Where Do Natural Rights Come From?

[Ramo]

Berzerker:

Not without a genetic code.

Do you believe nothing/no one has created anything?

My position doesn't require such knowledge of who or what created life, yours does. So, how do you know what created the universe?

Why does my position require the knowledge of who created life? I haven't brought up creation in my moral system as creation is irrelevent.

Ownership.

That doesn't mean anything! It's just jargon describing your moral system (although it actually only means anything in a legal context, but I'll ignore that for a minute). Justify it.

If I didn't create x, why does that imply that I don't "own" x, for all x? Prove this assertion.

I'll even point out counterexamples: If I build a car, by your definition, I didn't "create" it since the "creator" supposedly "created" the parts I need to build it. Furthermore, if I buy a book, I certainly didn't "create" it. In both cases, does this imply that I don't own the car or book, respectively? If your assertion is true, no one owns anything.

Perhaps.

That's not an answer either. What does that mean?

Are there cases where my "creator" would have moral rights over my life? This is a yes or no question. So you can't evade it by saying "maybe" or "perhaps."

Because that wich was given to you belongs to you, not me.

Why does It have moral authority to give it to me?

You have it, true?

No. I only have limited liberty.

If these natural processes produced you with a chain around your ankle leading to your mother, then that would be evidence these natural processes granted your mother with you as property.

1. Why? (don't answer with a non-answer like "ownership")
2. What about the umbellical (sp?) cord?

You wouldn't exist without this deity.

So? I wouldn't exist without my parents. I wouldn't exist without an uncountable amount of other things. Does that mean they all have moral authority over my life and liberty.

I've already said why numerous times.

You've never justified, at least not properly. "Ownership" isn't a justification.

It means "may or may not".

In which cases may a "creator" morally have authority over the life and liberty of a person and in which cases may a "creator" not have moral authority over the life and liberty of a person?

No, I might have the moral authority to own you.

What's the distinction? Face it, you just justified human slavery.

I'm not the one who asked if I have the moral authority to own you if I create you.

It's a natural thing to ask given your assertions. And what does that have to do with the question?

What came first, government or the concept of ownership? If you and I were the only people on the planet and you built yourself a home, would you not consider it yours if I decided to kick you out and take it for myself?

I wouldn't think I owned the house you kicked me out of I didn't have authority to take it back.

Because creation gave you self-determination, hence the moral right to self-determination.

No one/nothing "gave" me self-determination. I've never truly had it. I've always had constraints. Just like virtually everyone else in human history.

Are you subjugating yourself to the creator when you die of old age?

No. I die of old age without my consent. And just because this "creator" has power to end my life doesn't make it moral. No thug dictates my morality.

Then it is illogical to argue natural selection produced the propensity to survive,

Why?

and this hardwired propensity to survive, including self-defense, is evidence of ownership.

Why?

Yup, as long as you grow your own food or freely exchange what you have for food produced by others (or receive charity).

Why? Why should there be constraints on my right to food?

Your reference to "societal" morality.

You made a reference to societal morality in the previous post. Does that mean you believe the elements of power in societies determine everyone's morality?

A libertarian who understands that freedom and rights exist within the confines of nature, and this "deity" already compels you to act in all sorts of ways, including that which awaits us all - death.

Just because It (if it exists) does it, that doesn't make it moral. Again, why should It determine my morality because It has power over me? By the same rationale, if I were a slave, my owner could say slavery is moral because he says so.

If it's logically vaild, then it's objectively true.

False. The system of statements {A = B and C = D} and the system of statements {A != B and C != D) are both logically valid. But neither are both objectively true, for if they were, there would be a constradiction.

You need to ask this after claiming you arrived at your morality after a logical analysis?

I never claimed I arrived at my morality through purely logical analysis. My morality is based on the belief that the maximization of liberty is "good."

Because all acts fall into one of those three categories. Can you think of a fourth?

Under my morality, any action falls under those three categories. Yours as well. But neither my opinion on the matter, nor yours determines its place objectively, for there is no objective truth.

