Natural Rights

[GePap]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Gepap vs loin
Ok is this still about the thing that if you don't have laws you can't say what's wrong or right? Or better yet, what the hell is this about?

I made the arguement that you can not define murder outside of the concept of law, meaning that when Berz keeps saying that people have a universal desire not to be murdered, that is incorrect, since murder is defines by law, so how could it be a universal desire, if laws are not universal. Loin then took it upon himself to define murder in a way to make it separate from the concept of law (or the such, like morality, justice, so forth).

It deteriorated from there.

[BeBMan]

Desperate attempt to save this thread....

Originally posted by Imran
No, but morals need laws to actually mean anything substantial.

What exactly is substantial meaning?

Originally posted by GePap
I would say that I do not think morality as a concept can exist utterly seperate from one of rules (and eventualy laws). What is the point of saying :"that is wrong" and "that is right" if there is no consequence to the difference? I mean, how long after you think "right, wrong" does it take to think "one should not do wrong"? now you have a rule, "don;t do wrong". How long from there until you think : "hmm, how do we stop wrong doing?" And from there consequences to the wrong act? Now, you can always say the consequence is supernatural, and that the rules are supernatural (I mean, realy what gives an individual the legitimacy and authority to declare anything wrong, or immoral? And what gives such power to a group?)

For rules - depends how you understand them, but lots of moral standards exist without laws, because (a vast majority of) people consider certain things morally right, even when not defined per law.

For example it is considered morally right to help others, but no law exists about that. However, if I´m in the bus, and an old woman comes in, people stand up (if there´s no free place) and give the old woman the chance to sit down instead. You can say it is a social rule or a code of behaviour, but it is no law. Still it is so widely shared that people act in such ways. Of course not always, but without been seen morally right, nobody would stand up.

Too banally for you? Ok, let´s go into political affairs, similar things happen there. For example, why do we (US/Euros) send peacekeepers eg. into the Congo or Liberia? Ok, you can take the realist approach saying it is good for US/European image, stability there etc.

However, why should we be interested in stability in Africa? We could also try to ignore those conflicts, close our borders for refugees, and then let them kill eachother, I doubt it would be technically more difficult then having lots of peacekeepers there. No authority could easily force states like the US, Britain, France or Germany to send soldiers abroad, no law exists that says we should intervene there and there, however peacekeepers are sent. You can argue that they aren´t send into every conflict (eg. Rwanda was ignored), but that doesn´t explain why they send them into other conflicts when there is really nothing to gain except problems and costs (like Congo).

Even more interesting: why should we care about starving people in Africa? There´s no law that says we should send food aid over there in a hunger crisis (or money to buy food etc), yet it happens quite often, and it is of course considered morally right. Or why do foreign countries send help into a country when there was a earthquake or vulcan eruption?

I do not think this can be explained purely by interests, in all these cases you have concrete behaviour due to widely shared moral views (help the poor, help victims of desasters or genocide), which are not based on certain laws. Because if our societies hold certain moral views they must be commited to them, otherwise our own principles are not worth much (and then you cannot demand any longer that people should act according to those principles), and so they cannot easily ignore such conflicts or desasters once they reach a certain scale.

If you say these are just other forms of rules (eg. what you mean by "code of behaviour"), still there stands the logical problem how to make a rule about something without having an idea of what is moral and what not. If you do not know this, you cannot say what the rule should be. In any case these rules are not law.

And to your questions: it can be quite a long time before moral views are "translated" into law - think eg. about environmental issues. It is "wrong" to pollute the nature, not only morally, however, it needed decades in western countries before these issues even went into a wider public discussion. Yet this was not meaningless, even without a certain law these issues play a big role today (eg. in consumer decisions for or against certain products).

[Imran Siddiqui]

BeBro, if there is no law, then not following the 'moral' path of someone else won't really matter. If you don't stand up for the old lady, it doesn't matter. If the US doesn't go into Liberia, it doesn't matter (at least to the US). If someone pollutes within the law, it doesn't matter.

