Natural Rights

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
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.

You provided facts, but you then employed these facts in forming a justification. "The sky is blue" is a fact. "The sky is blue, therefore it is a nice day, therefore I shall go play outside" is a justification using facts. Facts are meaningless until they are employed in reasoning, and to do so requires a justification.

but it never justifies, not to itself, not to anyone:

The programmer is the one who has to justify his programming decisions. "I want my algorithm to do [x], therefore I have programmed it to do tasks {a, b, c} in that order" is the reasoning employed by the programmer. Are you arguing that humans have no free will, but are simply programs designed by somebody else (or that have spontaneously formed)?

I want to be there, X is the fastest way, I will take X.

I've bolded the justification. It is implied that you are taking X because it is the fastest way, otherwise the bolded fact is useless in your decision process. "I want to be there, my hair is orange, I will take X" is not reasonable because the implicit justification is faulty (unless additional facts are given, e.g., "I want to be there, my hair is orange, people with orange hair who take X get free ice cream, I like ice cream, I will take X"). Facts are useless without some means of applying them.

NOw, let me backtract here ebcuase I never said that equaility was presupposed in this case.

I never said that equality was presupposed, I said that the earlier discussion as to whether concepts such as "equality" or "fairness" could exist in a pre-society left off at the conclusion that these concepts could indeed exist.

I made the assumption that both people would share a bare bones moral code...
...I never said they come into the picture thinking of themselves as equals, and why should they, when they are demonstrably different?

You're mixing arguments. You said "look at the very word, "justify", can such a word be utterly separate from its very roots, Justice? But we live in a situation before justice." which would imply that the term "justice" (and hence "justification") could not exist without the term "law."

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?

In what way isn't their sense of righteousness shared? How did each arrive at these senses of righteousness? You cannot simply take it as read that both parties have different yet equally well-justified senses of the term "righteousness" for the same reason that you cannot simply take it as read that it is possible that X implies Y.

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?

You couldn't prove it to be so -- a sloth would presumably never act out of malice.

Equality among all members is not real.

I've granted this as being the case, but you still haven't justified how moral 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.

You'll need to better qualify this statement before I'll accept it.

AsI said above, there is no natural inference of equality.

You said (bolding is my own):

Previously posted by Gepap
If we view man as atoms, as distinctly alone, seperate from each other, if we accept the notion that all of men's social structures are created by different atoms choosing to come together (as opposed to naturally occuring structures, or artifical structures being built upon natural foundations) then you have to assume alienism between the atoms coming together, becuase anythign else is not rational.

Your justification as to why there is not a natural inference of equality is flawed, because "natural foundations" = "the default inference of equality" = "the default behavior of reciprocity." You've provided a working justification for how society can form from a state of nature -- it is an artifical structure (e.g. a set of laws) built upon natural foundations (the default inference of equality).

"natural" moral codes built aroudn a social structure would also emphasize the needs of the whole

Why?

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:

The soldier example is flawed, since you can't have soldiers in a state of nature.

[Odin]

Berserker's Libertarianism sickens me, the idea of natural rights is so anthropocentric, other organisms don't have natural rights, why should we? Humans are just one of 100 million species on this planet, we are no more special than all the reast, dispite what people want to believe (stupid religious nuts and Creationists ). As I sead before, people who talk about natural rights are, or have been duped by, religious nuts or people with a political ax to grind.

[Odin]

Berserker,

You provide no evidence, YOU PROVIDE NOTHING, yet you want to distroy Biology... You criminal.

[David Floyd]

Berserker's Libertarianism sickens me, the idea of natural rights is so anthropocentric, other organisms don't have natural rights, why should we? Humans are just one of 100 million species on this planet, we are no more special than all the reast, dispite what people want to believe

OK, so when a rabid dog gets out of a yard, bites you, and gives you rabies, you're gonna sue the dog instead of the owner, right? And when a lion escapes from its cage at the zoo and mauls you, surely the lion should stand trial for assault? But of course, since animals and humans have the same rights, zoos are immoral anyway, aren't they?

[Berzerker]

Odin -

Berserker's Libertarianism sickens me, the idea of natural rights is so anthropocentric, other organisms don't have natural rights, why should we?

Hitler and Stalin shared your contempt for natural rights. Will you do as they if given the power?

Humans are just one of 100 million species on this planet, we are no more special than all the reast, dispite what people want to believe (stupid religious nuts and Creationists ).

