Bill O'Reilly sez you're unpatriotic if...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Aggie -

A right is a moral claim to act... So, from where does this moral claim to act derive?

I don't think that people other than philosophers really need to worry about this. It so happens that there is virtual unanimity amongst people with regard to what is right and what is wrong. I know that sounds a strange thing to say, but it is true - we only notice the few things about which there is strong disagreement.

Moral beliefs are pretty much like other beliefs: the vast majority of beliefs are shared by everyone (it's what makes it possible for us to communicate - but that is another story). Again, the things about which we disagree attract more attention, but that does not change the fact that we fundamentally agree about most things.

The state? Society?

Neither. If we want an explanation of why we have moral beliefs, that explanation is likely to be found in evolutionary psychology. It is quite easy to prove that total selfishness is not an evolutionary successful strategy. That's why some degree of altruism has been selected for.

But what you want is a justification of our moral beliefs, rather than an explanation of why we have them. But this project is radically misconceived - it is like asking whether one is justified in disliking pain - we just do dislike pain.

One reason people hope to construct a justification for a particular moral point of view is that they hope to come up with a purely non-moral justification of morality which can then be given to amoral people in order to make them moral. But I don't think that this will ever work. Psychopaths, for example, are people who just cannot understand the idea that the interests of others matter - no amount of argument is going to change that, just as no amount of argument is going to enable a colour blind man distinguish red and green properly. So it's kind of weird that people would feel in need of such justifications.

One popular strategy is to try to provide self-interested reasons for behaving morally. To some degree this works, but it doesn't work when we most need it to - that is, when someone is in a position to escape sanctions. If everyone acted this way, we would also face massive collective action problems and we would all be worse off (in just the same way that radical selfishness is not an evolutionary successful trait).

The only reasonable response to this is that we just do have moral beliefs. These are often inconsistent and new technologies often provide us with problems that the old rules can't deal with, but that's all we have. If there is a grand philosophical project here, it is that of trying to systematize our moral beliefs in terms of basic principles. The two chief candidates for this are deontological theories and consequentialist theories. Rights based theories are a kind of deontological theory.

But as I have argued endlessly on this forum, such theories raise ridiculous counterexamples and really only make sense from a religious point of view. Another reason that they don't help much is that they are relatively inflexible because they view morality as a system of rules. Even the Stoics, who invented the idea of natural law, balked at the idea of morality as a system of rules like a law code - their view was much more flexible. We can see why this view of morality doesn't work by looking at the courts - no matter how much you specify the law, there will always be difficult cases that require us to go beyond the prescriptions of the rules.

I don't see the serious debate as one between those who believe that morality can be justified and those who can't, but as regarding which theory captures our ordinary moral judgements in the most systematic and coherent fashion.

Then you have to defend all the crimes committed by states and societies.

Why do I have to defend them? If I don't have an objective justification for any moral view then it strikes me that the question of defending them does not arise for the same reason that I don't have a reason for defending my own view.

You can't, and that's when you rely on natural rights but you just call it something else. Even when Kucinich said the victims of the Nazis had no rights not granted by German society, he concluded they "ought" to have those rights. That is a recognition of natural rights even if he doesn't want to admit it since he acknowledged that rights should have a different source if society fails to create them...

It is not a recognition of natural rights. It may be a recognition of some objective principle of morality, but that doesn't have to be rights based. Both Plato and Aristotle believe that morality has an objective justification, but neither understands morality in terms of rights.

Why invoke some deity that may or may not exist? Do you need the existence of a deity to believe in morality? If not, why can't morality be the basis for rights?

