Where Do Natural Rights Come From?

[Berzerker]

Boris -

Instinct is exactly what we're talking about here. What's the difference between human "nature" and human "instinct?" It is instinctual to defend your food against theft. How do we know? Because every animal we observe does it. It's something that's hardwired into our brains.

We may be able to overcome this instinct and learn that sharing food is a better alternative, but that won't mean the instinct to protect our food isn't there.

Remember asking what these observable universal natural phenomenon were? You just identified why property is a natural right. Although not all creatures, including humans, can successfully defend their food from theft, they certainly would if they could. Natural rights are products of this hardwiring...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Boris -

Remember asking what these observable universal natural phenomenon were? You just identified why property is a natural right. Although not all creatures, including humans, can successfully defend their food from theft, they certainly would if they could. Natural rights are products of this hardwiring...

Instinct and rights aren't the same thing. Rights are an abstract concept, instinct is not. Some animals (possibly early humans) instinctually fight, even to the death, over a sexual partner. That doesn't mean you have the natural right to kill someone over your lover, now does it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Instinct is exactly what we're talking about here. What's the difference between human "nature" and human "instinct?" It is instinctual to defend your food against theft. How do we know? Because every animal we observe does it. It's something that's hardwired into our brains.

But is this present 'self-interest' hardwired? Many (well anarchists mostly) would argue that the instinct is to share your bounty with your friends. That would functionally mean there is no theft.

While it's certainly true that those who provoked the revolution were not supported, at first, by a majority of the colonists, there is little doubt, IMO, that by that time the common morality of the colonists had already shifted away from viewing monarchal rule from Britain as a colony as their best option.

The American revolution is a history of great men, not a 'real' uprising of the people. Using propaganda, people like Sam Adams and Tom Paine got Bostonians to view morality in their way. They defined the debate and pulled the people to them.

In the rest of country, which was much less radical than Boston, people simply followed the respected leaders of the community. Because they said so, the people followed. That is essentially what happened in New York and Virginia.

Are you kidding? Of course it's relevant!

How are my moral views relavent if the majority moral view (or leading moral view) is diametrically opposed to mine? It holds no water, except within my head... unless it becomes the majority moral view.

And it does matter more to just yourself, since someone who sees you make such a choice is, if they are reasoned, going to try to evaluate why you made your choice.

Doubtful. Mostly, if your views are not in lock step with the morality of the state, you don't tend to say it that easily, ESPECIALLY, if that can get you into trouble.

And most people, when hearing someone who has a 'wierd' view, immediately dismiss it as being from a crazy.

You can try to convince others of your views to get your ideas in the majority, but until then, it doesn't matter.

But just because someone makes a law does not mean that the law is just or moral. If all of a sudden Congress decided to pass a law stripping all Arab-Americans of their citizenship and confining them to concentration camps, that law wouldn't magically be moral.

I must disagree. Laws are how the leaders of society assert their morallity.

If a law was passed by Congress and approved by the President, stripping Arab-Americans of rights, that, because of Congress' moral mandate (and believe me, in every democratic government, the legislature has a moral mandate... if the government isn't democratic, then the people's idea of moral doesn't matter nearly as much) makes it moral in that society.

because law and morality are not interchangeable. David Floyd is not acting counter to his moral code by paying taxes, even though he believes taxes are immoral.

A. I believe they are (for the most part interchangable).
B. I believe he is (acting counter to his moral code).

No, that didn't help at all, because it didn't address anything about the fundamentals of object enumeration.

The article asserts that our knowledge of numbers is based on our biological environment and the rules that it follows. Humanity having one form of biology, doesn't mean alien beings must have the same.

And basic math doesn't ALWAYS work. Quantum physics for example is extrodinarily randomn, in which our object enumeration would not work.

[SnowFire]

Imran, this is getting silly. You're so contradictory to your own framework. I really don't like taking stances that I don't agree with, but your laws=morality thing is just silly, and how it would be moral if Congress passed a law interring Arab-Americans doesn't make sense. Assuming societal morality (a position I do NOT hold), then there have been countless societies throughout the aeons that have disagreed with the actions of a government they throught was immoral. Look at the breakup of the Caliphate, the English Civil War, or peasants in Bohemia under the Austrians. Wouldn't a relativist hold what the people actually throught higher than a law on the books?

The concepts behind law and morality are fundamentally different. Just because there's some crossover doesn't mean they're the same thing.

