Where Do Natural Rights Come From?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Good summary... now if we can get Berz to agree to have a regular debate .

Oh.. and I agree with your points (especially point 3).

[loinburger]

Imran: Earlier you suggested that we "agree to disagree" on whether morality is objective or relative, but your now claiming that morality is meaningless is a pretty severe change from your last statement on the matter -- it's difficult to agree to disagree if you're going to go right back to your old position ten months down the road without showing any sign that the previous argument ever took place.

Previously I'd made the claim that not all moral codes are equal, that a moral code that is reasonably justified is objectively superior to a moral code that is unjustified (and thus unreasonable). This is where the Golden Rule comes from -- it is inconsistent (and therefore unreasonable) for you to perform a set of actions that would cause you to become morally indignant were said actions to be performed unto you, unless you're somehow able to reasonably justify the claim that you operate under a different set of moral rules from everybody else (e.g. "My name is Imran so I have authority over all those whose name is not Imran," justifying the causal link between "being named Imran" and "having authority over those not named Imran").

You, however, rejected the claim that somebody's moral code could be swayed by the reasonable justification of an opposing moral code.

Originally posted by Imran Siddique
And yes, people do change their minds when hearing of something else, when another answer is presented. It isn't because the case has more justification than their own and thus they flip morals... it is because the opinion makes them think of the issue in a different light, and that different light fits with their own moral code better than the way they were thinking about it. They convincing is seeing the opinion in a different way.

For example, when I shifted from pro-life to pro-choice in abortion, I didn't shift because the pro-choice side had more justification.. rather I shifted because I saw the issue in another light, that dealing with consent as opposed to simply life and death. Seeing it in that way showed me that my moral code was more disposed to the pro-choice idea than the pro-life.

In other words, you essentially admitted that not all moral codes are equal since a reasonably justified contrary moral code altered your own (presumably less reasonably justified) moral code, but rather than relent in your moral relativism you invented a way for you to change your morals without changing your morals. Saying "My morals didn't change when I shifted from pro-life to pro-choice" is utterly ridiculous.

You'll need to justify how your previous moral code (your "pro-life" moral code) is identical to your current moral code (your "pro-choice" moral code), i.e. if both codes/opinions are equivalent, then why did your opinion change on the matter of abortion?



Not to side-track from everybody ganging up on Berzerker, of course...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Gepap -

Of course human beings thought up the notion of morality, but morality must be based on something more than just our differing opinions or morality is meaningless. Was it immoral for the Nazis to slaughter millions of Germans? If so, why? If you say they were immoral, is that a meaningless statement? According to some people in this thread, the Nazis were not immoral because their "society" defined morality and whatever they did to others qualifies as moral.

What could morality be based on? Human history has existed for 5000 years and what the Nazi's did between 1941-1945 made them modernities monsters, but it is hard to think that most peoples before the modern ear (aboutt he 1500's) would have seen what they did as beyond the pale. Did we change as human beigns during that time? If so, why do stories written 2500 years ago still resonate with us? If man were trully different, the wroks of Homer and the Bible and so forth would have no meaning for us.

I see morality based on a few things: 1. there are certain limiting parameters for mankind: we are social mammals of the primate group. That fact imposes certain working limits. All morality seeks to regulate social interactions, a basic and crucial task for a social being like Man. Now, beyond these basic parameters come fundamental values. Each individual society, based on whatever (the reasons could be infinate), chooses some fundamental values (Honor, Bravery, Honesty, Individualism, Liberty, Piety, Strength, Penance, Forgiveness, Stability....) which it sees as best for maintaining social order. These values change over time, which is what brigns about changes in morality (making up such a thing as "children", a seperate groups from "adults", for example).

