors. Morality lacks such definitive and concrete approaches, and though we can explain why we think slavery is good or bad, we can't actually prove it either way. The only thing we can objectively state is that morality changes as society changes and the it is anything but static.

Shadow Wolf · Jan 10, 2018

Nous said:
What would be a rational reason to engage in the Civil War if it were true that there is nothing immoral about slavery?

Because the South believed there is nothing immoral about it, with many claiming it their "god given right to own slaves," while the North believed slavery to be immoral. The war may have legally settled the dispute, but it didn't determine once and for all that slavery is wrong. Social changes changed our thinking about slavery to view it as wrong, but ultimately any state can bring it back, it is still practiced, and there are nothing more than logical appeals to say that would be wrong.
To bring in another example, a good one is how flexible our morality can be. Such as, in ancient Sparta it was illegal to kill another Spartan citizen, but they made a yearly habit of butchering some of their slaves. They also left deformed newborn babies out to die. The Norse also did this. We would say that is appalling and wrong, but the Spartan would refute that doing so leads to their ideal image of Spartan society. Both sides can argue, but neither side can actually turn to anything objective to say why they are correct.

Shadow Wolf · Jan 10, 2018

Revoltingest said:
I wonder if people don't realize that morality in that time was deeply divided about slavery?
Without any objective basis, it's a perfect example of morality's lacking objectively verifiable
premises. But I suspect that some who might agree with you on this are just seeking a win
based upon some perceived illogical structure, ie, avoiding agreement because it's a habit
to argue for a win (even if the battle is imagined). It strikes me as pointless bickering.

For a girlie, you have an organized mind.

It think it bothers people, frightens them perhaps even, that there is nothing concrete or objective about morality. It seems to me it's about on par with accepting that free will does not exist. People have these delusions removed from their world view, and they worry about justice, social stability, accountability, and other things that make life look more secure, fair, and easier to comprehend than what it really is. And it is scary to know that it is "my rights are better than your rights," because it's very close to "might is right." But if you ask Hitler, he thought what he was doing was right for Germany. The Japanese thought it ok to slaughter the Chinese. And to this day it's still debated if it was moral and proper for America to have dropped the atomic bombs. Child soldiers are a thing, honor kills are still around, and wars over religious differences are still waged. There is nothing more than the "other side" to say they are wrong. And I think it unsettles and unnerves many, because in this case there just is no authority figure or higher power to definitively settle the dispute, leaving us with only our reasons to guide us.

Revoltingest · Jan 10, 2018

Shadow Wolf said:
It think it bothers people, frightens them perhaps even, that there is nothing concrete or objective about morality. It seems to me it's about on par with accepting that free will does not exist. People have these delusions removed from their world view, and they worry about justice, social stability, accountability, and other things that make life look more secure, fair, and easier to comprehend than what it really is. And it is scary to know that it is "my rights are better than your rights," because it's very close to "might is right." But if you ask Hitler, he thought what he was doing was right for Germany. The Japanese thought it ok to slaughter the Chinese. And to this day it's still debated if it was moral and proper for America to have dropped the atomic bombs. Child soldiers are a thing, honor kills are still around, and wars over religious differences are still waged. There is nothing more than the "other side" to say they are wrong. And I think it unsettles and unnerves many, because in this case there just is no authority figure or higher power to definitively settle the dispute, leaving us with only our reasons to guide us.

Aye, it must be scary to some, hearing that there's no comforting
universally true morality to believe in....that we're all just left to our
own devices....power, negotiation, & experimentation.

Stevicus · Jan 10, 2018

Shadow Wolf said:
Because the South believed there is nothing immoral about it, with many claiming it their "god given right to own slaves," while the North believed slavery to be immoral. The war may have legally settled the dispute, but it didn't determine once and for all that slavery is wrong. Social changes changed our thinking about slavery to view it as wrong, but ultimately any state can bring it back, it is still practiced, and there are nothing more than logical appeals to say that would be wrong.

