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 bull****, 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 bull****, 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 bull**** 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?