"Natural rights"?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It is 'wrong' to kill because it undermines society, not because of any moral precept.

The act of communication presupposes some level of reciprocity, therefore unjustly killing another when one wishes not to be killed is inconsistent and thus immoral.

[OzzyKP]

Please do a better job of convincing me of natural rights and universals. I truly want to believe. But telling me that natural rights are right and those who disagree are wrong isn't a good argument in my opinion.

I truly want something more substantial than the Nietzschian view that there is nothing other than power and strength. I think this is a very base view of the world. I'd hate for it to be correct. But logically I find it difficult to support some mystical, universal account for rights that exist whether or not anyone acknowledges or protects them.

[chequita guevara]

Loinburger, Imran is correct when he says morals are relative. I could be Fred Phelps, and think "******s have no right to live," and go kill them. Unless gay people have some group that will intervene upon their behalf or take revenge if they are killed anyways, there will be nothing to stop the moral Fred Phelp's of the world from trying to kill as many gays for God as they can.

Imran labels that group the state, which is correct in the practical sense, in that if the state does not recognize your rights, you ain't got them. I label that group, society, of which the state is a representative. however, I'm arguing on a more abstract layer on this point.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The act of communication presupposes some level of reciprocity, therefore unjustly killing another when one wishes not to be killed is inconsistent and thus immoral.

Immoral to you perhaps... but someone that killed Hitler in 1933, while not wanting to be killed himself... many would say he was not immoral.

As you see... morals are relative... as Ozzy states... power is what exists in the world... all the morality comes from those who are the most powerful or have been the powerful in the past.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by loinburger
The act of communication presupposes some level of reciprocity, therefore unjustly killing another when one wishes not to be killed is inconsistent and thus immoral.

My definition of unjust may be different from yours.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I label that group, society, of which the state is a representative. however, I'm arguing on a more abstract layer on this point.

Well yes, che, but then that state is a representative of the society... the state is still the ultimate giver and taker-away of rights. There still does need to be authority. The group really can't enfore morals, even in mob form, unless there is a state apparatus.

[chequita guevara]

I agree.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
As you see... morals are relative... as Ozzy states... power is what exists in the world... all the morality comes from those who are the most powerful or have been the powerful in the past.

Those weren't my words, those were from Nietzsche. I truly don't want to believe in him and what he stands for. It seems to be a terrible conception of humanity. But I'm still trying to come up with something that makes more logical sense. So help me out all of you universalists.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Please do a better job of convincing me of natural rights and universals. I truly want to believe. But telling me that natural rights are right and those who disagree are wrong isn't a good argument in my opinion.

Habermas doesn't argue for natural rights, but he argues for something pretty close to them. Read Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action if you're interested in breaking the Nietzsche habit.

I truly want something more substantial than the Nietzschian view that there is nothing other than power and strength. I think this is a very base view of the world. I'd hate for it to be correct. But logically I find it difficult to support some mystical, universal account for rights that exist whether or not anyone acknowledges or protects them.

-Premise 1: Humans are social creatures--they communicate with one another.

-Premise 2: The act of communication presupposes some level of reciprocity between the participants in communication, particularly in argumentation (an argument without reciprocity is not an argument). Failure to presuppose some level of reciprocity results in failure to communicate, thus violating the first premise.

-Premise 3: Wickedness is not some mystical force that permeates the universe, but a term that humans have come up with to describe actions that cause moral indignation. It is an objective, not universal, term used to describe actions, specifically those actions taken by others that are intended to unjustifiably harm us.

-Premise 4: Humans do not wish others to be wicked to them, meaning that we do not wish to be unjustly killed, enslaved, or robbed.

-Conclusion: Humans therefore may not unjustifiably kill, enslave, or rob other humans. Failure to do so violates the presuppositions that are necessary for communication, thus performing actions unto others that one would call "wicked" when performed by others is inconsistent and immoral behavior.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Immoral to you perhaps... but someone that killed Hitler in 1933, while not wanting to be killed himself... many would say he was not immoral.

