HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Feb 28, 2012, 08:40 PM
Time for me to Fly...
Mr. Wiz's Avatar
United States, MI, Fenton
Joined Jan 2000
8,554 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock View Post
No it is not. It just IS. I can defend myself. That does not make it a right.
Got any logic behind "it just is" or do you expect us to just accept your assertion?

Quote:
Unless it is a defined right, you are just defending yourself.
So if someone other than yourself hasn't defined it for you, you have no right doing it but if you do it, it just is.

I'm sorry. That explanation is too vague to accept. Who decides who has the right to create rights? Somewhere somebody had that very first right to make up rights. I know the religious person's answer. Is that also yours?
Mr. Wiz is offline Find More Posts by Mr. Wiz
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2012, 10:42 PM
Radix malorum est cupiditas
radix2's Avatar
Joined Jul 2000
460 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by leccyflyer View Post
Ascribing the notion of rights to human societies, as opposed to assigning them to divine intervention, is nothing at all like an expression of Nihilism.
Who the heck brought up divine intervention?

It seems from your comments that you tie natural or inherent (or inalienable) rights to some religious belief. I don't see that as being the case - IMO there are plenty of people who believe that some basic system of rights (call them what you will) are simply inherent to the human animal - they manifest themselves out of our nature and our instincts.

Moral nihilism is in part nothing more than expressing that these characteristics - (like morals or rights) are not inherent to humanity - they are arbitrarily created in a given time and place by those participating in their creation - not determined by the nature of man - this seems to be the stance you are taking on the existence of basic rights?

The test on who is right would be to place infants in an environment where they could grow to adulthood on their own- and observe if they spontaneously generate any of the philosophical constructs considered by some as inherent /inalienable/etc.
radix2 is offline Find More Posts by radix2
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2012, 10:55 PM
Registered User
College Park, MD
Joined Sep 2002
4,714 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordsirob View Post
I don't know, what do you call yourself?
Pointing out the obvious.
thunder1 is online now Find More Posts by thunder1
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2012, 10:57 PM
Registered User
College Park, MD
Joined Sep 2002
4,714 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz View Post
I thought the first was pretty far out of line, myself.
Post #374, right? Because that was the first strike.
thunder1 is online now Find More Posts by thunder1
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2012, 11:15 PM View Post
thunder1
A moderator felt this post violated the following rule: Trolling (Obnoxious behavior). Show it to me anyway.
Old Feb 29, 2012, 02:40 AM
All under control, Grommit!
leccyflyer's Avatar
United Kingdom, Aberdeen
Joined Sep 2000
12,599 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by radix2 View Post
Who the heck brought up divine intervention?
The Declaration of Independence and the notion of inalienable rights granted by a creator.

Quote:
It seems from your comments that you tie natural or inherent (or inalienable) rights to some religious belief. I don't see that as being the case - IMO there are plenty of people who believe that some basic system of rights (call them what you will) are simply inherent to the human animal - they manifest themselves out of our nature and our instincts.
Those would not be God-given rights, would they? It isn;t me that is tying inalienable rights to some religious belief, that is, as described, supposedly self-evident. My position is that there aren't any inalienable rights in practice and that the methodology embarked upon for the recognition and protection of those inalienable rights in itself means that all of those rights will not be inalienable.

Quote:
Moral nihilism is in part nothing more than expressing that these characteristics - (like morals or rights) are not inherent to humanity - they are arbitrarily created in a given time and place by those participating in their creation - not determined by the nature of man - this seems to be the stance you are taking on the existence of basic rights?
My stance, such as it is, is that human rights are determined by humans. That is the experience of human history and geography. Those rights are not granted by an invisible, omniscient, supernatural being. Most importantly they are subject to change, amendment and surrender and have varied dramatically throughout human history. The notion that, for example, slavery was wrong, is far from universal, and has been shown through human history to have emerged sporadically, from the societies that came to those conclusions and acted accordingly.



Quote:
The test on who is right would be to place infants in an environment where they could grow to adulthood on their own- and observe if they spontaneously generate any of the philosophical constructs considered by some as inherent /inalienable/etc.
It would be a form of a test, but it would not necessarily be a definitive test and the fact that there would be a group of individuals would mean that exactly the sort of social interactions which define "rights" would still be present. It is rather unlikely that such a group of infants would arrive at a right to bear arms, or an equal right to vote in a non-existent general election at some time10,000 years in the future. The separation of nature versus nurture would be extremely difficult to demonstrate.