I'm neither of those, and the fact humans are but one of many species doesn't mean we cannot recognise and respect the moral claims - "rights" - we have against others. Now, unless you believe humans have no moral claims against other people murdering us regardless of what government says, upon what basis would you condemn the likes of Hitler and Stalin?

As I sead before, people who talk about natural rights are, or have been duped by, religious nuts or people with a political ax to grind.

Can I grind that axe on your skull? What's that? No? Because you have a right not to be used as an axe sharpener? Hmm... how do you explain that?

You provide no evidence, YOU PROVIDE NOTHING, yet you want to distroy Biology... You criminal.

I want to destroy biology? And to think we viewed you as a God.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Odin
Berserker's Libertarianism sickens me, the idea of natural rights is so anthropocentric, other organisms don't have natural rights, why should we? Humans are just one of 100 million species on this planet, we are no more special than all the reast, dispite what people want to believe (stupid religious nuts and Creationists ). As I sead before, people who talk about natural rights are, or have been duped by, religious nuts or people with a political ax to grind.

Humans are superior to animals that roam the earth. Look at what man has been able to do, no animal could come close.
First off many people who dont believe in God still uphold human rights, why? In order to have a civilized world were people can live in. We are not simply anther animal on the earth that fights with each other in order to see who is the best and surivive. Humans are more then that.

One place our rights are based on is on a basic and universal morals that all people in the world hold. It is called a conscience. We all have one. I am sorry that you hate human rights so much, but we chose to have human rights because we civilization realizes that humans have worth, that they are not simply anther type of animal, that each life is worth something. That all humans are equal.

Also I think religion greatest gifts to the world is the idea of Human rights and that human life is worth something and is to be respected.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

You provided facts, but you then employed these facts in forming a justification. "The sky is blue" is a fact. "The sky is blue, therefore it is a nice day, therefore I shall go play outside" is a justification using facts. Facts are meaningless until they are employed in reasoning, and to do so requires a justification.

"The sky is blue, it is a nice day". There is no justification there. If you define "nice day" to equal "sky is blue", then all you did was say "it is A, and A=B, so it is also B", and no, that is not a justification, that is a proof. Fine, if you add a "therefore", it becomes a justification, but the therefore is NOT needed.

The programmer is the one who has to justify his programming decisions. "I want my algorithm to do [x], therefore I have programmed it to do tasks {a, b, c} in that order" is the reasoning employed by the programmer. Are you arguing that humans have no free will, but are simply programs designed by somebody else (or that have spontaneously formed)?

Who cares about the programmer? We don;t program ourselves (not to a great extent) so we are the AI, without any programmer who made any consiocus decision, which is necessary for him to e able to "justify" anything.

I've bolded the justification. It is implied that you are taking X because it is the fastest way, otherwise the bolded fact is useless in your decision process. "I want to be there, my hair is orange, I will take X" is not reasonable because the implicit justification is faulty (unless additional facts are given, e.g., "I want to be there, my hair is orange, people with orange hair who take X get free ice cream, I like ice cream, I will take X"). Facts are useless without some means of applying them.

Whether X is the fastest way does not need any justfication. The shortest route from a to z in a plane is a streight line: that is not a justificastion, that i a statement of fact. I want to get there fast, I will take the fastest route: that is a decision, sans "justification". "justifying" is not necessary for reason, and honestly, I do not know where this comes from, this universal link between justification and reason.

I never said that equality was presupposed, I said that the earlier discussion as to whether concepts such as "equality" or "fairness" could exist in a pre-society left off at the conclusion that these concepts could indeed exist.

You think that is were it ended. "Equality" maybe, certainly not "fairness".

You're mixing arguments. You said "look at the very word, "justify", can such a word be utterly separate from its very roots, Justice? But we live in a situation before justice." which would imply that the term "justice" (and hence "justification") could not exist without the term "law."

And can it? Once you have a sense of what is just and what is not, is not the next step to make rules about it? I can't very weel imagine a system in which we say :that is just, but it is fine for you to do so....no consquences! What then is the point of the distinction?

In what way isn't their sense of righteousness shared? How did each arrive at these senses of righteousness? You cannot simply take it as read that both parties have different yet equally well-justified senses of the term "righteousness" for the same reason that you cannot simply take it as read that it is possible that X implies Y.