"Because a deity is required to show how goodness can be an objective feature of the world", is one answer. But that is not my objection to rights based theories. My objection is that, if you do not value an action (say, killing someone) by its consequences for human welfare, then you must value it simply as breaking a rule (i.e. breaking the "killing is wrong" rule is bad no matter what the consequences). But if human welfare is not what matters, then what's the reason for the rule? I can understand that killing harms a person, so that why it is wrong, but I can't understand why someone would care more about the breaking of the rule than its effect on the victim. I think the only way to understand the idea of rule breaking as fundamental is to hold that the consequences don't matter because God only cares about the purity of your soul and he sets the rules that particular way as a means of weeding out the good from the bad. That seems to me the only way to understand why someone might think that the actions of the perpetrator are what makes something bad, rather than the effects on the victim.

(virtue ethics is a more difficult case).

Natural rights derive from morality - a right is a moral claim to act. "Rights" are an expression of this binding morality...

I need not disagree with you on this one, but I would say that "rights" are a particularly bad expression of this binding morality because they create numerous counterexamples.

So, what happens when society or the state violates or ignores this objectively binding morality? Do you believe this morality doesn't exist if the state cannot or does not recognise it?

No. It is clear that morality such as it is, exists independently of the state. That is why conflating legality with morality is fallacious.

If not, you're stuck explaining from where this morality derives without using a natural or inherent source, i.e., a morality that exists regardless of what any state says.

No I'm not. I can tell you where our moral sense derives from (evolution), I just can't provide an objective justification for it. It just so happens that things matter to people and that it is impossible to understand this from an objective point of view. Rather one has to be a person to understand this. Think of the example of pain - if an alien who had no sense of value or capacity to feel pain saw us and our pain behaviour, he would be genuinely puzzled as to what was going on. But unless you are a sociopath, being able to understand moral reasons is fundamental to being a person. The degree to which we take these reasons into account differs from person to person, but almost all of us recognize moral reasons and those who do not are not going to be persuaded by any means other than force (which is why we lock them up).

And these few fundamental principles are the basis for rights.

But rights don't capture them very well. If there are fundamental moral principles, these are good candidates:

1) Welfare is the primary good.

2) The welfare of other people matters just as much as my own.

For starters, the Nazis took what did not belong to them. I understand commies have difficulty grasping that given their belief everything belongs to the state.

Or the people - it depends on which commies you are talking about. But I happen to think that property rights are not really primary moral rights. We may justify certain property rights by reference to welfare (i.e. people are better off if they have some form of control over things that is recognized by other persons), but it doesn't follow that these rights are absolute: for example, we may need to forcibly appropriate property in order to achieve other moral goals.

But for those of us who do believe that ownership starts with the individual, their evil is easily quantified.

Ownership never started with the individual. Native societies like the New Zealand Maori would have found this notion of property rights alien to them - in fact they thought the whole idea of property was pretty weird. Tribal societies that do recognize property rights usually do so as communal rights (e.g. this mountain belongs to our community and that one to our neighbours).

I don't see why you think that a commitment to an objective theory of morality necessarily commits us to your peculiar version of it, and I don't see why an objective justification of morality is possible, since one has to be a person to understand what moral value is.

[Berzerker]

Jaguar -

1. No. This means that you´re putting words in his mouth. He didn´t say that supporting the government makes you a patriot.

He said if you believed the US was a terrorist state, you are unpatriotic. That means people who were alive within our lifetimes were unpatriotic for believing the US engaged in terrorism. That reduces patriotism to "love it or leave it" jingoism and requires the patriotic to believe a lie.

He talked about one quality that makes you not be a patriot. There could easily be others: for example, if you support the mass-murdering of fellow citizens, you are also not a patriot.

Yup, and what happens when the state you support in the name of being patriotic supports terrorism? Hence my question...

Also, he never discussed other countries.

I did, does it matter? No, patriotism has a definition that doesn't rely on which country we're talking about.

I necessarily think his definition is good, but, as I have clearly demonstrated, you are using flawed logic.

Um...kay...

Imran -

Um... because otherwise terrorism is every act of violence, and it isn't supposed to be. Have you ever heard of a 'terrorist group' which didn't have a political agenda?

Nope, but that doesn't mean the actual definition is limited only to achieving a political goal. The definition is broader...but not so broad as to include every act of violence.