Now, the way I would measure the morality of an act is twofold: how it concides with my own values and how it concides with theirs as well. I would say then that in both cases, the Nazi's were immoral and their actions prove it. They tried to hide the truth, from evryone and themselves, and they did so because Nazism still did exist within the set fo moralities constructed sicne the enlightenment. I find it impossible to seperate Nazism from modern morality, since only under modernity could such a group exist. Of course the Nazi's had rationalizations and theories about why their actions were correct, but they were patently false, misleading, incomplete, so forth and so on. If the Nazi's had acted as if they temselves did not believe anything wrong was being done and acted in ways that were utterly consistent with their own stated fundamental values, then I would be incapable of stating that they are acting trully immorally. But thankfully, most mass murderers act on a set of whims based on a very weak set fo beliefs, many of them contradictory. So even as i believe that morality is mutable and subjective I believe that the Nazi's were utterly immoral.

[Master Zen]

Nice post GePap!

I pretty much agree with everything you say, I just want to add that so much of morality is affected by culture that there will arise differences in what one group considers moral and what another one doesn't. Dancing around topless is immoral in an Amish street, it is not immoral in an African tribe (or in a Cancun club... )

So which of these viewpoints is correct? Depends on your culture. I think that moral issues that do not do damage in a physical or mental sense are pretty stupid. In this case, the topless dancing thing would not seem immoral to me (duhh!).

Two quotes come to mind, "your freedom ends where another's begins" and "respect to another's rights is peace" (hear that Bush!!! )

As for the Nazis, they, even Hitler knew that what they were doing was wrong. I believe they had the crazy idea that had their plans been realized, then posterity would view them as heroes and patriots and all the evil would be made up by making Germany great. They did believe the end justified the means.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Loin: I agreed to disagree with you. Though there was no truce with others .

The main question is WHO is to decide what is reasonable? Only the person that is listening. One person may believe the justification is reasonable, while someone else may believe it is totally unreasonable. So where do you draw the line? Who's reasonablness do you follow? Rationality is different to different societies. What it depends upon is what TRUTH the society (in the form of the people... or the rulers) decides is the proper truth. IMO, truth is just like morality, in that it is highly personal, and the truth that wins out in the end is that which the elite or the populace agrees with.

And not all moral codes are equal TO ME! However all moral codes that exist in society are equal, even if they seem inequal to me.

My opinion changed, because, as I said, I saw the issue in a different light. In a discussion, I came to realize the life issue doesn't matter, and consent is the all important issue. Seeing as consent matters more to me than life status, it was obvious that in looking at the issue that way, I had to shift my belief to that which more reflected it.

Morality is highly personal thing and may shift to and fro determined by how issues are seen by the viewer. I guess you can equate this with Plato's 'memory being merely recollection' somewhat, with the caveat that I don't hold much stock on a priori knowledge. In short, I believe a person's morality is established early on and the changes in it later in life is simply the viewing of things in different ways.

However, like I said, I agreed to disagree with you. Part in parcel in that is my belief that morality is, on the whole, meaningless. I didn't say I'd stop arguing against others on the matter though .

[Master Zen]

As for RELIGIOUS morality,

as a non-religious person I think it's a load of BS. I personally can't stand the idea that a "church" tells me what's right and what's wrong.

What do I get for following the moral rules of the church? I'll feel spitifually better? People should be made to feel good about themselves, to believe in themselves, so they don't need a chuch to do it for them.

[Ramo]

Hmmm.. that was an interesting discussion, loin. It's a shame I seem to have forgotten about the thread. I think the main point I was getting to was, why is the Golden Rule objectively relevant, why do you need reciprocity in a moral system? I would certainly consider moral systems lacking reciprocity to be inferior to those that do, but I would also consider it a subjective criticism.

[GePap]

The Golden Rule only works among equals. You don't have to treat the inferior as they have to treat you: they are inferior for some reason, and thus not deserving of reciprocity. Aftyer all, if you must act them with reciprocity, you are basically asuming they are equals in some way, no?

Since a moral system with defined hierarchies and gross inequality can exist, I don't think one does need the Golden Rule to be a central tennet, at leats not under its common understanding.

[Ramo]

Agreed.

[Berzerker]

First, I try to address each argument/point as a matter of courtesy, not for nefarious reasons as Boris claims, and I find it easier to do that by disecting the post I'm responding to so the person I'm debating knows which points I am addressing. If Boris doesn't like that, he doesn't have to read my posts. If lurkers don't like that, they can open a second window and align my post with the post I'm addressing.