In what way is it shared? How did each arrive at thier sense of rightteousness? Perchance by reaosning based on the evidence they gather form thier own sense: even if we assume equality of basic assumptions and equal sensory ability, being two distinct individuals, they wil have distinct and different experiences, different evidence, and it is not reasonable to believe that two individual with different evidence will draw the same conclusion.

You couldn't prove it to be so -- a sloth would presumably never act out of malice.

How much do we know of sloths? But I satdn by the point: some characteristics can be examined without anything mroe than your 5 senses.

I've granted this as being the case, but you still haven't justified how moral equality among all members is not real.

How could there be moral equality among unequal members of the society? The leader has more improtant things to decide than a follower, and an individual is leader becuase it has shown superiority over others in those things the group values. A leader has more responsibility than anyone else: how could an individual of equal moral weight be given more responsibility than others? Why should others accept the decsions made if they believe that individual to be equal to them? NO, in a society with a hierarchy the leader is of greater worth, and at leastnfor that moment, that also implies to greater moral worth.

You'll need to better qualify this statement before I'll accept it.

Why? If we accept the survival of the whole is more important than that of any member, then it is moral to sacrefice or toehrwise endanger members if in doing so the whole will be protected.

Your justification as to why there is not a natural inference of equality is flawed, because "natural foundations" = "the default inference of equality" = "the default behavior of reciprocity." You've provided a working justification for how society can form from a state of nature -- it is an artifical structure (e.g. a set of laws) built upon natural foundations (the default inference of equality).

No. Society is the state of nature, there is nothing prior to it. The natural foudnations would be norms, cutoms, and taboo's that maintain the social structure of primitive groups; These things may be later codified into LAW, yes, but the foundations remians a social convention, since man is a social being.

Why?

Becuase since man as a speacies can not exist outside of social groups, the surviva and perpetuation of these groups is the most important thing of all. Individuals may find immortality through sex, but only within society, sicne raising human children does in the words of Hillary, "take a village".

The soldier example is flawed, since you can't have soldiers in a state of nature.

If the state of nature of man is social, then "soldier", or warrior, is a natural part to be played when different human bands interact.

Beofre more parcel post, two things:

I do not accept how you claim that all reasoning is "justifying". They are two distinct things to me, something can be justified even if inherently irrational, and some decison can be rational, even if it casn not be justified.

Two, the natural state of man is social, not alone. For that there is plenty of anthorpological evidence.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Odin
Berserker,

You provide no evidence, YOU PROVIDE NOTHING, yet you want to distroy Biology... You criminal.

There are somethings that you cant use science to prove. Science is to study the world arround us. Allthough you could use science to prove that humans are superior to animals and things of this sort. I mean what kind of proof do you want that all humans have basic rights?

[GePap]

Hey Bezr, dont' expect an answer to that parcel post: I answred your questions to the best of your ability, so for me that is done.

But I do have a little riddle.

We have three men, one with a bag, one with a plow, one with a scythe.

Man one walks throught a field of wild grain, and picks seeds, which he puts in his bag. He arrives at an open and fertile field. He empties his bag, leaving a pile of seeds on the field. He walsk off for a moment. The second man comes by, with a plow. He see's the seeds, so he plows the field and plants the seeds. he goes of for a while. The third man comes over, with a scythe. He sees a field of grain, so he harvests it. As he is walking away with the harvest, the other two men come back. Who owns the grain?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Odin
As I sead before, people who talk about natural rights are, or have been duped by, religious nuts or people with a political ax to grind.

I'm an atheist, I'm left of center economically, and you're a twit.

Originally posted by GePap
"The sky is blue, it is a nice day". There is no justification there. If you define "nice day" to equal "sky is blue", then all you did was say "it is A, and A=B, so it is also B", and no, that is not a justification, that is a proof.

"The sky is blue, it is a nice day" is a justification for the conclusion that it is a nice day. "It is a nice day, I will go outside to play" is a justification for the action of going outside to play.

Fine, if you add a "therefore", it becomes a justification, but the therefore is NOT needed.

Correct, "therefore" can be implied as well. It needn't be explicitly stated.

Who cares about the programmer? We don;t program ourselves (not to a great extent) so we are the AI, without any programmer who made any consiocus decision, which is necessary for him to e able to "justify" anything.

Are you arguing that everything that humans do is a stimulus-response reflex? A reflex certainly doesn't need to be justified, because a reflex is irrational. So, if we're nothing but a complex set of reflexes, then we're irrational.