That is because someone who killed Hitler in 1933 would have a reasonable justification for his actions. If Speer were to kill Floyd because they disagree then Speer's justification is unreasonable and killing Floyd would be immoral.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Loinburger, Imran is correct when he says morals are relative. I could be Fred Phelps, and think "******s have no right to live," and go kill them. Unless gay people have some group that will intervene upon their behalf or take revenge if they are killed anyways, there will be nothing to stop the moral Fred Phelp's of the world from trying to kill as many gays for God as they can.

His lack of punishment wouldn't alter the fact that Phelps would be behaving inconsistently.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Imran is correct when he says morals are relative. I could be Fred Phelps, and think "******s have no right to live," and go kill them. Unless gay people have some group that will intervene upon their behalf or take revenge if they are killed anyways, there will be nothing to stop the moral Fred Phelp's of the world from trying to kill as many gays for God as they can.

How does this prove that morals are relative in any sense of the word?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
My definition of unjust may be different from yours.

"unjust" is an objective term, so your definition must adhere (more or less) to the dictionary (i.e. "unjust" more or less equates to "unfair"). This is just like the terms "wicked" and "righteous," which must also more or less adhere to the dictionary.

Making up new oddball definitions for these words works about as well as making up new oddball definitions for any other words; if I said "from now on, when I say 'nation,' I'm really talking about a 'teacup,' and when I say 'teacup' I'm really talking about a 'nation'" then you'd all say something along the lines of "Go play in the street" and ignore me.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by loinburger
-Premise 1: Humans are social creatures--they communicate with one another.

-Premise 2: The act of communication presupposes some level of reciprocity between the participants in communication, particularly in argumentation (an argument without reciprocity is not an argument). Failure to presuppose some level of reciprocity results in failure to communicate, thus violating the first premise.

-Premise 3: Wickedness is not some mystical force that permeates the universe, but a term that humans have come up with to describe actions that cause moral indignation. It is an objective, not universal, term used to describe actions, specifically those actions taken by others that are intended to unjustifiably harm us.

-Premise 4: Humans do not wish others to be wicked to them, meaning that we do not wish to be unjustly killed, enslaved, or robbed.

-Conclusion: Humans therefore may not unjustifiably kill, enslave, or rob other humans. Failure to do so violates the presuppositions that are necessary for communication, thus performing actions unto others that one would call "wicked" when performed by others is inconsistent and immoral behavior.

Firstly I don't see how "wickedness" is an objective term. It seems entirely relitive to me. The Palestinians would say the Israelis are wicked, the Israelis would say the Palestinians are wicked, and outsiders may say they are both "immoral and inconsistent".

Putting that aside, if one were to assume that there could be some objective standard for wickedness, then to follow your chain down to the conclusion the only result of doing wicked actions is to be labeled "inconsistent and immoral." Well, so what? I'm sure the Israelis and Palestinians would just laugh it off.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by loinburger


"unjust" is an objective term, so your definition must adhere (more or less) to the dictionary (i.e. "unjust" more or less equates to "unfair"). This is just like the terms "wicked" and "righteous," which must also more or less adhere to the dictionary.

Making up new oddball definitions for these words works about as well as making up new oddball definitions for any other words; if I said "from now on, when I say 'nation,' I'm really talking about a 'teacup,' and when I say 'teacup' I'm really talking about a 'nation'" then you'd all say something along the lines of "Go play in the street" and ignore me.

The dictionary defines terms generally, it doesn't apply them to real world situations.

"Hey Hitler, you are a murderer!" - "No I'm not, killing Jews isn't murder, they aren't really people."

"Hey Biggot, you are a murderer!" - "No I'm not, killing Blacks isn't murder, they aren't really people."

"Hey Abortion Doctor, you are a murderer!" - "No I'm not, killing Fetus' isn't murder, they aren't really people."


"Hey Israeli, you are a murderer!" - "No I'm not, the Palestinians started it, I'm just protecting myself."

"Hey Palestinian, you are a murderer!" - "No I'm not, the Israelis started it, I'm just protecting myself."