Are post-modernism and relativism both threats to liberty and equality?

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Smiley
Mysticism is a stopgap, not a permanent fixture- its role used to be much large when fewer things had scientific explanations. With further advances in neuroscience more of the social sciences may change into the hard sciences.

post modernism was created though under the realization that science isn't able to solve or explain everything.

i.e. neuroscience will explain what geneticla predispostition one has but cant influence or exp[lain the environmental factors. But this is a slightly different issue.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by BeBro
I agree to most of the things Rufus said about natural rights. I don't think they are natural. Kant goes a step forward and ties moral principles to reason, which is an important thing because it makes a non-religious foundation of certain things possible. From what I gathered from various threads here, this too seems to be debatable to many (although I'd like to hear what exactly the criticism is about).

Basically, the problem with rational ethics is that they're resting on shaky foundations; you have to start with some moral axioms that can't be proven or rendered plausible by reference to observation.

[BeBMan]

But isn't it a difference if you want to prove something as objective or absolute (which I wouldn't try here, since I don't think it is possible) or if you say that - from various approaches to a problem - some approaches make more sense than others? Relativism seems to imply that this cannot be the case.

I mean let's take that classic "According to their own beliefs, the Nazis did no wrong" - I think that statement is worthless (sorry for the Godwinizing ). It is not exactly wrong - of course they believed they were right.

But that is like saying "If I believe something however absurd it may be, and then behave according to those beliefs however absurd they may be I can never do wrong". In praxis this does seem absolutely weird to me.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
In my opinion,

This is the key phrase here.

For a roight top be natural, it must be universal, i.e., it must be observed everywhere and at all times, except in extreme circumstances, such as insanity.

No right has ever been obersved in all societies, for all people, in all times. Thus no right can be considered universal, thus no right is natural.

There is nothing wrong with the recognition that rights are man-made. In fact, this makes rights more important, since we can create new ones, or take old ones away. We took away the right to own slaves. We took away the right to kill your inferiors. We added the right to free speech.

Like any tool, there is an inherent danger. Hammers and screwdrivers can be used to kill as weapons as well as tools to build. We can lose rights we consider crucial as well as add rights which we could consider evil.

[Ned]

If it is true that post-modernists and relativists argue that man is not unique and has no value as an individual, I see clearly that these folks are fascists or communists that are seeking to subordinate the individual to the state. They have not so much a philosophy as an agenda.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


By this logic, we can kill babies. If we can't because they may someday be able to reason, then we can still kill the severly mentally retarded. Is that where reason takes you? You say it isn't, but read on...



Chimps are more like humans than horses. Chimps can, in fact, reason in a rudimentary fashion. Can we kill chimps? Do chimps have a right to life?



If each of us gets to decide based on our own opinions/beliefs, then the right isn't natural -- it's a human construct.



Why does rape mitigate anything? A life is a life. Why does the life inside of a woman whose birth control failed have a right to exist, but the life inside of a woman who was raped does not? If there is a natural right to life, there is no way Reason could lead you to this conclusion. If, on the other hand, the right to life was a human construct, you'd be free to construct it this way -- as you have.



Yes it does. You just said that what makes us human is our ability to reason. Therefore, any being that cannot reason is, by definition, not human. And we get to kill them. You said so.

You see my point. It's all well and good to declare that a Right to Life is natural, not man-made. But such a right, like all rights, is meaningless in the abstract and must be concretized. The problem is, the minute you concretize it, you realize that it is a profoundly human construct.

And, again, there's nothing wrong with that; it does not diminish in the least the importance of such a right.

Ok, so if the right to life is not natural and is a social construct, what aspect of humanity IS natural and universal that still distinguishes us from other animals?

For instance, humans sexually reproduce in essentially the same basic way that many other mammalian species do. But are there any natural characteristics of humans that do not exist in other animals? Can we say that reasoning and rationalization are natural traits of humans that does not exist in other animals?

The reasoning of chimpanzees that you already mentioned is not the same form of reasoning of humans, is it? Or could we say that they are essentially the same, only with human reasoning being more advanced than that of chimpanzees?


Oh, and please be patient with me as I try to sort all this out -- I'm not experienced in philosophical discourse as others may be.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So how do these examples of my opinion square with the concept of the univeral, natural right to life? It's universal because no matter where a human lives, he/she has the right to life -- from an executive of metropolitan city in Italy to an pygmy in western part of Africa.

It's natural because it's based on the simple, unchangeable fact that humans have the capability to reason and rationalize. A human can rationalize why another human ought not to exploit or control him/her. A horse does not have that capability.