What I am saying is that morality without law is simply someone's opinion. You are usually free to disregard it without cost to yourself (the exception being if someone's moral belief contrasts yours and he is willing to kick your ass because of it ). It's the LAW which is the important thing to focus on, because if a certain opinion isn't strong enough to be law, then it isn't strong enough to really hurt you. That's what I mean by substantial meaning.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
BeBro, if there is no law, then not following the 'moral' path of someone else won't really matter. If you don't stand up for the old lady, it doesn't matter. If the US doesn't go into Liberia, it doesn't matter (at least to the US). If someone pollutes within the law, it doesn't matter.

Well, at least in the case of the polluter it can have quite serious consequnces even without a law. Therefore the hint about consumer decisions - if a certain company gets a bad image because of polluting everything, consumers could strike back quite effectively.

I remember a case about a Shell oil platform in the North Sea, which should be simply sunk into the ocean when it was old. That was a big issue in Europe, Shell got a very bad press, was boycotted by many car drivers, and finally agreed that it would dismantle the platform in a more environment-friendly way. Real consequence without a law against sinking oil platforms.

If the US doesn´t go to Liberia, well yes, that would certainly not be the end for the US. However, if your government would constantly act against the moral views hold by most US citizens, it could of course have the real consequence that it loses the next election. Why do you think it was neccessary to make also a moral case against Iraq (evil dictator and such) before the war? Why didn´t GWB simply say, hey, Saddam has violated the cease fire rules of gulf war one? Of course the moral case was made to win public support for it. No public support - reelection in danger. That is a real consequence, even when it is only a possible consequence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, at least in the case of the polluter it can have quite serious consequnces even without a law. Therefore the hint about consumer decisions - if a certain company gets a bad image because of polluting everything, consumers could strike back quite effectively.

Is that more about morality or interests? Most people will protest because they don't want that sludge in 'our' cities. That's the main reason most regular people won't buy things from polluters.

However, if your government would constantly act against the moral views hold by most US citizens, it could of course have the real consequence that it loses the next election.

If the morality is that strong you'd see legal actions... such as a declaration by Congress, etc. In domestic situations there would be laws.

Why didn´t GWB simply say, hey, Saddam has violated the cease fire rules of gulf war one? Of course the moral case was made to win public support for it.

Because even if he did say that Saddam violated the cease fire rules, there was nothing really in it that said we had to go to war again (just 'serious consequences' IIRC). There was no law on the matter, so they could go and do what they wanted, but you need the moral stuff so they could get Congress on their side to vote it 'into law' basically (because they weren't sure how long they'd be).


BASICALLY, morality without law can be twisted and exploited to the point where might not even matter, because there is so much view on what is the 'moral' path that anyone can justify just about anything. Laws makes morality a little more concrete (at least for that day ), and thus should be the focus).

After all, in the end law is simply legislated morality (so morality isn't totally useless). This IS significant though, because enough people came together and said that we believe in this morality so strongly and completely that we want to put it in writing so everyone has to follow it. Morality that doesn't reach that level has problems in that a majority may not agree with it, and others may wish to twist it until it is undistinguishable.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Is that more about morality or interests? Most people will protest because they don't want that sludge in 'our' cities. That's the main reason most regular people won't buy things from polluters.

Both morality and interests. If only interest would matter, then why should people care about a Shell platform several hundred miles away? Maybe those living on the coast would care, but the rest not really. If you say "hey those evil oil companies, making a lot of money, but do not spend enough for environmental protection, we´ll teach them" it is a moral judgement. And such views fueled the front against Shell in said case.

BASICALLY, morality without law can be twisted and exploited to the point where might not even matter, because there is so much view on what is the 'moral' path that anyone can justify just about anything. Laws makes morality a little more concrete (at least for that day ), and thus should be the focus).

and

After all, in the end law is simply legislated morality. This IS significant though, because enough people came together and said that we believe in this morality so strongly and completely that we want to put it in writing so everyone has to follow it. Morality that doesn't reach that level has problems in that a majority may not agree with it, and others may wish to twist it until it is undistinguishable.

