Reactions to AC

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point was really that there are no "natural rights". I could say I have the natural right to fly, and that gravity is oppressing me, but it doesn't really mean anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you understand what natural rights are.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm pretty sure I have it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your example of a "natural" right to fly belies this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy reading-much-too-far-into-an-example Batman!

Cody

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point was really that there are no "natural rights". I could say I have the natural right to fly, and that gravity is oppressing me, but it doesn't really mean anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you understand what natural rights are.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm pretty sure I have it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your example of a "natural" right to fly belies this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy reading-much-too-far-into-an-example Batman!

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]
Your example has nothing to do with natural rights. How can you argue that natural rights don't exist if you don't even know what you're arguing about?

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe you have the right to be happy, that's cool. It's kind of like God, I can't disprove your beliefs, nor can you prove them. But it's always been my assertion that the only things you can force on people are things you can prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't really addressed the arguments I made in my response, specifically concerning the objectivity of moral ideas as well as material things (an idea, I might add, as old as Plato and Aristotle). You speak as if any moral claim is completely arbitrary and therefre none have basis for rational discussion (you believe slavery is wrong? well i don't, and you can't prove that slavery is bad). And I think the reason your argumentation on this point is incomplete is because

[ QUOTE ]
Example: Abortion. I think it's fine until the fetus is alive (4-6 months, let's err on the side of caution and say 4). Christians belive it's always wrong because God says so. I can't prove god doesn't say so, but I can prove that they aren't able to live outside the mother (and thus aren't alive) until 4-6 months.

[/ QUOTE ]

you continue to argue as if moral principles were basically scientific principles, and subject to the same laws of evidence, proof, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
So if we're looking for a rule to use, I've always held that we use the ones we can prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

But is this a principle you can 'prove'? I am pretty confident that it is not, on your conditions of proof.
In any case, in your abortion example you don't really argue your case. Why does it matter whether or not the fetus can exist outside the womb? While it is an entirely scientific question whether or not a fetus can/can't exist outside the womb at age x, it is entirely an ethical question what relevance this has for how we ought to act with regards to abortion. So I don't see how your argument is any less subject to 'unprovability' than the Christian argument. You have science to support one point you make, but the one point says nothing without the supporting inferred ethical claims.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
You haven't really addressed the arguments I made in my response, specifically concerning the objectivity of moral ideas as well as material things (an idea, I might add, as old as Plato and Aristotle). You speak as if any moral claim is completely arbitrary and therefre none have basis for rational discussion (you believe slavery is wrong? well i don't, and you can't prove that slavery is bad). And I think the reason your argumentation on this point is incomplete is because

[/ QUOTE ]

Your slavery example is a great on. There's only one "real truth" (whatever that means). Everyone is soverign and has power and responsibility for their own being. Beyond that, things are arbitrary and moot.

[ QUOTE ]
you continue to argue as if moral principles were basically scientific principles, and subject to the same laws of evidence, proof, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, exactly the oppisite. My example was showing the differnece between the two.

[ QUOTE ]
But is this a principle you can 'prove'? I am pretty confident that it is not, on your conditions of proof.
In any case, in your abortion example you don't really argue your case. Why does it matter whether or not the fetus can exist outside the womb? While it is an entirely scientific question whether or not a fetus can/can't exist outside the womb at age x, it is entirely an ethical question what relevance this has for how we ought to act with regards to abortion. So I don't see how your argument is any less subject to 'unprovability' than the Christian argument. You have science to support one point you make, but the one point says nothing without the supporting inferred ethical claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, I'm so lost I'll need three maps to get back to the point.

I honestly don't even remember what "principle" I'm trying to prove.

I don't see how you can say we simply "have" certain rights endowed on us from birth. I believe we all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but I believe we have them because we (society) all agree that that's how civilized people should act. We all agree that we stay out of each others way and do what we want until it interfears with someone else (for the most part, don't read too much into that).
What's the point of all this. If you want to say that you possess these rights from birth, that's fine, but in practice, morals are all relitive/subjective.