One thing that should also be noted is that the South also had peculiar ideas as to how they defined "human being," deciding that those who shared certain external characteristics were "human" and therefore entitled to human rights, while defining others without those external characteristics as "not human" or "sub-human." I would say that it's an objective biological fact as to what defines a "human," at which point that defines a person entitled to human rights.

When you really come down to it, it wasn't so much a dispute over slavery being immoral or moral, since even the Southern states subscribed to the same ideal that "all men are created equal." They simply decided that such a principle only applies to a certain group of people they defined as "human" based on their own peculiar definition (which was non-scientific and not objective).

The Abolitionists in the North were quite clear on the subject, as they considered the black slaves to be human beings and therefore entitled to the same, equal rights as whites. But not everyone in the North was of a like mind on this, as many opposed slavery for other reasons (mainly economic). That's why, once slavery was officially ended, it still took 100 years before the issues of civil rights and first-class citizenship were actually dealt with. Similarly, other humans who did not share the same external characteristics as those who had lighter skin pigmentation also faced discrimination and denial of their rights, such as Asians, Native Americans, etc. The "science" they used was highly questionable (such as the paper bag test), and nowadays, it is not considered valid.

Curious George · Jan 10, 2018

Shadow Wolf said:
That supposes it is objectively morally wrong to eat potatoes. Of course you can still eat potatoes or not eat them, but there is no way to demonstrate or prove it is objectively immoral to eat them. I can say it's objectively moral to eat them with every meal. There is no way to actually prove this or demonstrate it. It's not like something such as debating which shiny objects in the night sky are planets. They look different, have a different light than other lights up there, and even track their movements. We can test and measure the flow of electricity. We can demonstrate that the three primary colors form all other colors. Morality lacks such definitive and concrete approaches, and though we can explain why we think slavery is good or bad, we can't actually prove it either way. The only thing we can objectively state is that morality changes as society changes and the it is anything but static.

You are missing the point. Yes in the example we are assuming objective morality exists and it is morally wrong to eat potatoes. The point is what is still a possibility given those assumptions. From this we can see how the idea of objective morality existing does not entail agreement on morality. In other words, this highlights the error in your early suggestion that if objective morality existed, then the civil war would not have occurred.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Shadow Wolf · Jan 11, 2018

Stevicus said:
The Abolitionists in the North were quite clear on the subject, as they considered the black slaves to be human beings and therefore entitled to the same, equal rights as whites.

The Northern states themselves were hardly egalitarian. The Klan didn't come from the region, but they too gave grief to black people. And Irish immigrants and Catholics. And I have pointed out a few times at least a few times that what is considered moral treatment, the things we consider rights, they do not equally apply to all.

Curious George said:
You are missing the point. Yes in the example we are assuming objective morality exists and it is morally wrong to eat potatoes. The point is what is still a possibility given those assumptions. From this we can see how the idea of objective morality existing does not entail agreement on morality.

And yet you resorted to the random idea of eating potatoes. No one has proven morality is objective in this thread, but only added evidence for how subjective it is. Sherlock Holmes didn't know the moon revolved around the Earth until Dr. Watson pointed that out to him, and indeed we can objectively prove the moon revolves around the Earth. When it comes to morality we simply have no way to objectively prove it.

Stevicus · Jan 11, 2018

Shadow Wolf said:
The Northern states themselves were hardly egalitarian. The Klan didn't come from the region, but they too gave grief to black people. And Irish immigrants and Catholics. And I have pointed out a few times at least a few times that what is considered moral treatment, the things we consider rights, they do not equally apply to all.

Well, yeah, as I said, the Northerners weren't all of one like mind on this. Some were and some weren't.