Well yes, it´s not that I´m saying law is not important, of course it is. I´m just here to annoy you and GePap , because I think still that moral outside law does matter, if concrete behaviour follows from it. Because this behaviour has always consequences. Think about Ghandi - there was certainly no law that made him acting against the British. And while he of course had his interests, his concrete behaviour is only thinkable when related to his moral views. If Ghandi was a Mao-like guy, his moral views would have probably lead to active military resistance (like Mao did in China), not to peaceful resistance. Here you have two complete different behaviours rooted in different moral views - and both had enourmous consequences.

But ok, it is weekend now

[Imran Siddiqui]

The thing with Ghandi AND Mao is they wanted to change the law! That was their aim in the end, was it not? They used morality to raise the troops, but for the reason of changing law (which is the same as changing the rulers).

I'm saying morals are great and all and can do good things (depending on your side), but in the end the law is a much more important vehicle and it is, in the end, what everyone is after.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The thing with Ghandi AND Mao is they wanted to change the law! That was their aim in the end, was it not? They used morality to raise the troops, but for the reason of changing law (which is the same as changing the rulers).

But this is not relevant for their actions before they were in the position to change any real law. It is relevant after they seized power, not before, during their actions against Japanese or British. Even if their goal was to change a law, their actions were rooted in self interest and moral views. Self interest=freedom from opression, independence etc, moral view=peaceful or military resistance. Even freedom and independance can be linked to moral views how the world should look like.

And since those actions laid the basis for any development, even a takeover of power or changing laws later, they absolutely did matter.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But this is not relevant for their actions before they were in the position to change any real law.

Of course it is. That's their reason for the actions. Every revolution on Earth is the change the law. The law is central. The only way to make your morals powerful is to change the law.

And they were in the position to change the law because they eventually did. If the law changed because of them, it is only reasonable to assume they were in a position to change the law.

Your argument is like saying that petitioning for a law or a repeal of law means that the law isn't relavent to their actions.

Even if their goal was to change a law, their actions were rooted in self interest and moral views.

You do realize that law itself is rooted in self-interest and moral views, right?

[GePap]

Even if Loin never returns to this thread(I can't say i would mind), I will answer the notion that one can define murder simply on the issue of reciprocity, without there also being societally constructed values.

Lets build two scenerios:
Scen. A:
X groups and Y group are at war. And X soldier hides in ambush, and can not be seen. He waits armed with a projectile weapon. Two Y uniformed Y soldiers come by, unarmed. X soldier kills both.

Scen B:
A man is outside in front of his home, with a gun. His neighbor comes out also armed. They see each other, note each other is armed. One of them turns around to get his lawnmower. The other man shoots and kills his neighbor dead.

NOw, we will make the assumption that Loin made, that both men has a moral system based on reciprocity: neither wants to be killed, believes the same of the other man, and thus will act with reciprocity, that is, will take no action to kill the other. The only exception to this rule is if one feels that thier life is in danger form the other: since the other person has ignored my whishes to live, I will ignore his. Reciprocity is maintained. (as it where, the Golden Rule)

Under this simple definition, both scenerios are acts of murder.

But I think it is clear that Scen. A would never have been, and certainly is not today, considered an act of murder, while Scen B. is considered an act of murder. What is the difference?

Before we get there, I have a simple problem with the notion of reciprocity: Is reciprocity to be expected of UNEQUALS? Does the superior expect to be treated the same as the inferior, and vice versa? NO, they do not: if recirocity was called for, what benefit would the distinction have? Reciprocity is not expected, nor can it be expected, of unequals.