Ramo -

Sure she did. Are you suggesting a stork or a deity did?

That which created life created her eggs. Would you suggest mothers created their own brains and limbs too?

She didn't create the food that fed me either.

Is that an admission mothers did not create the genetic code they pass along to their children? If so, obviously your mother did not create you.

She didn't create the house or city or the planet, or galaxy, or universe that housed me.

And this all proves she did create you? Don't you think whomever or whatever did create the universe, or at least life on this planet, is ultimately responsible for your existence?

What does this demonstrate? Are you trying to tell me that no one has created anything? If so, I would disagree with your definition of creation.

Simple, people did not create you, therefore they have no moral claim to your existence.

No, I am not. You're trying to claim that natural rights exist because I was not born your slave. Which just as easily could be false.

Yes you are. Natural rights exist because that which created you granted you life and liberty regardless of whether or not another person enslaves you.

Why is the former relevant?

Ownership!

Why?

Ownership! Why do you instinctively react in your defense when attacked? Because "ownership" is hardwired...

And why would you have a moral claim to me if you created me?

I may or may not, but I certainly don't if I didn't create you.

If some deity "created me" (whatever that means)

You tell me, you're the one who keeps trying to introduce a "deity".

I certainly would not consider Him to have a moral claim over me. IMO, slavery is always immoral regardless of how much power the master has.

That might be relevant if there was some "deity" trying to compel you to act a certain way.

I consider societal morality to be aspects of a moral system held in common within a society. I don't see what there is to believe or not believe in...

I thought you didn't believe in morality by majority rule?

Define correct. My morality is a belief, there's nothing objective about it.

You need a definition of "correct" or "true"?

I don't consider my morality to be "meaningless."

Then explain why to Imran and Gepap.

There's no "Objective Truth" (not that I think any such thing exists) in it, but that doesn't make it "meaningless."

So you believe in a moral system and don't know or care if it's valid? If you do care, did you not seek some truth as the basis for your moral system?

Why?

Because morality becomes meaningless if it has no foundation.

Why do you assume there are only two options.

To make my example easier to understand.

Neither one is "correct." It's just as arbitrary to call 2 the additive identity of complex numbers (and reals, rationals, and integers) as 0. It's also just as arbitrary to define the function "+" as addition as any other function you want.

So 2+2 = 4 is an invalid statement?

Correct isn't a logically defined concept in this context.

Sure it is, either an act is moral or it is either immoral or morally neutral. An immoral act doesn't become moral just because the actor says so.

It's true that biological conditioning (natural selection) has given humans a propensity to survive. But of course not all humans have this propensity.

The conditioning you were talking about was societal, not biological. I'd love to see these people who have no propensity for survival. And don't point to suicide again, we're talking about people without special circumstances altering their situation.

It's also true that biological conditioning has given humans a propensity to spread our genes. Does that make rape a natural right?

Is rape a universal trait? You forgot my argument, natural rights are based on universal traits.

Sure. Are you disputing that such people have never existed?

Yes, can you prove they have existed?

As opposed to not wanting others to treat us a certain way?

Yes, the Golden Rule.

Again, this isn't true if one is really apathetic.

So you believe this apathetic person wants to be murdered?

How does the fact that some people aren't totally apathetic make the golden rule a universal moral?

You need to prove there are apathetic people who want to be murdered.

I don't. Murder has a specific legal context. Murder is any killing that the state calls murder. Few if any states have considered attempted suicide attempted murder.

You did offer suicide to my argument about murder.

In that case, we need to use specific language to represent these ideas. Murder has a specific definition. But I did deal with what you intended to write.

By equating murder with suicide.

Again, please deal with what I've written.

I am. Did you not argue that suicide proves my claim that no one wants to be murdered is false?

I imagine just about every biologist in the world would disagree. Where do you think they come from?

Citing unnamed biologists and putting words in their mouths proves nothing. Survival instincts are hardwired into our genetic code, natural selection is a theory about how environmental factors favor certain traits over others leading to the evolution of species.