Because the act is immoral and saying otherwise cannot change that.

Why?

What if? You're changing what you said about societal conditioning to biology.

Why can't I? Since you're making up arbitrary definitions all over the place, I have to make more arguments against it.

Will you answer the question?

A special circumstance in which a person who doesn't want to be murdered decides they want to be murdered. But removing the special circumstance changes their desire to be murdered back to a desire to live.

You haven't told me what the definition of a special circumstance is.

Geez, you said the propensity to procreate was universal and therefore translates into a right to commit rape. Homosexuals refute the argument that procreation is universal.

If the propensity to live is universal, so is the propensity to procreate. I'm just using your definition of universal which excludes "special circumstances." I'm defining homesexuality as "special circumstances" as you've defined suicide as "special circumstances." Why does one fit, but not the other.

Those are special circumstances, but feel free to prove these people have existed.

There haven't been any suicidal people?

Your point is an unsupported speculation, if you want to argue the universal propensity for survival is refuted by apathetic people who want to be murdered (or don't care if they're murdered), then you need to prove these people actually exist.

Suicidal people. If it's universal, you can't make arbitrary exceptions.

My God, I need to prove there are people who aren't totally apathetic? I'd think the burden of proving there are people who are totally apathetic is on you.

I didn't say that. You're misreading that sentence (again).

And you're still changing what I said, I didn't say the Golden Rule was a universal moral in that everyone practices it, I said we all want to be treated a certain way, that is the universality I'm talking about.

What does the supposed universality imply, and justify that answer.

Ramo, we are just repeating ourselves. I said no one wants to be murdered and you cited suicide as a refutation of my claim. That equates murder with suicide and you even tried to continue the equation by pointing to laws that don't even support your argument. People who try to commit suicide and fail are not charged with attempted murder and you know it. Now you're changing what you said, now you claim killing a suicidal person is murder. That isn't what you said before.

No, it's what I've always been saying. Sorry if you misread it. Maybe I've even made a typo on the matter (which I doubt), but that's what I've always meant.

Of course you did, so why are you trying to change what you said?

1. I'm not changing what I've said. I'd like to see proof otherwise.
2. I may have made a typo that I haven't noticed yet. Even if I made a typo, I didn't mean it. Egads man!

That was what you added after the fact. Why didn't you just say that instead of offering suicide as a rebuttal of my argument?

I offered both. Two arguments. I'm not backtracking on what I've said. These are distinct arguments. Your assertions have many flaws, hence warrant many arguments.

How do you know natural selection came first and produced survival instincts when both are hardwired? Would that mean the very first creatures had no survival instincts?

Yes, obviously the very first forms of life had no survival intincts. The very first forms of life had no brains.

Again, natural selection is a theory about how environment favors certain traits leading to evolving species through mutation, not an explanation for how survival instincts arose.

Why do you think survival instincts are in our genes. Surely, there's some way it got there.

Feel free to quote those biologists you claim agree with you.

Not worth it.

Your biology or mine?

?

Because this propensity to survive reveals a built in - a genetic - a hardwired sense of ownership.

Argh, you're using your jargon again. I'll assume that by ownership, you mean moral rights to self-determination.
1. Why do moral rights to self-determination arise from the propensity to surive?
2. Why do moral rights to self-determination imply a natural right to life and liberty?

Those who are suicidal are in special situations, we don't see tiny children committing suicide because suicide involves special circumstances that can arise later in life. Remove the special circumstances and the desire to commit suicide disappears.

What are special circumstances? Is a competitive society a special circumstance? Is a hard life a special circumstance?

I might be suffering from an extremely painful disease and considering suicide, that doesn't mean I don't want to live, only that I don't want to continue suffering.

But life entials suffering, so you still don't want to live. You're playing with semantics.

Now you're backtracking, you said it was universal.

I'm using your definition of universality, which excludes "speical circumstances."