So lets examine Scen B., which I said would always be murder. NOw, yet another definion Loin pushed was malicious and premeditated. I will not argue malicious, but what about premeditated? Was the killing planned? Lets say it is, after all, some time passed between the moment each saw the other armed, and one fired. NOw, could the killer claim self-defense? After all, the other individual, his neighbor, was armed, aware he was armed, and in plainsight. How could the shooter be clear that the other person would not kill him, that the next act, after he turned towards the lawmower, was not to turn around and shoot? At this point one could claim that, given the concept of reciprocity, the shoter should have known that the other person would accept that neither wants to be killed, and thus act accordingly. BUt as I said, one can NOT expect reciprocity from unequals. What if, then, the neighbor believed himself to be different, unequal from me, and hence, not bound to act with reciprocity? I have no reasonable way of knowing that the neighbor considers me someone worthy of reciprocity and will act thus: is it then unreasonable to remove a potential threat to my life, becuase if the neighbor does not believe I am worthy of reciprocity, I can not reasonably expect it.

Now someone may claim: but all human beings are equal, so reciprocity should be a given to all human beings! But is that true, are all humans equal? Do all people look alike? Do they think alike? Do they have access to the same resources? Are they al equally successful at breeding? Are they all as fast, all as smart, all as strong? No, they are not. Is it impossible for any individual to build a set of beliefs in which any of these given difference would constitute some sort of moral difference? It is very possible for an individual to do so. So, if an individual has built a personal set of moral codes built upon one of these possible distinctions between men, can I reasonably expect them to believe themselves to be equal to me, and thus making me worthy of reciprocity? I can not. I can only know what they believe if they tell me, and then they could lie. Without the ability to read minds, I can only "trust" the words of others, but is it reasonable to risk my life on just the word of another? (assuming I can understand their language at all?)

The only way for an individual to "know" that the other person will view them as an equal (in some way) worthy of reciprocity is if I know we have shared moral codes. ith shared moral codes, reciprocity can be, to a great extent, expected. The question then becomes, how do different individuals come to share moral codes? I say that the only way to do so is to belong to the same social unit. At the smallest core, a single blood family with shared codes. And then building up from there to even greater societal groups, all with shared moral codes.

If Scen B. then is aways viewed as murder, it is becuase it would be assumed that neighbors are part of one social group sharing social codes, and thus able to act with reciprocity towards the other. The one that broke reciprocity being the party that did wrong.

Now, what about Scen A. There was no reciprocity whatsoever in that act: one party was hidden and armed, the other party was not a threat in any way, so even if the x soldier believed the others may not view him as equal, at this point, thye could not do anything about that. They were not a threat at all. So why is this not murder? After all, being of two different states does not even preclude them from sharing moral codes; they very well could have shared moral codes, and thus this act is an even greater affrontery to reciprocity! Yet, in a way, recprocity is at work, but only if one moves away form the level of one man and moves into a greater societal level. All parties are soldiers. The function of a soldier in war is to portect the group form its enemies, and anyone who happens to be an enemy soldier is an enemy of the group unless they have fallen under your direct control. This remains true even if they are unarmed, for at any moment they could be armed and come after the group. Soldiers from both sides recognize this, and thus they do expect a certain type of reciprocity of action: if you can ill me, and I have not surrendered, then you have the right to kill me, and I have the same right towards you.

So it might be possible to build a def. of murder on reciprocity, but only a reciprocity based on rules and codes of morality that are shared by social groups. Outside of these socially constructed worlds, for reasons I have stated above, I do not believe that it would be possible to have a morality based on reciprocity between utterly independent human beings.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Gepap
Even if Loin never returns to this thread(I can't say i would mind), I will answer the notion that one can define murder simply on the issue of reciprocity

That's cute. "Now that I've been so condescending and obtuse that my opponent has (hopefully) left the thread in disgust, I'm finally prepared to address his point." Alas, you should've waited until the thread had sunk to page 3 or 4 -- I'd've been back in seclusion, and you could've safely posted any sort of drivel that you wanted.

Anyway, on to your post.

Scenario A is flawed -- you've introduced a social dilemma (a war between rival groups) in a hypothetical environment in which there is no society. I pointed out this flaw before, but, to nobody's surprise, you've apparently ignored my post.

I've already said that it is possible to justify why a particular individual ought not to be fully reciprocated with (e.g., in scenario B, if the victim of the homicide was himself a murderer, then the killer could justifiably argue that he was not bound by reciprocity). This should address the bulk of your argument WRT scenario B.