No, because the IRS doesn't use violence. It may threaten to put you in jail (which is not violence.. even if the police officers have to restrain you if you get rowdy), but they won't kill you or maim you.

They will if you don't comply. Most people feel terror when they learn the IRS is auditing them...

And furthermore, if you want to look at definitions, both Merriam-Webster and American Heritage define terrorism as the UNLAWFUL use of force.

Not Webster's New Collegiate. Do you deny that Saddam terrorised the Iraqi people?

Aggie -

It so happens that there is virtual unanimity amongst people with regard to what is right and what is wrong. I know that sounds a strange thing to say, but it is true - we only notice the few things about which there is strong disagreement.

Moral beliefs are pretty much like other beliefs: the vast majority of beliefs are shared by everyone (it's what makes it possible for us to communicate - but that is another story). Again, the things about which we disagree attract more attention, but that does not change the fact that we fundamentally agree about most things.

And this shared view of morality is the basis for natural rights.

Neither.

Then since morality is the basis for rights, neither the state nor society creates rights cuz neither created morality. They can recognise and respect rights, but they cannot create them... That's why we read in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution language that either overtly states or implies
pre-existing of rights.

If we want an explanation of why we have moral beliefs, that explanation is likely to be found in evolutionary psychology.

The question is not why, but from where morality derives. I'm not talking about the human psyche, I'm talking about what you touched on - those few fundamental principles. What is the logical basis for morality? Then we will understand the basis for rights.

But what you want is a justification of our moral beliefs, rather than an explanation of why we have them. But this project is radically misconceived - it is like asking whether one is justified in disliking pain - we just do dislike pain.

So, would you conclude morality is based on some shared sentiment? This is exactly what I've argued in the past. And given this origin of morality, rights also derive from this shared sentiment.

But as I have argued endlessly on this forum, such theories raise ridiculous counterexamples and really only make sense from a religious point of view.

Then make that argument here and provide these counter-examples. I see no reason to invoke any deity to explain the origin of morality or the rights it creates...

Another reason that they don't help much is that they are relatively inflexible because they view morality as a system of rules.

That's the nature of fundamental principles, they are inflexible. But you said morality depends on these principles... I agree...

Why do I have to defend them? If I don't have an objective justification for any moral view then it strikes me that the question of defending them does not arise for the same reason that I don't have a reason for defending my own view.

If you believe rights are a social construct that depends on society or the state, then you have to defend societies and states that commit crimes against humanity. Why? Because according to you guys, the only rights we have are those granted by society or the state. Therefore, a society that does not grant us a right to be free from slavery has not taken anything from us should we be enslaved. But you certainly won't buy into that argument, so we're back to the problem with your position - rights cannot derive from society or the state, they derive from elsewhere - morality - a shared sentiment - a ~universal sentiment.

It is not a recognition of natural rights. It may be a recognition of some objective principle of morality, but that doesn't have to be rights based. Both Plato and Aristotle believe that morality has an objective justification, but neither understands morality in terms of rights.

Did they even speak of rights? I don't know who was first, but the Framers and their ideological or philosphical benefactors did speak of rights. But rights are tied into morality - a right depends on moral authority - who has it and who does not...

"Because a deity is required to show how goodness can be an objective feature of the world", is one answer.

Why can't we look at the world objectively to see this goodness?

But that is not my objection to rights based theories. My objection is that, if you do not value an action (say, killing someone) by its consequences for human welfare, then you must value it simply as breaking a rule (i.e. breaking the "killing is wrong" rule is bad no matter what the consequences). But if human welfare is not what matters, then what's the reason for the rule? I can understand that killing harms a person, so that why it is wrong, but I can't understand why someone would care more about the breaking of the rule than its effect on the victim.

The rule is, justified rule that is, based on the fact killing harms the individual. How did you conclude rights are based on rules that have no attachment to morality? It's just the opposite...

