NationStates Jolt Archive

This is interesting, in arguments against morality, a lot of the people who use the idea that morality is just a concept and is not a real or objective thing which we have no obligation to follow.

Those same people would say that it is our highest obligation to respec peoples "human rights", but isn't that a concept as well? How can you prove that we must respect those rights without out using the same arguments as moralists?

Edit: To everyone who is admitting to Human rights just being a concept, you arn't answering my real question which is:

What gives them more authority then any other moral code? And wouldn't that make you hypocritical by using the idea that morality is a concept as a criticizm?

Considering the only alternative to "just a concept" is a tangible object, which human rights are not... Yes.

Everything is just a concept. Humans have nothing to follow but concepts. Even that, dare I say, is a concept.

Considering the only alternative to "just a concept" is a tangible object, which human rights are not... Yes.

So whats the difference between living by the concept of morality, and having to follow the concept of human rights (which is really just another set of moral codes)? When most people claim that there is no reason why you should be moral?

human rights are just a concept the good thing is to break them is usually quite difficult and usually ends up with some kind of repercussions unless you’re the government of China that is…

The very language we are speaking in is just a concept. everything that makes human society are merely human concepts. Civilization is just a concept what makes a civilization. that doesnt take away from its power.

So whats the difference between living by the concept of morality, and having to follow the concept of human rights (which is really just another set of moral codes)? When most people claim that there is no reason why you should be moral?

There IS no reason to be moral if you don't mind having immoral things done to yourself by others.

So whats the difference between living by the concept of morality, and having to follow the concept of human rights (which is really just another set of moral codes)? When most people claim that there is no reason why you should be moral?

Define for me please Moral/Morality.

There are too many people who feel too relativist, i.e. intellectually and physically lazy, to support human rights.

There are too many people who feel too relativist, i.e. intellectually and physically lazy, to support human rights.

I'm sorry what does Relavitism have to do with lazy?

So whats the difference between living by the concept of morality, and having to follow the concept of human rights (which is really just another set of moral codes)? When most people claim that there is no reason why you should be moral?

well human rights is more of a age old social contract dating back to the magna carter which basically stopped the government (back then King) from arresting people and killing them without a fair trial as things like the ability to control speech become clear the public forced the government to not infringe on the right of free speech

So as you can see human rights come from past agreements between the people and government that would hopefully protect there children

There IS no reason to be moral if you don't mind having immoral things done to yourself by others.

Because we all know if you do good things, good thing'll happen. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

well human rights is more of a age old social contract dating back to the magna carter which basically stopped the government (back then King) from arresting people and killing them without a fair trial as things like the ability to control speech become clear the public forced the government to not infringe on the right of free speech

So as you can see human rights come from past agreements between the people and government that would hopefully protect there children

I see what you are saying here, but many people can argue that other things like illegalization of drugs as an agreement to not damge society etc.. In return people use the argument that morality has no place in government because it is just a "concept". Which is a bit hypocritical i think.

There IS no reason to be moral if you don't mind having immoral things done to yourself by others.

oh don't give me that... i mean the whole thing with "do not do unto another what you do not wish done unto yourself" doesn't really apply in the real world... and yes the human rights thing is just a moral code and as an amoral person doesn't really impress me too much

I see what you are saying here, but many people can argue that other things like illegalization of drugs as an agreement to not damge society etc.. In return people use the argument that morality has no place in government because it is just a "concept". Which is a bit hypocritical i think.

ah but civil rights movements have fought for 40+ years now to get morality out of government the agreement (where there is one) is very much unofficial but its still there

And so human rights are not just a concept they are an agreed social contract whereas morality was an agreed social contract up to about the 50’s where its steadily lost power to human rights (oddly enough could morality of been the predecessor of human rights?)

ah but civil rights movements have fought for 40+ years now to get morality out of government the agreement (where there is one) is very much unofficial but its still there

And so human rights are not just a concept they are an agreed social contract whereas morality was an agreed social contract up to about the 50’s where its steadily lost power to human rights (oddly enough could morality of been the predecessor of human rights?)

So basicly, human rights is just (to some people) a more advanced set of moral codes to previous moral codes. Which is kinda shows the hypocracy of the anti morality pro human rights people.

I'm anti morality anti-human rights. Or I would be if I had power, otherwise I'm an anarchist.

Of course human rights are simply a mere moral concept. The big reason to like the idea though is that without human rights human society tends to turn into crap. This doesn't mean that human rights are inviolable, but it does mean that human rights should be considered seriously in planning a course of action. Human rights are essentially a form of rule utilitarianism, if we fail to keep our government from violating them then ours may be violated, as well, certain rights help a society prosper.

yes human rights is nothing more than a concept. but its a good concept based on things that the vast majority of people can agree on and work towards.

So basicly, human rights is just (to some people) a more advanced set of moral codes to previous moral codes. Which is kinda shows the hypocracy of the anti morality pro human rights people.
Who are these people? Remember that anti-Christian right wing morality, doesn't mean anti-morality.