The remainder of your argument basically amounts to a claim that people can use any bizarre self-serving justification that they want in order to get out of moral reciprocation ("I am smarter than Joe Blow, which somehow makes me morally superior to Joe Blow"), which is just plain silly -- reciprocation is hardly an all-or-nothing affair, so, e.g., the fact that Al is smarter than Joe could very well serve as a justification for why Al should get the job instead of Joe, but hardly qualifies as a justification as to why Al is morally justified in killing Joe (unless Al is somehow able to justify that "moral worth" is equivalent to "intelligence" or whatever have you).

[GePap]

You dragged the arguement beyond where it should have ended when you decided to ignore the post in which I made clear what my arguement was: instead fo realizing then that the arguements were not on the same wavelength, yuo attempted to keep with yours.

As for your statements:

I've already said that it is possible to justify why a particular individual ought not to be fully reciprocated with (e.g., in scenario B, if the victim of the homicide was himself a murderer, then the killer could justifiably argue that he was not bound by reciprocity). This should address the bulk of your argument WRT scenario B.

The remainder of your argument basically amounts to a claim that people can use any bizarre self-serving justification that they want in order to get out of moral reciprocation ("I am smarter than Joe Blow, which somehow makes me morally superior to Joe Blow"), which is just plain silly -- reciprocation is hardly an all-or-nothing affair, so, e.g., the fact that Al is smarter than Joe could very well serve as a justification for why Al should get the job instead of Joe, but hardly qualifies as a justification as to why Al is morally justified in killing Joe (unless Al is somehow able to justify that "moral worth" is equivalent to "intelligence" or whatever have you).

If it is possible for any individual to avoid reciprocity, then how can you possibly justify a moral system based on it? And sorry, it does not answer any of arguement B: Since nowere in the example is it mentioned that either had done anything else, and since it is not valid to try to infer into the example things that you simply could not given the information given., this does not answer it. To answer it would be for you to either post arguements about why you think reciprocity among unequals is valid, or why it is not unreasonable for individuals to question whether other will act with reciprocity towards you, and whether you should risk your life for such a belief.

As for you calling this silly: silly to you? That it is silly to you means nothing, the question is, whether it is theoretically possible? For millenia, simply having a different skin color meant you were free to be chattel, and yet you have the gall to say that it is "silly" to think that a difference could be used to justify moral inequality? News flash: your opinions are not arguements! Calling this "bizzare, silly" does not amount to a refutation of it, specialy when we have ample historical evidence to show it is rather easy,, perhaps common, to attempt to use minor differences to base entire different moral values for different people.

As for reciprocity being an all or nothing affair: you complain about my example A existing in a world with society: Hello, can you really paint me a world without ANY society when anyone is going to be getting "a job"? A "job" were? certainly not a company or corporation, nor any business, sicne all of those would call for some sort of society, would they not? If you are going to ignore things becuase they introduce social elements, then hello, don't introduce any yourself!

And even if reciprocity is not an all or nothing case, you really have no arguement against the issue here that was presented. We are talking here about a situation in which two individuals have the capacity to terminate each others lives. Whether it is an all or nothign things is somewhat irrelevant, unless you can possit some arguement here why the two neighbors should expect reciprocity as far as not killing each other given what they KNOW, and what they have the ability to infer, or guess, given their condition (one in which we are assuming NO Society, and thus no guarantee of shared values).

If this is the sort of answer I am going to get from you in this threadm then by all means don't answer.

[TCO]

Berzie, you know you really are a self-caricature. Now run and complain to Ming. You little crybaby.

[GePap]

Before anythign goes further, I will say loinburger that while I have found this particular arguement with you most annoying and frustrating, this emnity is only in this very thread and not anywhere else.

And no more crap answers!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Gepap
You dragged the arguement beyond where it should have ended when you decided to ignore the post in which I made clear what my arguement was: instead fo realizing then that the arguements were not on the same wavelength, yuo attempted to keep with yours.