A better test would be to see whether any of those philiosophical constructs that are described as rights emerge from an individual who had never had any contact with any other human.

Another test woud be to look at any higher animal and to determine whether those animals have inherent rights and how the social structures of those animals operate to maintain those rights.
leccyflyer is offline Find More Posts by leccyflyer
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 06:38 AM
Time for me to Fly...
Mr. Wiz's Avatar
United States, MI, Fenton
Joined Jan 2000
8,554 Posts
Does a human have the ability to determine his own rights or do they have to be granted by other humans? If I can determine my own rights then the creation to the right to life and self defense is self evident, just like it says. If others have to determine my rights then from where do they derive that knowledge and power?.... And who gives them their own rights?.... Someone else that couldn't do the same for themselves?

The idea that rights are a human construct is one that I can go along with but didn't the very first human create for himself the very first right the very first instant he needed it? Of course then there needed to be an agreement among other humans to observe these rights. I believe that logical beings saw what they needed and agreed to allow others the same in an effort to preserve their own.
Mr. Wiz is offline Find More Posts by Mr. Wiz
Last edited by Mr. Wiz; Feb 29, 2012 at 09:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 07:52 AM
Registered User
lordsirob's Avatar
United States, FL, North Palm Beach
Joined Jul 2004
102 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunder1 View Post
Oh, I'm sure that someone will be along to report my post before too long. It might not get warned, though.
Not by me... If you don't have thick skin down here, you shouldn't be here.
lordsirob is offline Find More Posts by lordsirob
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 11:55 AM
Radix malorum est cupiditas
radix2's Avatar
Joined Jul 2000
460 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by leccyflyer View Post
The Declaration of Independence and the notion of inalienable rights granted by a creator.
The requirement of a creator is not required to support the concept - it is also present in philosophies based on natural theory.

Quote:
Those would not be God-given rights, would they? It isn;t me that is tying inalienable rights to some religious belief, that is, as described, supposedly self-evident. My position is that there aren't any inalienable rights in practice and that the methodology embarked upon for the recognition and protection of those inalienable rights in itself means that all of those rights will not be inalienable.
This seems like an improper definition of inalienable - which has nothing to do with practice - in fact the whole point is a theory about what rights there are/may be that are not contingent on any law/custom/belief.

Quote:
My stance, such as it is, is that human rights are determined by humans. That is the experience of human history and geography. Those rights are not granted by an invisible, omniscient, supernatural being. Most importantly they are subject to change, amendment and surrender and have varied dramatically throughout human history. The notion that, for example, slavery was wrong, is far from universal, and has been shown through human history to have emerged sporadically, from the societies that came to those conclusions and acted accordingly.
I find these examples to be unpersuasive to disprove the existence of these basic rights for a very simple reason - even in the most committed slaving society (or human sacrificing) - I absolutely believe that those subject to the sharp end of these "accepted" violations of human rights - believe that their rights are being violated - that irrespective of the settled acceptance that slavery is right - it isn't right or fair to them.

If there truly was no right identifiable being violated, people would simply accept as normal that they will be a slave (or killed on an altar) - just the same as they accept the weather. I don't believe such humans have ever existed (specific individuals not withstanding).

Quote:
It would be a form of a test, but it would not necessarily be a definitive test and the fact that there would be a group of individuals would mean that exactly the sort of social interactions which define "rights" would still be present. It is rather unlikely that such a group of infants would arrive at a right to bear arms, or an equal right to vote in a non-existent general election at some time10,000 years in the future. The separation of nature versus nurture would be extremely difficult to demonstrate.

A better test would be to see whether any of those philiosophical constructs that are described as rights emerge from an individual who had never had any contact with any other human.
This just doesn't make any sense - The subject of rights and morality is inherently a social question - you are asking for exhibits of social behavior in isolation.

The requirement of the right to bear arms being a basic human right is not in evidence - it may well be a simple legal right..