Whether X is the fastest way does not need any justfication. The shortest route from a to z in a plane is a streight line: that is not a justificastion, that i a statement of fact.

The second sentence is a justification for the conclusion that X is the fastest route (assuming that X is a straight line). It is a statement of fact, but it is being used to justify the choice of X as a route.

I want to get there fast, I will take the fastest route: that is a decision, sans "justification".

The justification is implied in the terms that you are using: the fastest route will get you there fast, by definition. "I want to get there fast, I will take the slowest route" is a decision with an inferior justification (assuming that there is no additional data available), since the slowest route will not get you there fast, by definition.

And can it? Once you have a sense of what is just and what is not, is not the next step to make rules about it?

You've answered your own question. If the next step is to create laws, then justice exists prior to laws.

In what way is it shared?

Each recognizes the other's desire not to be killed without just cause. They arrived at this conclusion through their desire to not be killed, to their recognition of reciprocity, and to their default inference of equality. Perhaps other aspects of their moral systems are not shared (e.g., "I say that I have a right to this orchard" or "I say that you only have a right to the portion of the orchard that you're using"), but what matters is that they each recognize the other's right to life.

How much do we know of sloths?

They're mammals, they're herbivores, they hang from trees, and they move incredibly slowly (hence the name "sloth").

A leader has more responsibility than anyone else: how could an individual of equal moral weight be given more responsibility than others?

Does the leader have greater moral worth by virtue of the fact that he is the leader, or is he the leader by virtue of the fact that he has greater moral worth? If the former, then how is the leader chosen (your question seems to imply that the leader was chosen because he has greater moral worth)? If the latter, then your reasoning is circular -- "the leader has greater moral worth because he is the leader because he has greater moral worth" is not sound reasoning.

Why? If we accept the survival of the whole is more important than that of any member

When did we accept this?

I do not accept how you claim that all reasoning is "justifying". They are two distinct things to me, something can be justified even if inherently irrational, and some decison can be rational, even if it casn not be justified.

I don't understand why you're claiming that there is a difference. To justify means "to prove to be valid" or "to provide sufficient reason for." If an act of reasoning is not justified, then this means that the act of reasoning is insufficient (i.e. inferior). Hence, sound reasoning is reasoning that is justified. What's the problem?

Two, the natural state of man is social, not alone. For that there is plenty of anthorpological evidence.

This is true, but fails to address the point that equality is the default inference (you haven't provided a workable alternative, since "alienism" is not workable), as well as the point that reciprocity is still required in order to maintain internal consistency. Additionally, regardless of whether the state of nature is "social," the state of nature is still "anarchy" (i.e. pre-legal), since a. there is no "natural" heirarchical system within a given society, and b. there is no "natural" inter-societal heirarchy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

One wonders why people are actually quoting and debating a mocking of a Fez quote .

[loinburger]

Alas, not enough people have it in their sigs. Some people are still out of the loop.

And I'm not prepared to remove Wimp Lo for the likes of Fez...

[GePap]

I won;t parcel post:

On the issue of "justification" I do not agree with your use of the word at all, and as far as I can see, we will reach no conclusion on that.

When you said "The second sentence is a justification for the conclusion that X is the fastest route (assuming that X is a straight line). It is a statement of fact, but it is being used to justify the choice of X as a route.", that for me is enought to see a conclusion on this can not be reached, as we differ fundamentally on how we use and understand the term "justify". I see no act of justification, to myself or anyone else, whatsoever, even inherent in what i said.

I don't understand why you're claiming that there is a difference. To justify means "to prove to be valid" or "to provide sufficient reason for." If an act of reasoning is not justified, then this means that the act of reasoning is insufficient (i.e. inferior). Hence, sound reasoning is reasoning that is justified. What's the problem?

Justify meas to "show to be just, right, or in accordance with reason, vindicate: to free form blame, warrant, absolve" There are moral connotations to justify" which i do not think have a place in the discussion. After all, "proven" means "know to be valid", but "valid" means: "Having legal force: Well grounded on principles or evidence; sound arguement.". There is no mention of morality in the notion of "valid", but it does exist in "justified". To sue the word justified then adds a moral dimension which i think can then be missused.