I think the only way to understand the idea of rule breaking as fundamental is to hold that the consequences don't matter because God only cares about the purity of your soul and he sets the rules that particular way as a means of weeding out the good from the bad. That seems to me the only way to understand why someone might think that the actions of the perpetrator are what makes something bad, rather than the effects on the victim.

It is the effect on the victim that matters...no deity is required...

I need not disagree with you on this one, but I would say that "rights" are a particularly bad expression of this binding morality because they create numerous counterexamples.

Like what?

No. It is clear that morality such as it is, exists independently of the state. That is why conflating legality with morality is fallacious.

But you guys believe rights are a grant from the state - a legality. I'm saying rights are based on morality, therefore they cannot be granted by the state since the state did not create morality.

No I'm not. I can tell you where our moral sense derives from (evolution), I just can't provide an objective justification for it.

Justification is another matter, but I think you have already - shared sentiments. If we agree murder is immoral, then that is a shared sentiment. Even murderers know they wouldn't want to be murdered...

But rights don't capture them very well. If there are fundamental moral principles, these are good candidates:

1) Welfare is the primary good.

2) The welfare of other people matters just as much as my own.

And rights are detached from personal welfare? Seems to me they are directly linked - a right to life, etc...

Or the people - it depends on which commies you are talking about. But I happen to think that property rights are not really primary moral rights. We may justify certain property rights by reference to welfare (i.e. people are better off if they have some form of control over things that is recognized by other persons), but it doesn't follow that these rights are absolute: for example, we may need to forcibly appropriate property in order to achieve other moral goals.

And so the Nazis decided the "moral" goal of ethnic purity justified ethnic cleansing. You open a can of worms when you start down the path of deciding which rights can be ignored and when because some rights aren't "primary" moral rights... But I explained why it was wrong for the Nazis to do what they did, and all I needed was to identify the rightful owner.

Ownership never started with the individual. Native societies like the New Zealand Maori would have found this notion of property rights alien to them - in fact they thought the whole idea of property was pretty weird. Tribal societies that do recognize property rights usually do so as communal rights (e.g. this mountain belongs to our community and that one to our neighbours).

Ownership doesn't preclude "public" property, it merely requires a recognition that some forms of property - starting with the most basic, oneself, belong to the individual. Tribal societies have always recognised the existence of communal and individual property. Who owns you? That rhetorical question is as old as man... If I, as a member of the tribe, made a weapon for killing game, that weapon belonged to me. I may let you borrow it but if the chief walked up and said it was now his, we'd all react the same way - with resentment. That is a shared sentiment...

I don't see why you think that a commitment to an objective theory of morality necessarily commits us to your peculiar version of it, and I don't see why an objective justification of morality is possible, since one has to be a person to understand what moral value is.

And people we are But since when is a recognition of property a peculiar version of morality? Property IS the foundation of morality and the first piece of property anyone owns is themself followed by their labor or time... Third in line is what we presumably want for ourselves - happiness. And there we have the 3 principle natural rights found in the Declaration of Independence - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... (property was originally the third but Jefferson substituted the pursuit of happiness, but property is found in the Constitution since he was not one of the authors of that document).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Your definition is foolish and makes everything terrorism. Terrorism is a very narrow thing.

You don't have to have to have the political goal of changing some govt policy and you don't have to use violence to terrorize someone systematically.

Your desire to narrow the definition of terrorism is politically motivated, because you love authority.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You don't have to have to have the political goal of changing some govt policy and you don't have to use violence to terrorize someone systematically.

But you do in order for it to be called 'terrorism'.

Your desire to narrow the definition of terrorism is politically motivated, because you love authority.

Your desire to broaden the definition of terrorism is politically motivated, because you want to pin the pejorative word on state actions which you dislike.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Your desire to broaden the definition of terrorism is politically motivated, because you want to pin the pejorative word on state actions which you dislike.

If I want to use the term to describe the use of systematic terror and I don't that would just be politically correct, and that's not me.