Because we all know if you do good things, good thing'll happen. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

What are you talking about?

This is interesting, in arguments against morality, a lot of the people who use the idea that morality is just a concept and is not a real or objective thing which we have no obligation to follow.

Those same people would say that it is our highest obligation to respec peoples "human rights", but isn't that a concept as well? How can you prove that we must respect those rights without out using the same arguments as moralists?

Edit: To everyone who is admitting to Human rights just being a concept, you arn't answering my real question which is:

What gives them more authority then any other moral code? And wouldn't that make you hypocritical by using the idea that morality is a concept as a criticizm?


The whole notion of rights, of any kind, is derivative upon the notion of equality with respect to the bearers of such rights. The concept of the rights of kings was dependant upon the concept that this king was the equal - morally - of that king. etc.

What can be claimed, as a point of authority for human rights is that they, of necessity, treat all humans equally - otherwise they would not be human rights. This concept of equality between people qua human being a basic moral principle that is common to many ethical systems, human rights are often cited as a foundational concept for ethical systems.

That they are a concept is generally irrelevant to the criticism of morality as conceptual. There is an essential quality to the conceptof human rights that is absent form the concepts involved in the construction of most ethical systems. If, however, the whole concept of rights as a whole - their existence and/or relevance to moral behaviour - is open to challenge, as I believe it is, then using a rights argument while challenging a moral system on the basis of it being conceptual is hypocritical.

oh don't give me that... i mean the whole thing with "do not do unto another what you do not wish done unto yourself" doesn't really apply in the real world... and yes the human rights thing is just a moral code and as an amoral person doesn't really impress me too much

I think you mistook me for Jesus. You can be as amoral as you want to be but if you skin your next door neighbors cat, you shouldn't be pitied if you find your dog nailed spread eagle onto your front door.


I really need to start smoking pot again.

So whats the difference between living by the concept of morality, and having to follow the concept of human rights (which is really just another set of moral codes)? When most people claim that there is no reason why you should be moral?

Most people? Where do you get that idea from?

Because we all know if you do good things, good thing'll happen. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Not exactly. If society (of which any given person is a part) decides that people shall not be permitted to kill each other, it becomes less likely that any given member of that society will be killed. If you don't want to be killed, a good first step is not to go around encouraging people to kill each other. Pretty obvious, really.

When most people claim that there is no reason why you should be moral?

..."most people" claim that? Since when? I apparently missed the vast popular movement to legalize murder, rape, theft, and so forth. :rolleyes:

I see what you are saying here, but many people can argue that other things like illegalization of drugs as an agreement to not damge society etc.. In return people use the argument that morality has no place in government because it is just a "concept". Which is a bit hypocritical i think.

I feel like your argument is getting tangled up in an unacknowledged assumption.

First, you seem to be saying that human rights is a moral code. I agree with that, to the extent that I equate morality and ethics as being the same thing (they aren't always).

Then you seem to be complaining that people don't believe in morality and don't stand up for human rights. Well, I don't see any proof in your argument that a significant number of people are amoral (at least, consciously and deliberately so), and while I also wish there were more action to protect human rights globally, I also don't see any data to support your argument that not enough people are standing up. Do we know how many are fighting for human rights? Do we know how many would if they were informed? Do we know how many want to but cannot for some reason? Do we have a target number for how many should be fighting for human rights, to judge that too few are?

Then you seem to be saying that you think it's hypocritical for people to argue for human rights but to argue against morality in government. First of all, if you think too few people are fighting for human rights, should you really be complaining about the motivations of those who do? Second, if human rights are a moral code, then aren't those who argue for them, arguing in favor of morality? Then what "morality" do you think they are arguing against?

Perhaps I've just completely misunderstood your argument, but it reads to me so far like part of it is you expressing frustration over poor progress for human rights -- I'm with you there -- and another part of it is you complaining about human rights not being considered part of a "morality" by some people who support the concept of human rights. That's the part I don't understand. Are you trying to say that there is some particular moral code, which you are calling simply "morality," that one should be adhering to if one supports human rights? What moral code would that be, if not the moral code that includes the basic concept of human rights?

This is interesting, in arguments against morality, a lot of the people who use the idea that morality is just a concept and is not a real or objective thing which we have no obligation to follow.

Those same people would say that it is our highest obligation to respec peoples "human rights", but isn't that a concept as well? How can you prove that we must respect those rights without out using the same arguments as moralists?

Edit: To everyone who is admitting to Human rights just being a concept, you arn't answering my real question which is:

What gives them more authority then any other moral code? And wouldn't that make you hypocritical by using the idea that morality is a concept as a criticizm?

That's absurd. I've got a bucket of mercy in my garage, and half a kilo of self-determination on the top shelf of my pantry.

If anyone else is interested I may be putting 800 grams of Faith in Mankind up for auction on eBay next week.