But how is it universal (except in your own, personal, reasoning) when people disagree on whether the capability to reason and rationalize are the criteria? After all, the conservative who thinks abortion violates the right to life in all circumstances because someone is a human when the egg is fertilzed does not share the same belief as you.

Someone who is a Buddhist probably would not take 'reason' as a justification for a right to life, but would take sentience, meaning that animals have a right to life as well, and thus our eating them is violating their 'natural' rights.

IIRC, Eastern religions and cultures did not recognize a right to life until Western values were imposed upon them, indicating a 'right to life' being a cultural conquest rather than a natural right.

If everyone doesn't agree, how can it be a universal natural right?

I understand what you mean in reference to different cultural understandings of such ideas "right to life."

I have to think about this some more before I respond more fully, though.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


This is the key phrase here.

For a roight top be natural, it must be universal, i.e., it must be observed everywhere and at all times, except in extreme circumstances, such as insanity.

No right has ever been obersved in all societies, for all people, in all times. Thus no right can be considered universal, thus no right is natural.

There is nothing wrong with the recognition that rights are man-made. In fact, this makes rights more important, since we can create new ones, or take old ones away. We took away the right to own slaves. We took away the right to kill your inferiors. We added the right to free speech.

Like any tool, there is an inherent danger. Hammers and screwdrivers can be used to kill as weapons as well as tools to build. We can lose rights we consider crucial as well as add rights which we could consider evil.

But read the earlier posts -- does the lack of universal, faithful adherence to the natural right to life mean that it is not natural?

Sexual reproduction for example, is a natural form of perpetuation and continuation of a species. Does this mean that because some humans choose to never bear children that sexual reproduction is not natural?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by BeBro
Good question, but OTOH if ten people offer you ten different solutions for a certain problem - does the pure existance of those differences mean that every solution is as good as the other?

Depends on the problem . If the problem is something moral or political (where you don't have scientific testing), then every solution may indeed be as good as the other.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sexual reproduction for example, is a natural form of perpetuation and continuation of a species. Does this mean that because some humans choose to never bear children that sexual reproduction is not natural?

Sexual reproduction can be scientifically observed and tested. This is not the case for morality or politics or philosophy. The 'test' is a social one and for some a position works and for others it doesn't.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Sexual reproduction for example, is a natural form of perpetuation and continuation of a species. Does this mean that because some humans choose to never bear children that sexual reproduction is not natural?

Sexual reproduction can be scientifically observed and tested. This is not the case for morality or politics or philosophy. The 'test' is a social one and for some a position works and for others it doesn't.

true . . . . . .

[Dracon II]

If it is true that post-modernists and relativists argue that man is not unique and has no value as an individual, I see clearly that these folks are fascists or communists that are seeking to subordinate the individual to the state. They have not so much a philosophy as an agenda.

Woah woah.... that's a really strange way of looking at it

Postmodernist thought has been used by feminists, black activists, queer activists, it's been used to justify multic-culturalism etc etc....

If anything its logic serves free market capitalism more than communism and fascism. Communists and fascists have a project that attempts to create an "authentic" human or society... they have conceptions of destiny, of essential human nature, etc.... all things that postmodernists deny.
Postmodernism is as much a refutation of fascism and communism as it is of any other modern discourse.

[Dracon II]

With regard to the state; Postmodernists question the foundation of the state just as much as they question man.

Read Lyotard, Deleuze & Guattari, Foucault etc..... they are all trying to develop political projects of liberation.

I believe they ultimately fail.. but they certainly don't advocate fascism.

Mind you.... I'm not sure how Baudrillard would see things... he seems so far removed to nihilism in his work that he's beyond all categories of political morality.... see his article on 9/11... ridiculous postmodern tripe....

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dracon II

If it is true that post-modernists and relativists argue that man is not unique and has no value as an individual, I see clearly that these folks are fascists or communists that are seeking to subordinate the individual to the state. They have not so much a philosophy as an agenda.

Woah woah.... that's a really strange way of looking at it

Postmodernist thought has been used by feminists, black activists, queer activists, it's been used to justify multic-culturalism etc etc....

If anything its logic serves free market capitalism more than communism and fascism. Communists and fascists have a project that attempts to create an "authentic" human or society... they have conceptions of destiny, of essential human nature, etc.... all things that postmodernists deny.
Postmodernism is as much a refutation of fascism and communism as it is of any other modern discourse.

On the other hand, postmodernists depreciate the concept of equal rights and the idea of individuality.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Dracon II

If it is true that post-modernists and relativists argue that man is not unique and has no value as an individual, I see clearly that these folks are fascists or communists that are seeking to subordinate the individual to the state. They have not so much a philosophy as an agenda.

Woah woah.... that's a really strange way of looking at it

It is Ned