No, a state or any other authority can tell me what my morals are. They're products of my mind (and all that influence it), nothing else.

"My mind"? Isn't that a statement of ownership? Since we don't hesitate upon being attacked to ponder whether or not the state allows us to react, self-defense is hardwired into our being. That is a universal trait from which I conclude "life" is a natural right granted us by that which created us (in addition to the fact we did not create each other).

Again, natural selection has given us the propensity (which is NOT universal) to survive. I accept that. Now, what does this imply?

The propensity to survive is not universal? It sure is and introducing special circumstances such as suicide (and the reasons for suicide) doesn't change that fact.

Bad logic. I've cited the biological imperative to spread our genes is a universal trait, from this can we determine that rape is a natural right?

Bad logic, rape is not a universal trait. How do you explain homosexuals who don't want to procreate? It appears even this propensity to spread our genes is not universal.

1. Berzerker seems to have the odd idea that if "something" created me, he morally has authority over me.

I do? Where did I say I have the moral authority to rule over you because something created you?

Futhermore, he seems to have a strange idea of what creation is. If I build a car, does this mean that I have not actually "created" it because I start out with parts that I haven't "created?"

That's my view of creation?

3. The fact that humans have a propensity to survive doesn't prove that there's a "natural right" to life.

The proof for this natural right to life is that other people didn't create you, therefore, other people lack any moral claim to your existence. The fact we are hardwired to survive - a universal trait - is just more evidence.

Just as the fact that humans have a propensity to spread their genetic code doesn't prove that there's a "natural right" to rape. All this proves is that biological conditioning (natural selection) has given humans certain traits.

And there are only a few that are universal, rape is not one.

Furthermore, the fact that I wasn't born with chains to someone else doesn't prove I have "natural right" to liberty.

It discredits any moral claim they make to enslave you.

Also, if this premise were true, the fact that I wasn't born with subservient to a landlord would prove that I have a "natural right" to my apartment.

You don't have a natural right to the labor of others for the same reason slavery violates the victim's natural rights. Build your own apartment...

[Master Zen]

That has got to be the longest reply post I have ever seen...

[Berzerker]

GePap -

What could morality be based on?

A standard or principle that applies to everyone, a standard or principle based on universal traits. No one wants to be murdered, that is a universal trait. Therefore murder is immoral... No one wants to be enslaved (no, Mr Garrison's fetishes don't count), therefore, slavery too is immoral... Additionally, a simple principle upon which to base morality comes from certain observable facts. We did not create each other, therefore, we lack moral claims to each other's existence. People "own" themselves because their existence comes directly from that which created them...

the Nazi's were immoral and their actions prove it. They tried to hide the truth, from evryone and themselves, and they did so because Nazism still did exist within the set fo moralities constructed sicne the enlightenment.

They sure didn't try to hide their persecution of undesirables, only the holocaust.

The Golden Rule only works among equals.

Yup, which is why the Golden Rule dis-allows slavery.

Since a moral system with defined hierarchies and gross inequality can exist, I don't think one does need the Golden Rule to be a central tennet, at leats not under its common understanding.

That's illogical, you just said the Golden Rule requires equality but conclude it isn't needed when other moral systems have gross inequalities. Am I reading you wrong?

[Berzerker]

MZ -

That has got to be the longest reply post I have ever seen...

Hehe, stick around. I'll try to accomodate y'all and condense my posts.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Master Zen
As for RELIGIOUS morality,

as a non-religious person I think it's a load of BS. I personally can't stand the idea that a "church" tells me what's right and what's wrong.

What do I get for following the moral rules of the church? I'll feel spitifually better? People should be made to feel good about themselves, to believe in themselves, so they don't need a chuch to do it for them.

it has nothing to do with following the morla rules of a chruch

and everything about following true morality

Jon Miller
you can be religious without goign to church

[Berzerker]

it has nothing to do with following the morla rules of a chruch

and everything about following true morality

Which leaves us with discovering this true morality. The Golden Rule is a fine principle, but I'd be happy if people just stopped doing to others what they don't want others doing to them.