So, what percentage of the population wants to procreate? %80? %90? %70? I don't know, but claiming it is near universal is an overstatement.

~90%, I believe. But why is 70% any worse than 99.99999%? Neither is truly truly universal.

Nevertheless, even if it was universal, why would that translate into a natural right to commit rape when the desire to rape is not universal? At most, it would translate into a natural right to have sex, not commit rape. Rights cannot conflict, so a natural right to have sex cannot violate other existing natural rights.

Why can't rights conflict?

WHERE?

Look above.

Lol, did I say I created you? You asked me IF I had moral authority over you IF I created you. How you can use that to accuse me of trying to claim the moral authority to run your life is ridiculous.

Calm down man. I never accused you of any such thing. Don't take this so personally.

And what did I say about a deity granting you life having moral authority over your conduct? That deity may or may not have have that authority.

*Sigh* Again with the non-answer of "may or may not." Why would it?

If I grant you the use of my car for a year and take the car back after the year is up, the grant has limitations.

But you didn't create the car, hence you don't own it, hence you can't grant it to me in the first place.

The "creator" granted us life for a period of time and takes it back when the time is up.

So you think that the "creator"has moral authority to take away my life?

You built the car, you didn't create it. But why is that my view of creation?

Because if I didn't create the car, I don't own it. That's your whole argument, isn't it?

Sure it is.

No it's not. Suicidal people are people too.

It might, but since they didn't your question is irrelevant.

The logic is emminently relevant. You're saying slavery is morally justifed if the "creator" says so. I consider slavery to be always immoral.

You don't have a natural right to his apartment. Even if we assume the need for housing is universal, that would only mean you have the natural right to build your own home, not a right to the homes of others who have a right to those homes. The desire to steal the houses of others is not universal.

If someone takes away my house without consent, and I get the police to take away the house without this person's consent, my use of force isn't objectively different from his. So I would argue that the desire to steal is universal, using the only generalized, universal, definition of theft possible.

loin:

If a moral system isn't reciprocal then it is inconsistent (which violates good old logic, one of the cultural invariants that make up morality). If I classify action A as being immoral when somebody else performs it (since e.g. it causes malicious harm in some form or another), then it is inconsistent for me to classify action A differently for different people without a sound justification for doing so.

Why does inconsistency imply contradiction? If I use different rules to multiply elements belonging to Rⁿ from elements belonging to the set of complex numbers, am I not being just as inconsistent as if I were to use different rules with respect to myself from everyone else excluding me. Why is the latter a contradiction, while the former isn't?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by loinburger
You're not debating -- a debate is a considered exchange of ideas and opinions. By rejecting rationality and language you've demonstrated that you've been "debating" in bad faith -- you haven't once considered anybody's ideas/opinions besides your own, since all opinions are equally meaningless.

Welcome to arguing with Imran!

[SnowFire]

After quite a bit of a break...

I've always wondered about this. Is it that you think God plants a certain moral system into every person, or that God has ultimate moral authority, so whatever he says is moral is by definition moral?

Ah, this old issue again. Generally this issue comes down to two options: Is whatever God mandates moral? If so, why do we listen to him just because he's powerful? And what if God is a bastard and we don't know it, and all our supposedly moral things are actual immoral? Not very fulfilling to say "Well, as far as I know God's a nice guy." The second option is to say something mushy along the lines of "God IS love, and morality, and fluffy pillows" in which case the question becomes if God is really a relevant concept- after all, wouldn't some form of morality exist no matter what? Are we just defining God to be some pre-exisiting part of society and the universe?

Hard questions, certainly. I'm not certain this'll be satisfactory, but my current guess is somewhere in-between the two. God sets morality, yes, but God also created the Universe- hence it already had a "proper" morality ingrained in it, to some extent. That said, I certainly don't believe for a second that morality is something "ingrained" in us and we can simply introspect the answers. No, we (or at least me) are inhrently pretty sucky, and have to fight our inner natures to uphold morality.