Curious George · Jan 11, 2018

Shadow Wolf said:
And yet you resorted to the random idea of eating potatoes. No one has proven morality is objective in this thread, but only added evidence for how subjective it is. Sherlock Holmes didn't know the moon revolved around the Earth until Dr. Watson pointed that out to him, and indeed we can objectively prove the moon revolves around the Earth. When it comes to morality we simply have no way to objectively prove it.

Yes I used eating potatoes because it does not matter what we use. You were using an objectively flawed argument.

I needn't prove an objective morality exists to prove that your argument was fallacious. More still, I never claimed an objective morality exists. My claim was that your argument was wrong not the point you attempted to prove.

So yes, eating potatoes or owning slaves, the pattern doestrogen not change. You attempted a proof by contradiction but your logic was flawed.

If you care to argue that point by all means do. Otherwise, gracefully acknowledge the point and reformat your argument.

Kilgore Trout · Jan 11, 2018

Stevicus said:
As I was reading and responding to YmirGF's thread about "sovereign citizens" ("Sovereign citizens" run afoul of the law), I was reminded of some of the arguments I remember from those who supported the concept. Some of the arguments stemmed from America's founding and the idea that people have "inalienable rights" which are "self-evident" and which do not come from government, but from their Creator. The same idea seems to relate to the idea that "government can't grant rights, it can only take away rights."

But I wanted to just throw the question out there and see what others thought of the concept.

What are "rights"? Where do they come from, and why do we have them? Why do we need them? Isn't it enough that humans have a sufficient quantity of food, shelter, and other basic physical necessities to sustain life? "Rights" seem more intangible, abstract, and are not absolutely necessary to sustain life.

The concept of "sovereign citizen" seems to be the idea that some people believe they have certain "rights" that the government and others say that they don't have. But this would suggest that it is the role of government to grant "rights" and that no right is "inalienable" or granted by God. A lot of people are taught very early in life that they have "rights" and some people are very adamant in asserting their own rights. Likewise, people will confront others and say "what 'right' do you have to do this?"

It is often argued that "our rights end where the other person's rights begin," which would imply that as long as one leaves others alone, causes no harm to humans or property damage, then they have the "right" to do whatever they want.

For example, if someone is driving down the road and isn't harming anyone or causing any damage to any persons or property, then the police have no "right" to stop them. Only if someone causes actual physical damage is when the law should be invoked and impose some sort of punishment or restriction. It doesn't directly harm anyone if someone doesn't have a driver's license or vehicle registration. Likewise, if someone is at home smoking pot or doing some other drug, they're only harming themselves, not others. It's the idea that as long as no one else is harmed, then people have the "right" to do whatever they want.

Obviously, this isn't really true in practice, since many "rights" are restricted based on hypothetical projections of what might happen. Some believe that the "right" to own firearms should be restricted, since some people might go out and shoot others, which is true. But if we accept the idea that some "rights" should be restricted because of possibilities, doesn't that open the question that even more "rights" can and should be restricted?

If that's the case, then what purpose do "rights" actually serve?

Regarding popular usage, "rights" are often things people claim they should be granted, which they think will make up for their personal shortcomings.

Shadow Wolf · Jan 11, 2018

Curious George said:
I needn't prove an objective morality exists to prove that your argument was fallacious.

If you claim something objectively exist, it is upon those who make the claim to provide evidence. This has not been done on this thread, but I have provided many examples to the contrary.

Curious George · Jan 11, 2018

Shadow Wolf said:
If you claim something objectively exist, it is upon those who make the claim to provide evidence. This has not been done on this thread, but I have provided many examples to the contrary.

Where have I claimed that? You seem to be trying to argue something outside the scope of what I have said.

Did you plan on addressing my actual argument.

Willamena · Jan 11, 2018

Rights are an entitlement bestowed by nothing less than being.

What are "rights"?

Veteran Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Certified People sTabber

Certified People sTabber

Certified People sTabber

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Certified People sTabber

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Misanthropic Humanist

Certified People sTabber

Veteran Member

Just me