Quote:
Another test woud be to look at any higher animal and to determine whether those animals have inherent rights and how the social structures of those animals operate to maintain those rights.
This is an interesting experiment - but IMO it would be a way to prove that there are some natural rights which are not only inherent to humans, but to other animals as well.

I think part of the problem with this discussion is the confusing way the language is set up - rights can be anything from a basic right to live (instinct?) to a legal provision to take a tax benefit.
radix2 is offline Find More Posts by radix2
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 12:07 PM
Radix malorum est cupiditas
radix2's Avatar
Joined Jul 2000
460 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz View Post
Does a human have the ability to determine his own rights or do they have to be granted by other humans? If I can determine my own rights then the creation to the right to life and self defense is self evident, just like it says. If others have to determine my rights then from where do they derive that knowledge and power?.... And who gives them their own rights?.... Someone else that couldn't do the same for themselves?

The idea that rights are a human construct is one that I can go along with but didn't the very first human create for himself the very first right the very first instant he needed it? Of course then there needed to be an agreement among other humans to observe these rights. I believe that logical beings saw what they needed and agreed to allow others the same in an effort to preserve their own.
I think your thoughts are consistent with the idea that there are some basic rights that arise out of our human natures.

If we think that some basic characteristics governing social interactions will always show up when humans live together - then I think those things would define what rights we are talking about.

If we really think that there are no common rights that will show up - then the theory is wrong.

Is it possible that some wild group of humans could live like a lion pride, or a swamp of alligators - or would they revert to a recognizable human mode ?

Maybe the fact that animals live in ways determined by their nature consistently is part of the answer?
radix2 is offline Find More Posts by radix2
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 12:25 PM
All under control, Grommit!
leccyflyer's Avatar
United Kingdom, Aberdeen
Joined Sep 2000
12,599 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by radix2 View Post
The requirement of a creator is not required to support the concept - it is also present in philosophies based on natural theory.



This seems like an improper definition of inalienable - which has nothing to do with practice - in fact the whole point is a theory about what rights there are/may be that are not contingent on any law/custom/belief.
Like I said, I don;t accept the notion of inalienable rights when everything around us screams that such rights are not inalienable at all and that the human condition, and the universe in general, is probably more about change than things remaining static.


Quote:
I find these examples to be unpersuasive to disprove the existence of these basic rights for a very simple reason - even in the most committed slaving society (or human sacrificing) - I absolutely believe that those subject to the sharp end of these "accepted" violations of human rights - believe that their rights are being violated - that irrespective of the settled acceptance that slavery is right - it isn't right or fair to them.
Well, I'm not actually trying to persuade you, so that's fine by me.

Quote:
If there truly was no right identifiable being violated, people would simply accept as normal that they will be a slave (or killed on an altar) - just the same as they accept the weather. I don't believe such humans have ever existed (specific individuals not withstanding).
In ancient societies some people most certainly accepted as normal that they will be a slave. They would never have known anything different, being born as slaves, living as slaves and dying as slaves.

In the currently still extant caste system in India, until quite recently people accepted that they would be of a particular caste, with little possibility of the sort of vertical social progress that we in the part of the world over towards the direction in which the sun sets would take for granted.

Quote:

This just doesn't make any sense - The subject of rights and morality is inherently a social question - you are asking for exhibits of social behavior in isolation.
That's correct and that explains quite nicely (at least partly) why I don't consider such rights to be inherently hard wired into the human psyche, or that such could be demonstrated in a social group, without the likelyhood that they have developed by concensus within the group itself, rather than any hard-wired, universal, inalienable rights that are inherent within the individual.

Quote:
The requirement of the right to bear arms being a basic human right is not in evidence - it may well be a simple legal right..



This is an interesting experiment - but IMO it would be a way to prove that there are some natural rights which are not only inherent to humans, but to other animals as well.
Which is an extension of the discussion that might be mostly predicated on whether folks believe that humans are animals, or that humans are completelty special and removed from the animal kingdom entirely. I know which side of that particular discussion I would stand.