Imran, from all your statements about subjectivity and how reasoning is worthless, I'm still not convinced why according to your philosophy flipping coins isn't just as good a technique for deciding how to live your life than thinking about what to do.

Snowfire, you have to prove to me your morality is 'correct'. It may be correct to you, but it isn't to me.

That wasn't a statement of my philosophy before; I was just saying that I think subjectivist morality where you say "I'm right" is consistent in its own egotistical way, but the "nobody's right" approach leads back to coin-flipping morality.

[LoneWolf]

You're born, and then...

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

Do you believe nothing/no one has created anything?

You mean has a human created something? Why is this relevant to whether or not you owe your existence to some primordial event that created life rather than the parents who also owe their existence to that event?

Why does my position require the knowledge of who created life? I haven't brought up creation in my moral system as creation is irrelevent.

You claimed creation depended on no "deity" or intentional design, that is knowledge we don't have.

That doesn't mean anything! It's just jargon describing your moral system (although it actually only means anything in a legal context, but I'll ignore that for a minute). Justify it.

It means something if you look at life. If someone tries to murder me and I stop them, do I really need further justification when explaining to others what happened? No, because they know who was in the right and who was in the wrong. But based on what? Based on the universal belief among people that we each own ourselves. And even though some people willingly violate this right of others, they instinctively defend themselves from attackers too. Hell, we can even see this at work in the animal kingdom. Dogs defending their own turf from intruders are much more tenacious than dogs invading the turf of other dogs.

If I didn't create x, why does that imply that I don't "own" x, for all x? Prove this assertion.

Nature proves it, but you have to look.

I'll even point out counterexamples: If I build a car, by your definition, I didn't "create" it since the "creator" supposedly "created" the parts I need to build it.

I don't know that, but you did build it. I've built motors, I didn't create them. This whole debate is silly, you didn't create life, nor did your parents, we are all products of that which did create life and all we do is perpetuate life.

Furthermore, if I buy a book, I certainly didn't "create" it. In both cases, does this imply that I don't own the car or book, respectively? If your assertion is true, no one owns anything.

You can own something you don't create, where did I say otherwise?

That's not an answer either. What does that mean?

It means "perhaps".

Are there cases where my "creator" would have moral rights over my life?

Possibly.

This is a yes or no question.

Why?

Why does It have moral authority to give it to me?

Does a creator need this moral authority?

No. I only have limited liberty.

Limited by what? Other people or nature?

1. Why? (don't answer with a non-answer like "ownership")

I just explained why.

2. What about the umbellical (sp?) cord?

A mechanism for feeding the baby in the womb, a mechanism that falls off of it's own accord if not cut first.

So? I wouldn't exist without my parents. I wouldn't exist without an uncountable amount of other things. Does that mean they all have moral authority over my life and liberty.

Where did I say a deity has moral authority over you?

You've never justified, at least not properly. "Ownership" isn't a justification.

Sure it is, the universality of ownership justifies ownership.

In which cases may a "creator" morally have authority over the life and liberty of a person and in which cases may a "creator" not have moral authority over the life and liberty of a person?

Since I don't even know if this creator has moral authority over us, why would you ask me when this creator has moral authority over us?

What's the distinction? Face it, you just justified human slavery.

Really? How so?

It's a natural thing to ask given your assertions. And what does that have to do with the question?

Where did I make such an assertion?

I wouldn't think I owned the house you kicked me out of I didn't have authority to take it back.

Huh?

No one/nothing "gave" me self-determination. I've never truly had it. I've always had constraints. Just like virtually everyone else in human history.

You don't have self-determination? Why is that? Hardwired genetics? Who imposed these constraints on you?

No. I die of old age without my consent. And just because this "creator" has power to end my life doesn't make it moral. No thug dictates my morality.

You say no and then explain that you're subjugated to this creator anyway. Btw, who said it was moral?

Why?

Because they're both hardwired. Have you found a few biologists to support your claim that the instinct to survive derives from natural selection? Shouldn't be too much trouble since you claimed all biologists support your position.

