"Natural rights"?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The slave argument. Africa is a ****hole... the civilizations suck. Therefore Africans are inferior. Someone arguing with him says, I don't believe that justification.

So is the slave owner the moral one?

Ultimately, no, because his argument wouldn't stand up to a decent counterexample. Until he hears a decent counterexample, though, his justification is certainly better, so I'd say that he is "moral out of ignorance."

There is only absolute or relative morality.. there can't be anything else.

Absolute morality is morality in a vacuum, which doesn't exist since without communication there is no morality.

Objective morality is morality that has a decision process by which we can determine what morals are best, namely, justification of ones morals.

Relative morality is morality without the need for rational justification, i.e., "might makes right" or "do what thou will."

[loinburger]

Well, I hate to go and stop defending myself against four different people, but I'm late. Later all.

[MrFun]

I'm not sure what kind of club arrangement was made on this thread, but I guess I am not welcomed to participate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, let me analyze the only 'definition' of objective morality given by you:

-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.

This is a circular argument. Premise 3 states Wickedness is a term to 'describe actions that cause moral indignation'. Humans don't want wicked acts to be done to them, therefore if they do acts that wicked when performed by others they are inconsistent, and thus immoral.

So, what you are saying is that if someone does something that causes moral indignation but doesn't want it done to them, then they are not moral.

This needs explination on why wickedness is immoral in the first place.

Bascially your argument is that people should not do to others which they would not like done to themselves. But then you say the murdering an evil person is ok, even if they do not want it done to them, because there is a justification.

Then you introduced that morals are based on whether you can justify them. And if you can't justify them, but know they are wrong... then the other person is 'moral, but ignorant', because there is a better morals out there that they don't know of.

Your arguments suuuure have a lot of loopholes.

Objective morality is morality that has a decision process by which we can determine what morals are best, namely, justification of ones morals.

Relative morality is morality without the need for rational justification, i.e., "might makes right" or "do what thou will."

And if you see history, relative morality is what has been seen. The state/people who have been powerful dictated what morality others (weaker people) should follow. And the way these are followed is by force... through might.

The decision process has been made... by the strong and powerful.. and others may have other morals that they think is better.

You can't prove to me that the morals of a capitalist (like me) is better or worse than the morals of a communist (like che) because of who has the best justification for their morals (and what if we have equally good justification, and who decides which is the better justification... the whold justification argument opens up a can of worms). In fact, the justification argument, merely proves that you believe in a form of relative morality. Because SOMEONE has to decide whose justification is better. They have to decide if my justification of maximizing liberty or che's justification of maximizing equality (or something similar) is better... and different people will have different ways of judging... VERY relative.

[Ramo]

I don't understand this distinction between objective, absolute, and universal. English is too imprecise; please explain it in set theory.

On the set of all moralities, I think you're saying that the existence of an objective morality is equivalent to the existence of one and only one well-ordering of this set. Now, what do absolute and universal mean?

The method wouldn't exist without communication, which is not universal or absolute. Only humans (as far as we know) communicate at the level necessary for objective morality to exist. If you don't have a word for "moral" then you don't have objective morality.

1. What does communication have to do with anything?
2. Can you elaborate why this is so?
3. What is the basis for your objective morality, and why are all other moral systems not valid?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
I'm not sure what kind of club arrangement was made on this thread, but I guess I am not welcomed to participate.

Why do you say that, my friend?

[MrFun]

I wanted to hear if anyone disagreed with my claim that Maslow's hierarchy of needs are what people have the natural right to.

Of, if you agree, would you care to make any comments?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
Of, if you agree, would you care to make any comments?

I don't know the concept, so I had to ignore it. Why not expand on your question?

[MrFun]

Abraham Maslow was a psychologist in the 1960's, and he created a systematic ordering of human's basic needs as follows:

1) Biological / Physiological Needs. These needs are biological and consists of the needs for oxygen, food, water, and a relatively constant body temperature. These needs are the strongest because if deprived, the person would die.

2) Security / Safety Needs. Except in times of emergency or periods of disorganization in the social structure (such as widespread rioting) adults do not experience their security needs. Children, however often display signs of insecurity and their need to be safe.

3) Social (Love, Affection and Belongingness) Needs. People have needs to escape feelings of loneliness and alienation and give (and receive) love, affection and the sense of belonging.

4) Ego / Esteem Needs. People need a stable, firmly based, high level of self-respect, and respect from others in order to feel satisfied, self confident and valuable. If these needs are not met, the person feels inferior, weak, helpless and worthless.

5) Self-actualization Fulfillment. Maslow describes self-actualization as an ongoing process. Self-actualizing people are, with one single exception, involved in a cause outside their own skin. The are devoted, work at something, something very precious to them--som calling or vocation, in the old sense, the priestly sense. When you select out for careful study very fine and healthy people, strong people, creative people, saintly people, sagacious people... you get a different view of mankind. You ask how tall can people grow, what can a human being become?

Because these are needs that seem to be so fundamental to all humans, I am arguing that when we ask what natural rights humans have, this is our answer: humans have the natural right to achieve towards attaining all five of the above listed basic needs in ways that does not harm other people.

[Ramo]

Why do humans have these "natural" rights?

[MrFun]

Because all five of them allow humans to live as best of a life as they can in their circumstances.

At the very least, the first three listed are essential to a minimum survival.

Those needs are so basic, that they are essentially natural rights.

[Ramo]

That doesn't explain why these rights are "natural" to humans. How do rights exist outside of a legal structure?

[MrFun]

A government and its legal system can choose whether or not to ignore the legitimatacy of these natural rights, but if they choose to deny their citizens these natural rights, then it will seriously affect the average person's lifespan, and survival chance.

In that aspect then, these natural rights exist outside of any legal structure. They are inherent, but a government, for the worse, can choose to ignore the legitimacy of these natural rights that already exist.

[Ramo]

But you misunderstand the concept of a right. Where does it come from, if not from a government? What is the meaning of a right, outside of a legal context?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by loinburger
Ultimately, no, because his argument wouldn't stand up to a decent counterexample. Until he hears a decent counterexample, though, his justification is certainly better, so I'd say that he is "moral out of ignorance."

I've figured it out.

The only way to achieve objective morality is to have perfect knowledge and perfect truth. Otherwise you are moral out of ignorance. This makes sense, but only seems possible in a religious context. I think it is safe to assume that absolute truth is well out of the grasp of humanity, and may perhaps always be impossible for humans to discern. Absolute truth only exists in God (if you believe), so therefore objective morality is only possible for God.

It is argued that absolute truth is given to humans through Revelation from God. However as we do not fully possess absolute truth we cannot verify whether accounts in the Bible, Koran, and Torah are accurate records of the word of God, or accurate accounts of events surrounding God's agents (prophets, Jesus, Mohommed, etc).

If one were to reject God, then (assuming absolute truth is imposible for Humans to figure out) one must reject objective morality in favor of relitive morality. Relative morality as Imran said, is purely based solely on the will of the strong and powerful.

So as far as I can see everything comes down to
Faith vs. Power or
Nietzsche vs. God

wow, this is a truly amazing revelation for me. I think I may be on to something.