Quote:
I think part of the problem with this discussion is the confusing way the language is set up - rights can be anything from a basic right to live (instinct?) to a legal provision to take a tax benefit.
I think part of the problem with this discussion is the early insistence on defining those different types of rights and attaching labels to them, which experience shows can be taken off, rewritten, and tied back on to rights which are supposed to be inalienable.
leccyflyer is offline Find More Posts by leccyflyer
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 12:54 PM
Radix malorum est cupiditas
radix2's Avatar
Joined Jul 2000
460 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by leccyflyer View Post
In ancient societies some people most certainly accepted as normal that they will be a slave. They would never have known anything different, being born as slaves, living as slaves and dying as slaves.

In the currently still extant caste system in India, until quite recently people accepted that they would be of a particular caste, with little possibility of the sort of vertical social progress that we in the part of the world over towards the direction in which the sun sets would take for granted.
The fact that some people accept death or slavery on the say so of others cannot be the measure - human nature needs to be defined on a broader basis. I contend that in every slave owning society there exists/ed the belief that slavery is wrong among both the slave owning and enslaved populations. The fact that an operative majority was able to continue the system doesn't change the fact that the idea of basic rights being violated existed - even in these societies.

Quote:
That's correct and that explains quite nicely (at least partly) why I don't consider such rights to be inherently hard wired into the human psyche, or that such could be demonstrated in a social group, without the likelyhood that they have developed by concensus within the group itself, rather than any hard-wired, universal, inalienable rights that are inherent within the individual.
Even the existence of basic animal instincts would be dis-proven given your proposed logic. Many animals will not exhibit mating behavior without mates being present.

Why should all human behavior be exhibited in solitude??
radix2 is offline Find More Posts by radix2
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 01:50 PM
All under control, Grommit!
leccyflyer's Avatar
United Kingdom, Aberdeen
Joined Sep 2000
12,599 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by radix2 View Post
The fact that some people accept death or slavery on the say so of others cannot be the measure - human nature needs to be defined on a broader basis. I contend that in every slave owning society there exists/ed the belief that slavery is wrong among both the slave owning and enslaved populations. The fact that an operative majority was able to continue the system doesn't change the fact that the idea of basic rights being violated existed - even in these societies.
Yet it's clear that, in the examples that I cited, it wasn't just those who were in the majority who accepted that their position was as slaves, or as a member of a lower caste.


Quote:
Even the existence of basic animal instincts would be dis-proven given your proposed logic. Many animals will not exhibit mating behavior without mates being present.

Why should all human behavior be exhibited in solitude??
It shouldn;t. Since human beings are social animals they function best in societies. Yiu were discussing possible experiments or tests to address whether rights were inherent and hard wired into our psyche, and that would be one test which could shed light on the analysis.
leccyflyer is offline Find More Posts by leccyflyer
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 02:09 PM
Radix malorum est cupiditas
radix2's Avatar
Joined Jul 2000
460 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by leccyflyer View Post
Yet it's clear that, in the examples that I cited, it wasn't just those who were in the majority who accepted that their position was as slaves, or as a member of a lower caste.

.
You are arguing the non existence of these rights - if they exist in any people - how can you support that position ?

some slaves in Rome, NA... everywhere ... believed their rights where being violated IMO.

If they are not inherent in human civilizations - I think you would need to show a time and place where no-one considered them to exist.
radix2 is offline Find More Posts by radix2
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 02:25 PM
All under control, Grommit!
leccyflyer's Avatar
United Kingdom, Aberdeen
Joined Sep 2000
12,599 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by radix2 View Post
You are arguing the non existence of these rights - if they exist in any people - how can you support that position ?

some slaves in Rome, NA... everywhere ... believed their rights where being violated IMO.

If they are not inherent in human civilizations - I think you would need to show a time and place where no-one considered them to exist.
No, I'm not arguing the non-existence of rights, I'm arguing against a particular set of rights being universally and inherently hard wired into the human psyche and particularly against the notion that they are immutable, inalienable, and put there by a supernatural creator.
leccyflyer is offline Find More Posts by leccyflyer
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Which part of Deans goes to positive, and which to Negative? donmei Batteries and Chargers 2 Sep 02, 2011 11:08 AM
Discussion Airfield f35 reciever positive/negative problems!! komodomoe Foamy EDFs 3 Jul 31, 2011 01:35 PM
Discussion Which wires on ESC going to motor are positive/negative and signal wire? cannondale1974 Power Systems 11 May 15, 2011 09:57 AM