Why?

For the reason I just stated. Why do you keep repeating questions right after they've been answered?

Why? Why should there be constraints on my right to food?

Because other people exist.

You made a reference to societal morality in the previous post. Does that mean you believe the elements of power in societies determine everyone's morality?

I was responding to Imran, and no.

Just because It (if it exists) does it, that doesn't make it moral.

Whether it is or isn't moral, it is.

Again, why should It determine my morality because It has power over me?

Who said it should?

By the same rationale, if I were a slave, my owner could say slavery is moral because he says so.

And would his opinion matter? If not, why? Because you should be free? Why? Because that is how nature made you? I agree...

False. The system of statements {A = B and C = D} and the system of statements {A != B and C != D) are both logically valid. But neither are both objectively true, for if they were, there would be a constradiction.

You'll have to explain the last part of that.

I never claimed I arrived at my morality through purely logical analysis. My morality is based on the belief that the maximization of liberty is "good."

And how did you arrive at that belief? By logic or illogic?

Under my morality, any action falls under those three categories. Yours as well. But neither my opinion on the matter, nor yours determines its place objectively, for there is no objective truth.

Meaning you can't identify a fourth category, neither can I.

Why?

By definition, an immoral act is immoral.

Why can't I?

You can, but don't change the subject and act like you didn't.

Since you're making up arbitrary definitions all over the place, I have to make more arguments against it.

Where have I made up arbitrary definitions?

Will you answer the question?

Sorry, what was it?

You haven't told me what the definition of a special circumstance is.

I've given you examples.

If the propensity to live is universal, so is the propensity to procreate.

Then how do you explain people who don't procreate, including homosexuals and small children? And you're still arguing that a propensity to procreate translates into a universal desire to commit rape? Sorry, doesn't compute.

I'm just using your definition of universal which excludes "special circumstances." I'm defining homesexuality as "special circumstances" as you've defined suicide as "special circumstances." Why does one fit, but not the other.

Because homosexuality is genetic, suicide is not. No one comes out of the womb wanting to commit suicide...

There haven't been any suicidal people?

No, prove there have been apathetic people who didn't care if they were murdered.

Suicidal people. If it's universal, you can't make arbitrary exceptions.

Were those people suicidal from birth? If not, they are in their position due to special circumstances that arise later in life.

I didn't say that. You're misreading that sentence (again).

Then what did you mean when you claimed there were apathetic people who wanted to be murdered?

What does the supposed universality imply, and justify that answer.

That the universality of the Golden Rule reflects a possible natural right, and the reason being that universality is the basis for defining natural rights.

No, it's what I've always been saying. Sorry if you misread it. Maybe I've even made a typo on the matter (which I doubt), but that's what I've always meant.

Forget it.

1. I'm not changing what I've said. I'd like to see proof otherwise.

2. I may have made a typo that I haven't noticed yet. Even if I made a typo, I didn't mean it. Egads man!

Okay, here's the proof: this is what I said -

No one wants to be murdered

And your response -

What about suicidal people?

Yes, obviously the very first forms of life had no survival intincts. The very first forms of life had no brains.

I said creatures. The genetic code of the first life forms led to creatures with brains just as it led to the process of natural selection and survival instincts. Again, natural selection is a theory about the process by which species evolve over time. That raises the question of whether or not survival instincts arose from predation or if they were always there in the genetic code waiting to be used, but if they rose because of predation, how did predation evolve? I'd say the need for resources involved survival instincts even for life forms without brains - like the instinct to reject certain resources in favor of others.

Why do you think survival instincts are in our genes. Surely, there's some way it got there.

Because of genetics.

Not worth it.

I thought so.

Argh, you're using your jargon again. I'll assume that by ownership, you mean moral rights to self-determination.

1. Why do moral rights to self-determination arise from the propensity to surive?

The right to life and liberty derives from two facts - you exist and your existence comes from the "creator", not other people.