Cody

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay dude, as I've noted repeatedly, you can't even begin to discuss your property without acknowledging that the state you live in did a great deal to help you establish it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Explain plz
[ QUOTE ]
The roads leading to your property, the money you bought it with that they minted, the education you received at publically funded schools that enabled you to generate wealth in the first place, etc, etc, etc - all these assisted you in establishing what property you now hold. Having received these obvious benefits from the people whom the state enslaves, what is your plan to repay those from whom the money that benefitted you so greatly was coerced?


[/ QUOTE ]
Of course. Have the state monopolize production and stifle competition of all of the above then claim you owe the state. Interestingly enough everything you mentioned was first provided by a free market before the state's monopolization of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's yet another statist chicken and egg problem.

Like I pointed out earlier:

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, the self-justifying monopoly. I deny you food from any other source, provide you with some, then use the fact that the food I provided prevented you from starving to death to justify my actions. You benefitted, and you have the nerve to complain!?

[/ QUOTE ]

We conveniently avoid discussing the justification of the "deny you food" part. We just skip to the part where we provide something (avoiding how we obtained it in the first place), claim a debt is owed to us, then start the cycle over.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how you can say we simply "have" certain rights endowed on us from birth. I believe we all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but I believe we have them because we (society) all agree that that's how civilized people should act. We all agree that we stay out of each others way and do what we want until it interfears with someone else (for the most part, don't read too much into that).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely why I've been trying to keep away from talking about rights as some sort of metaphysical 'thing' that we are born with. A 'right', in my mind, has 2 components: an obligation for X to treat Y in a certain manner, and the legitimacy of Y using force to compel X to treat him in this manner (eg, Frank might be morally obligated to be nice to Dan, and to not kill Dan, but Dan may only use force for the latter obligation).

Other than this, I don't think what you said is really all that different from what I'm saying, except that in the instances in which we fail to treat each other the way we ought to treat each other, our ;rights' don't magically disappear.

Our differences here mostly seem to stem from

[ QUOTE ]
What's the point of all this. If you want to say that you possess these rights from birth, that's fine, but in practice, morals are all relitive/subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

which I think you have backward. It is only in theory, in armchair philosophy, that moral relativism sounds reasonable. In everyday life, very few people act as if there were no moral truths. Most people I know are appalled by slavery, genocide, theft, exploitation, etc.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
quote]
Appeals to authority aren't compelling, but appeals to majority are?

[/ QUOTE ]

In many circumstances, yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL mygangisbiggerthanyoursaments.

More people like coke than pepsi. I'll let you draw your own conclusion.

[ QUOTE ]
The authority being appealed to is in most cases arbitrary. But majority rule at least approximates utilitarian benefit to society (provided that you are actually polling the relevant sample).

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is really all we need to know to discredit this theory. Please explain the utilitarian calculus that leads to this conclusion. With your actual calcualations, of course.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe something is an inherent right due to human nature, the fact that most people don't share that view is very relevant.

I.e. how can you simultaneous say:
- Property rights are self-evident because everybody recognizes them and
- Everybody is delusional because they don't recognize property rights in the same way I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you simultaneously say:

* evolution is a scientific certainty
* everybody is delusional because they don't recognize evolution

?

Evolution is part of human nature, yet many, many people still don't recognize it.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. I am instituting a government that will have one citizen. Me. You institue your own government. Enjoy.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
As to the rest, why is it that every AC and their cousin's friend's aunt Martha will discuss the existence of "natural" rights, but will miss the part about government being created "to secure those rights

[/ QUOTE ]

Which says nothing about it being the only method for doing so. Intentions are not enough to provide a justification.

[ QUOTE ]
AND deriving their 'just' powers from the consent of the governed?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't consent.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, among the list of inalienable rights mentioned, where's property? Did the framers forget it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is, among 200 other things, why I don't use the constitution as a basis for my arguments.