That's hypocritical, seeing as how you've also ignored the post in which I made clear what my argument was, and seeing as how you're the one who decided to respond to my post a page late. I was content to go back into seclusion once the thread had sunk, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to respond when you address one of my posts...

If it is possible for any individual to avoid reciprocity, then how can you possibly justify a moral system based on it? And sorry, it does not answer any of arguement B: Since nowere in the example is it mentioned that either had done anything else, and since it is not valid to try to infer into the example things that you simply could not given the information given., this does not answer it.

It's not an arbitrary matter of saying "I don't feel like reciprocating today." It's possible for any individual to avoid reciprocity if said individual can justify said avoidance.

I was not inferring that anybody was a murderer -- I was careful to use the "if" modifier. If the person who was killed was a murderer, then the person committing the homicide may have been justified in doing so. Note that this modifier is "if," not "if and only if" (iff) -- there may be other valid justifications for one neighbor killing the other (assuming the presence of information that you have not given).

To answer it would be for you to either post arguements about why you think reciprocity among unequals is valid

I've addressed this -- reciprocity is not an all-or-nothing affair, so in order to justify that somebody needn't be treated with moral reciprocation one must first justify that said person is morally inferior (e.g. that they're a murderer or whatever). Simply stating an inequality is insufficient -- causality must also be established between the inequality and morality (e.g. "I am a faster runner" does not automatically equate to "I am morally superior," particularly since an equally valid case could also be made as to why "I am a faster runner" automatically equates to "I am morally inferior"...).

For millenia, simply having a different skin color meant you were free to be chattel, and yet you have the gall to say that it is "silly" to think that a difference could be used to justify moral inequality?

I wouldn't consider "his skin color is different from mine, therefore he is morally inferior" to be a particularly valid argument, so I'll ask you to justify said line of logic before dismissing my calling it "silly." I see no reason not to throw such a justification out on its ass, since I see no causal relation between "skin color" and "moral worth."

Hello, can you really paint me a world without ANY society when anyone is going to be getting "a job"?

I was actually considering that to be a freebie from me to you, since you hadn't provided any societally-independent example in which the inequality of one person being more intelligent than another would come into play (this being one of the inequalities that you'd mentioned). I just took it as a fair assumption that such an inequality could play a part in a state of nature, and didn't see much point in pressing you to provide a specific example. If you want, then I can retract the freebie and insist that you provide an example in which an inequality of intelligence would play a role in a state of nature -- then, simply insert this example in place of my "getting a job" example. Or, we can just take it as read that such an example probably does exist, but that there's not much point in hashing it out, and then, for the sake of simplicity, we can stick to examples (with respect to inequality of intelligence) that needn't necessarily be societally independent.

Whether it is an all or nothign things is somewhat irrelevant, unless you can possit some arguement here why the two neighbors should expect reciprocity as far as not killing each other given what they KNOW, and what they have the ability to infer, or guess, given their condition (one in which we are assuming NO Society, and thus no guarantee of shared values).

Given what they know in the hypothetical, they can infer nothing more than that the neighbor has the same desires as they do (I'm assuming there that they know that their neighbor is a human). There's certainly no guarantee that this is the case -- hence the reason why people will tend to form societies (in an attempt to better guarantee that everybody shares the same desires). But given the incomplete knowledge held by both parties, there is no reason for either to infer that the other party has different knowledge/beliefs/desires, hence they would naturally expect reciprocity.

I will say loinburger that while I have found this particular arguement with you most annoying and frustrating, this emnity is only in this very thread and not anywhere else

I agree completely. As far as I'm concerned, it's not possible to draw "real" blood (or develop a "real" enmity) in a debate -- the worst that you can do is to say that you don't like the other guy's position or that the other guy's position is stupid or whatever, but all things considered, BFD. So we didn't arrive at the ultimate truth behind Life, The Universe, And Everything in this particular debate -- such is life. (It's worth noting that all of my good friends and I have bloodied our noses in one or more debates at some time or another, though often we're all drunk at the time. There's just something about alcohol that brings out the piss and vinegar in me.)