2. Why do moral rights to self-determination imply a natural right to life and liberty?

Because natural rights also stem from universal traits.

What are special circumstances? Is a competitive society a special circumstance? Is a hard life a special circumstance?

Why do you ask this and then quote the answer?

But life entials suffering, so you still don't want to live. You're playing with semantics.

No, you do want to live but the special circumstances force a trade off that some people can't live with.

I'm using your definition of universality, which excludes "speical circumstances."

No you aren't.

~90%, I believe. But why is 70% any worse than 99.99999%? Neither is truly truly universal.

Which is why your argument is flawed. And not everyone wants to commit rape, therefore rape is not universal.

Why can't rights conflict?

Dropping the rape thing? Rights cannot conflict because they are moral claims of ownership stemming from universal traits.

Calm down man. I never accused you of any such thing. Don't take this so personally.

Spare me that nonsense, you claimed I was arguing for the moral authority to run your life. You want me to post the proof?

*Sigh* Again with the non-answer of "may or may not." Why would it?

Your question is irrelevant, I never argued that a deity had the moral authority to run your life.

But you didn't create the car, hence you don't own it, hence you can't grant it to me in the first place.

First, that was an analogy to a creator granting us life and liberty, a creator who did create us. Second, why can't I grant you the use of my car?

So you think that the "creator"has moral authority to take away my life?

It does whether it has the moral authority or not.

Because if I didn't create the car, I don't own it. That's your whole argument, isn't it?

Hardly.

You're saying slavery is morally justifed if the "creator" says so. I consider slavery to be always immoral.

Where did I say that?

If someone takes away my house without consent, and I get the police to take away the house without this person's consent, my use of force isn't objectively different from his. So I would argue that the desire to steal is universal, using the only generalized, universal, definition of theft possible.

Taking back what was stolen from you isn't stealing. And you accuse me of re-defining words?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ah, this old issue again. Generally this issue comes down to two options: Is whatever God mandates moral? If so, why do we listen to him just because he's powerful? And what if God is a bastard and we don't know it, and all our supposedly moral things are actual immoral? Not very fulfilling to say "Well, as far as I know God's a nice guy." The second option is to say something mushy along the lines of "God IS love, and morality, and fluffy pillows" in which case the question becomes if God is really a relevant concept- after all, wouldn't some form of morality exist no matter what? Are we just defining God to be some pre-exisiting part of society and the universe?

Read my earlier post SnowFire. I answered Ramo's question when I said that God, as a perfectly good being by nature cannot do what is wrong.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why is the latter a contradiction, while the former isn't?

In the former case there is a definitive difference between real numbers and complex numbers (such that the former subset can use a multiplication rule that is simpler than that used by the latter set, since the former subset is itself simpler than the latter set), whereas in the latter case there is no such definitive difference between generic person A and generic person B. As I'd noted previously, using different rules on different sets is not necessarily inconsistent, but using different rules on different sets without a reasonable justification for doing so is inconsistent.

BTW, could you do me a favor and bold my name next time? No big deal, but I almost didn't realize that you'd posed a question to me.

[SnowFire]

Suppose I should have skimmed the rest of the thread more carefully.

Read my earlier post SnowFire. I answered Ramo's question when I said that God, as a perfectly good being by nature cannot do what is wrong.

Well, he did ask for my view on the topic... in any case, that's not a bad answer, but I strive to avoid defining my side as right as much as I can. It's something that there's going to be some of anyway in a topic as murky as theology, so I try to minimize it when possible. In any case, this is a consequence of what I said- if God created the universe and the morality therein, it sure stands to reason he wouldn't create a morality he disagreed with.