On the "default inference of equality;: that depends on the notion that each individual will believe the other to be a fellow human being: But outside of society. what "proof" do you have for that? What could early man base his beliefs on? The most basic evidence you can use is sensual evidence: what you can see, hear, smell, touch, and taste. Now look at someone who is not you: how much sensual evidence goes to back up the notion that both fo you are "human beings", and that that is enogh to warrant a belief in equality? And lets be ncie and have a member of your own sex. You both have the same overall plan, (face, torse, two arms, two legs, 2 eyes, ears, 1 nose, mouth, plentyful hair in some places, little in others). But each feature is distinct on either individual (the eyes, skin, hair likely to be different shades, not the same height, weight, different smell, different texture to the skin, won;t sound alike), and this is if you speak fo the same sex: now take members of the opposite sex: then the overall frame does not even match. So why on earth would early man, if they only evidence they can gather is sensual, think of equality, when more things point to inequality? Now you may say this is not "deep", but how could they gather "deeper" evidence? How would "deeper" evidence be more valid than that which is all to apparent and obvious and clear? t taes a certain leap of logic to come to beieve that sharing the same overall plan is "more important" than the obvious difference (just look at our race threads), and I do not think this ia a "natural" jump.

Ss for the idea that society has no natural hierachy: if anything thsi argues aainst "natural rights", since if man had one given hierarchy, you could claim it to be "natural", and customs and such that maintain it to be "natural", hence any "rights' derived from said customs would be "natural"

Now, just as I think you too broadly use "justify", I think you narrowly define LAW, as only legal codes and cops and courts and so forth. I would NOT call pre-law days anarchy: anarchy is the absence of authority, not of law. Even before law there are societally shared norms, customs, tabboos which as society changes to accomodate significant shifts may turn into codefied laws. If one wants to argue rights are natural, it would help if all human groups shared the same norms, customs, tabboos, becuase then you can say that is "natural human behavior" (like you can for ants and such), and thus call any rights that come from said norms to be "natural", but as you pointed elsewhere, you do not view all huamn groups as having the same customs, norms, tabboos.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Gepap
that depends on the notion that each individual will believe the other to be a fellow human being

I see no point to getting into this facet of the argument unless you concede that two humans who recognize each other as human will employ a default inference of equality. Otherwise all I can hope to do is prove that two humans will naturally recognize each other as human, and then you'll just return to the position that these humans won't employ a default inference of equality.

Ss for the idea that society has no natural hierachy: if anything thsi argues aainst "natural rights", since if man had one given hierarchy, you could claim it to be "natural", and customs and such that maintain it to be "natural", hence any "rights' derived from said customs would be "natural"

Therefore, since man has no one given heirarchy, he derives his rights from the lack of a natural heirarchy, i.e. his rights are derived from reciprocal equality (and not some "divine right of kings" or whatever).

As for my use of definitions: I'm not the one who's using justify in too broad a sense. On the contrary, I'm using it in a very narrow sense (I've been careful to use "morally justified" when I intended the term to be used in the broader moral sense), and you're assigning a much broader definition to it. "Rationalize" would be a fine term if not for the "To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one's behavior" definition, which is wholly inappropriate. If you provide me with an alternative term that fits the narrow definition of "justify" that I'm using, then I'll use it. Otherwise, there's not much point in continuing this debate if I'm not even allowed to state my position.

[Berzerker]

Gepap -

Hey Bezr, dont' expect an answer to that parcel post: I answred your questions to the best of your ability, so for me that is done.

You didn't answer my questions to the best of my ability, you avoided them to the best of your ability. As for "parceling" posts, go right ahead and explain how your posts are any different than mine or Loin's (except of course for the fact that we answer your questions).

But I do have a little riddle.

We have three men, one with a bag, one with a plow, one with a scythe.

Man one walks throught a field of wild grain, and picks seeds, which he puts in his bag. He arrives at an open and fertile field. He empties his bag, leaving a pile of seeds on the field. He walsk off for a moment. The second man comes by, with a plow. He see's the seeds, so he plows the field and plants the seeds. he goes of for a while. The third man comes over, with a scythe. He sees a field of grain, so he harvests it. As he is walking away with the harvest, the other two men come back. Who owns the grain?

You want me to answer your questions while you keep avoiding mine? Any answer I give you'll dispute only to ignore any questions or arguments I offer as support. But the first man owns the crop since he was the first one there and he came back to plant the seeds he gathered. Now, give us a definition of "parse" so we can see you "murder" that too...