As for math, you misunderstand math. Math can't be wrong; we can only be mistaken. By a priori I don't mean instinctual; I mean it can be figured out without experience. In any case, I am talking of math in the abstract, and even though Boris was giving concrete examples, it frankly doesn't matter if you can bring up any number of tiny situations where people have been mistaken about math, or where math is unhelpful. Math is still true, because it is defined to be. From Peano's axioms, 1+1=2 is a logical consequence. 1+1=3 is either a mistake or somebody who understands the symbol "3" as meaning the concept of the number "2." No matter how subjective you claim the world is, definitions must be true, and nothing shows the power and breadth of definitions than math. I suppose I can see your hesitance though, because once you accept math, it's not much more of a step to extend definitions into other fields.

[Imran Siddiqui]

then there have been countless societies throughout the aeons that have disagreed with the actions of a government they throught was immoral. Look at the breakup of the Caliphate, the English Civil War, or peasants in Bohemia under the Austrians. Wouldn't a relativist hold what the people actually throught higher than a law on the books?

Once the people overthrow the government that they disagree with, then the morality changes. Simply having a lot of people believing the government is wrong doesn't do anything for the societal morality. The people in charge in the society decide what morality they will follow.

Why would a relativist say that what people thought is higher than laws? Morals are equal in weight from an outside view, and from the inside, those morals that the leadership has set in place (mostly in the form of laws) are 'higher'. People that disagree with that don't matter, unless there is a threat that those people may be able to take power.

So basically, think of it as a 'might makes right' type of view.

because it is defined to be.

That's not what I was arguing in the first place. I was arguing that math is totally subjective because societies (in this case the human society) define what it is. If you define it differently, then it is different. At one point the number 0 existed in Islam and China, but not Europe. Different society did different things with numbers.

Just because it turned out one way, doesn't mean it had to. If the European view won out, then maybe today we wouldn't have a 0, and maybe that'd be all right, because society would just define nothingness into it. THAT is what I was talking about.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I was arguing that math is totally subjective because societies (in this case the human society) define what it is.

Are you admitting that individual people cannot arbitrarily redefine terms, since society defines the terms?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Individuals can arbitrarily define terms if they wish, but it is not worth anything (except to themselves) until they have enough people to control society.

Society isn't a sentient being, it is made up of individual beliefs, and those that rule are those that define.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Society isn't a sentient being, it is made up of individual beliefs, and those that rule are those that define.

Could you provide an example of a ruler who has redefined logic, e.g. who has declared that A == ~A, and who had the masses actually redefine logic to his/her whim (i.e. who from that point onward acted as though A == ~A)?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Pope... though he is not a traditional ruler, I admit.

A == ~A is shorthand for saying illogical thought (in the end, the formula didn't work). The whole idea of 'faith' in the face of science is totally illogical.

In shorthand: scientific proof == ~scientific proof.

Oh, and arguing the Bible is totally correct (infalible), even though it is self-contradictory, and having millions upon millions believe that.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The Pope... though he is not a traditional ruler, I admit.

So you're claiming that the Pope created religion and/or religious faith?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you're claiming that the Pope created religion?

He created the Christian religion (Jesus didn't do it).

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
He created the Christian religion

He single-handedly created the Christian religion? I'd always thought that there weren't bishops/cardinals/etc. in the early Christian church. I'm also pretty sure that the bishop of Rome didn't ascend to dominance over the other bishops until several hundred years after Jesus's death (especially since Christianity was initially outlawed by the Romans, meaning that Rome would not be a particularly popular hangout for Christians in the early days).

Also, weren't there religions before Christianity? Even if the Pope single-handedly created the Christian religion, he could hardly be accused of creating all religion (and thus of redefining logic)...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Paul is considered the first Pope. The Pope's trace their authority back to St. Paul.

He may not be a true Pope, but he is considered the first Pope, and he basically created the religion.

Before that you had a cult belief called Christianity, but not a religion.

Of course, Mr. Paul had some help, but he was the main guy.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
He may not be a [i]true[i] Pope, but he is considered the first Pope, and he basically created the religion.

So before Paul, none of the early Christians had religious faith?

Also, was there no such thing as religious faith prior to Christianity?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well of course there was religious faith. People tend to follow those that believe they can explain things and seem genuine enough (and performing miracles is a BIG plus). The herd follows the guy with the plan. The people like illogical answers to things they can't explain.

What's you point?