As for the mini-debate re:consciences, let me just say that I'm pretty sure I have one, although not as much in the way obiwan says. Around a month ago I couldn't get to sleep and tossed and turned hating myself for about 3 nights straight thanks to a certain action that I greatly regert now. Hubris as this may be, I'd like to think that was me causing me to feel guilty about that. This would also explain why some people do far worse things without batting an eye. I don't know, maybe God does hand 'em out to everyone, but it sure is small if you want it to be it seems.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, from all your statements about subjectivity and how reasoning is worthless, I'm still not convinced why according to your philosophy flipping coins isn't just as good a technique for deciding how to live your life than thinking about what to do.

Well that basically is what happens, isn't it? And I guess it is as good a technique as any.

The problem is the idea by the other side that life has any meaning whatsoever. And by articulating that basic position, want to prove that other things in life have meaning as well, to justify the original point.

You're not debating -- a debate is a considered exchange of ideas and opinions. By rejecting rationality and language you've demonstrated that you've been "debating" in bad faith -- you haven't once considered anybody's ideas/opinions besides your own, since all opinions are equally meaningless.

Then everyone debates in bad faith. Hardly anyone on this site considers the other sides ideas/opinions, because they have already accepted a certain premise and any opposed, to them, simply don't have merit. The ironic thing is their side has no merit or worth as well.

[Ramo]

Damn, I don't want to deal with this right now (bump).

[Berzerker]

Imran, it's not that you don't consider other view points, it's that you don't consider your own since according to your premise, they are meaningless too.

Ramo, no need. I don't think I can keep up this pace of long posts. We seem to go off on so many tangents the original debate gets lost in the mix.

Natural rights are moral claims of self-ownership stemming from observable natural phenomena that are universal in character.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Then everyone debates in bad faith. Hardly anyone on this site considers the other sides ideas/opinions, because they have already accepted a certain premise and any opposed, to them, simply don't have merit.

Well, as they say, "we project our worst faults onto others." Not everybody is as guilty of begging the question as you are, Imran. There have been several cases of one side in a debate being swayed by another -- the fact that you're incapable of being reasonable hardly proves that everybody else suffers the same fault.

The ironic thing is their side has no merit or worth as well.

What's truly ironic is that here you are, still trying to convince me that your (admittedly meaningless) opinions are worthy of my consideration. Face facts -- your position is untenable, because there is no possible way for you to defend it without contradicting yourself ("All opinions are meaningless, except for this one -- you should definitely listen to this opinion, but just do what I do and ignore all the rest, because they're meaningless, I tell you, meaningless!"). The only option you have left is to say "Clearly I am the winner of this debate (although 'to win' is of course a meaningless and subjective assessment on my part), so screw you guys, I'm going home," and then "gracefully" beat a hasty retreat. You'll still be contradicting yourself every time you make a post here or anywhere else (why would you attempt to communicate when all of human language is meaningless and subjective? ), but at least you won't be so painfully obvious about it...

I do wonder how you manage to survive in a world in which all human creations are meaningless, though. I'd quickly go broke if I thought that money was meaningless or that my job was meaningless, I'd have dropped out of school long ago if I thought that knowledge was meaningless and completely subjective (why bother to learn anything when I already know everything that can be known?), and then there's always the problem of the language barrier (why would I try to communicate with anybody if I believed that language was completely meaningless and subjective?). I suspect that you are claiming to adhere to a nihilist philosophy in which you don't really believe for the dubious purpose of winning an online debate, but of course this is merely my opinion, and I don't expect you to direct any more thought to it than you've directed towards any of the other opinions expressed on this thread (except your own, of course, since your own opinions are clearly worthy of your consideration, otherwise why would you even bother having them?).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Natural rights are moral claims of self-ownership stemming from observable natural phenomena that are universal in character.

Such as?

In nature, might makes right.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Loinburger, you don't get it. My opinion isn't the winner and is not the only one that is meaningful. When I say all opinions are basically meaningless, I mean it. I ain't trying to convince you of anything (because you are unconvincable), I am merely engaging in debate.

In fact, the best of debaters are those that believe their opinions are of the same worth as the other side's opinion (which is why they can argue both sides). They may believe they are both similar meaning, but also, on the flip side both are similar meaningless.