[GePap]

I would add this:

Terrorism is a subset of political violence-, or, as it seem rather obvious, violence conducted with a political aim. War falls within this category. Internal repression falls within this category. Obviously so does Genocide.

What the word terrorism connotes is a sense that the violence is illegitimate. Now, that means violence by itself is not inherently illegitimate- you can kill people as long as you kill them "lawfully"-the difference between an execution and a murder.

So what counts as terrorism boils down to what violence is deemed illegitimate. Lets take internal repression. Almost be definition this is not terrorism since the State has the right to set laws, and enforce them. If the law says you can;t badmouth glorious leader, and you get arreste dfor doing so, well- nasty, not illegitimate.

Obviously though different people will have different ideas about what is legitimate-which is why we get into debates like this-and why everyone tries to paint themselves as the aggrieved legitimate party and the other guy as the terrorist.

[Kuciwalker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Berzerker
Kucinich -

Nor was Spain, you said Spain blew up the Maine.[/q]

In order to show that the US wasn't responsible. I don't care whether or not it was Spain or an engine accident; it's irrelevent. Spain being a terrorist state is not the question.

But that "ought" is a recognition of a moral claim - the moral claim or "right" to live. You just said they should have had a right to live inspite of what "society" said, therefore, this right to live derives from a source other than society. And you're wrong, they did have a right to live, that's why the Nazis are condemned - human rights violations on a massive scale. Remember, a right is a moral claim to act, the fact someone out there may murder you does not mean you never had a right to live, it only means the murderer violated your right to live.

I should have said "you can say they ought to have"; I'm sorry. I was not making a claim about what rights someone ought to have, I was demonstrating the difference between actually having a right and claiming that you ought to have that right.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by David Floyd
How?

By putting the Japanese in such a position that they would end the war! It is possible to predict someone else's response to your actions.

So is that it? Are you, ultimately, arguing that it is OK to kill x number of people today in the hopes that your murders will prevent the deaths of a larger number of people in the future?

Uh, duh, yes. Especially if the X people are a subset of those who will die if you don't kill them.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The US is responsible for spreading fear to get people to support a war. That is terrorism.

I take it back; even Andorra is a terrorist state, then. I mean, they have the fear of being put in jail in order for people to obey the law! What evil people!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
What the word terrorism connotes is a sense that the violence is illegitimate.

Do you consider all state action legitimate? What if they break the the law or cultural guidlines?

[David Floyd]

By putting the Japanese in such a position that they would end the war! It is possible to predict someone else's response to your actions.

But objectively speaking, the atomic bomb killed less people (at least immediately) than many of the firebombings did. The US had already put Japan in a position where any reasonable person or government would end the war many times over.

Uh, duh, yes. Especially if the X people are a subset of those who will die if you don't kill them.

Who said anything about those you kill necessarily being a subset of those who will die in the future? Don't change the example - not that I believe that is moral either, because murder is never moral, but let's stick to the example.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kucinich




I take it back; even Andorra is a terrorist state, then. I mean, they have the fear of being put in jail in order for people to obey the law! What evil people!

I don't see it black and white. I do believe that the govt has to maintain order, but they often cross into relying on the fear of their citizens rather than the expectation of them to obey and respect the law especially when they have been up to no good in the first place.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Not quite the same. It would be the equivalent of training the hit man but not necessarily engaging the hit man to contract.

Again I don't know the extent to which the US had operational control. So the illustration may be bad.

It's sometimes amusing to see the acrobatics that some people do in order to explain away the activities of this notorious institution.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't see it black and white.

LIAR!

You see it as US = black, everyone else - US "lackeys" = white.

[Sava]

Considering the scare-tactics used by the media to justify the war in Iraq... and the constant daily terror warnings (my new favorite is that terrorists will use beer coolers in daring marine attacks ); America could be defined as a terrorist state. But only because it terrorizes its own public in order to sway opinion.