My opinions are no more meaningful than yours. I simply hold them because this is what my mind tells me is right and moral. Doesn't mean that my mind is correct about it. Hell, it probably isn't, but do I know what is 'right' (when all is said and done in this world).. or rather is any 'right'? Don't think so.

If you believe that two opinions are of equal weight, such as (for example) pro-life and pro-choice, then it a choice between the two is meaningless. If you pick either one, it will not matter, because both ideas are equal in weight. The choice has NO meaninging, hence meaningless. Unless you believe every opinion in the world is ranked higher or lower than every other opinion, then you too believe that some rationally argued consistant points are meaningless as well.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
My opinion isn't the winner and is not the only one that is meaningful. When I say all opinions are basically meaningless, I mean it.

First you say that your opinion is meaningful, then you say that it is meaningless. So which is it?

I ain't trying to convince you of anything (because you are unconvincable)

Does it somehow surprise you that I'm not swayed by your admittedly meaningless opinion?

Or is your opinion meaningful now?

I am merely engaging in debate.

You have yet to consider anybody's opinion but your own, and so you are not engaging in debate. Furthermore, you have yet to even attempt to justify your opinions, so once again you are not engaging in debate. You have yet to address many many points that I've made, e.g. the fact that you are contradicting yourself by communicating on this message board (unless you concede that language is not meaningless) -- you merely continue to fall back into broken record mode, crying "Subjective!" when you have no other recourse. I don't know what you're doing, but it sure ain't debating.

In fact, the best of debaters are those that believe their opinions are of the same worth as the other side's opinion (which is why they can argue both sides). They may believe they are both similar meaning, but also, on the flip side both are similar meaningless.

The best debaters can offer reasonable justifications for all sides of an argument. The worst debaters are incapable of justifying any side of an argument.

My opinions are no more meaningful than yours.

Then what are you trying to prove in this argument? The purpose of an argument is to offer reasons that demonstrate the truth or falsehood of an assertion. What claim are you trying to prove/disprove, if you're not trying to prove the veracity of your opinions or the inaccuracy of mine?

I simply hold them because this is what my mind tells me is right and moral. Doesn't mean that my mind is correct about it. Hell, it probably isn't, but do I know what is 'right' (when all is said and done in this world).. or rather is any 'right'? Don't think so.

What does 2+2 equal? What is the conjuntion of True and False? Who was the first Chief Justice of the SCOTUS? To two significant figures, how many centimeters are in an inch? Who is the better basketball player -- Michael Jordan, or a can of beer?

If there are right answers to these questions (or "better" and "worse" answers), then why aren't there right answers (or "better" and "worse" answers) to the question "What is moral behavior"? Why is one set of claims answerable while the other is completely subjective and meaningless?

Unless you believe every opinion in the world is ranked higher or lower than every other opinion, then you too believe that some rationally argued consistant points are meaningless as well.

First off, you've claimed that all opinions are meaningless. Not "some," but all. Proving an existential is not the same as proving a universal.

Secondly, your definition of meaning is fallacious, since it is too narrow. It isn't necessary for an opinion A to be superior/inferior to all alternative opinions in the set in order for A to be meaningful, it is only necessary for opinion A to be superior/inferior to one alternative opinion in the set. The fact that we cannot definitively rank every basketball team in the NBA as being superior/inferior to every other team does not mean that it is impossible to rank any of the teams in the NBA. Similarly, the fact that we cannot definitively prove whether Michael Jordan or Wilt Chamberlain was the better basketball player does not mean that my can of beer is up for contention as being the greatest basketball player of all time.

Finally, it is possible to debate an issue that one believes cannot be resolved -- the entire purpose of debate is to resolve unresolved issues, so it is to be expected that the participants of some debates may not believe that the issue under contention can be fully resolved (particularly if they've attempted to resolve the issue in the past and have failed to do so). However, it is not possible to debate an issue while at the same time categorically denying the possibility that the issue is resolveable -- that isn't debate, it's mental masturbation.