Human rights are, or should be interpreted as, a naturally arising code of conduct between individuals which eliminates aggression. This code of conduct is natural law. As individuals predate government, so too do their relations between one another, and as human rights are a product of the relations between individuals, human rights predate government. Government is merely an arbiter and enforcer of a law, but not necessarily natural law. A law which conflicts with natural law is necessarily a law which provides for aggression, which the violation of a law concerning the elimination of aggression implies.

Some may say that because human rights are a concept, they should be ignored or are pointless. This is absurd. Concepts are a natural result of reasoning- without reason, we are animals. In fact, the concept that concepts should be ignored is a concept itself. Additionally, some may say that human rights do not exist because they are a concept. This is also absurd. Human rights are a code of conduct by which aggression is avoided. One cannot invalidate this meaning. One may say that they do not find aggression to be wrong, but this still does not invalidate the fact that human rights are a code of conduct to avoid aggression. Therefore, human rights do exist.

This is interesting, in arguments against morality, a lot of the people who use the idea that morality is just a concept and is not a real or objective thing which we have no obligation to follow.

Those same people would say that it is our highest obligation to respec peoples "human rights", but isn't that a concept as well? How can you prove that we must respect those rights without out using the same arguments as moralists?

Edit: To everyone who is admitting to Human rights just being a concept, you arn't answering my real question which is:

What gives them more authority then any other moral code? And wouldn't that make you hypocritical by using the idea that morality is a concept as a criticizm?

Morality is a code of conduct that has formed over time as a culture evolves. The best, and maybe only, reason to follow it is that doing so makes your life easier in that culture. If, for example, you shoot your neighbours' cats every time you catch them pissing on your lawn, you're bound to get into some kind of trouble, even if such activity wasn't forbidden by law. Usually morality tells what people must or must not do; it defines responsibilities.

Human rights are something that's upheld (or violated) mostly by governments instead of private citizens, and violating them is usually defined as a bad thing in a country's constitution. They usually tell what people can do, if they want to; they define, well, rights. So I'd say they're very similar, human rights being official, while morality being more of an unwritten law. Sure, many laws are based on moral codes alone, but lately the trend has been to change such laws.

So yes, it is just a concept. Human rights have more authority, because they are usually promised to citizens in the constitution of a nation, and therefore, in an ideal situation, have the backing of the government. That is assuming the constitution does promise those rights; if not, then they're pretty much on the same line.

I'm not against either. They're the two sides of the same coin: rights and responsibilities. A society can't function optimally without either.

(I'm pretty surprised by the amount of people who agree that human rights are just a concept. Couple of months ago, when I argued something to that effect, everyone was yelling "ZOMG, RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE AND COME FROM GOD/NATURE/FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER/WHATEVER!!1!" Or is there just a difference in definitions that I'm missing?)

When I said most people, I actually meant most of the people, as in most of the people who are anti morality etc..

I feel like your argument is getting tangled up in an unacknowledged assumption.

First, you seem to be saying that human rights is a moral code. I agree with that, to the extent that I equate morality and ethics as being the same thing (they aren't always).

Then you seem to be complaining that people don't believe in morality and don't stand up for human rights. Well, I don't see any proof in your argument that a significant number of people are amoral (at least, consciously and deliberately so), and while I also wish there were more action to protect human rights globally, I also don't see any data to support your argument that not enough people are standing up. Do we know how many are fighting for human rights? Do we know how many would if they were informed? Do we know how many want to but cannot for some reason? Do we have a target number for how many should be fighting for human rights, to judge that too few are?

Then you seem to be saying that you think it's hypocritical for people to argue for human rights but to argue against morality in government. First of all, if you think too few people are fighting for human rights, should you really be complaining about the motivations of those who do? Second, if human rights are a moral code, then aren't those who argue for them, arguing in favor of morality? Then what "morality" do you think they are arguing against?

Perhaps I've just completely misunderstood your argument, but it reads to me so far like part of it is you expressing frustration over poor progress for human rights -- I'm with you there -- and another part of it is you complaining about human rights not being considered part of a "morality" by some people who support the concept of human rights. That's the part I don't understand. Are you trying to say that there is some particular moral code, which you are calling simply "morality," that one should be adhering to if one supports human rights? What moral code would that be, if not the moral code that includes the basic concept of human rights?

Not quite, I am really trying to point out the massive hypocracy in one of the major anti morality arguments.

oh don't give me that... i mean the whole thing with "do not do unto another what you do not wish done unto yourself" doesn't really apply in the real world... and yes the human rights thing is just a moral code and as an amoral person doesn't really impress me too much
Sure it applies. You simply have to act accordingly.
Most people? Where do you get that idea from?
Oh, I ran into "most people" earlier this evening:
Most people accept some are more human than others. Try it sometime.

(From here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=500186&page=3 )

I'd say "most people" are pretty fucked up. Only that it doesn't apply to most people.

<snip>
Oh, I ran into "most people" earlier this evening:


(From here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=500186&page=3 )
Oh. :rolleyes:

I'd say "most people" are pretty fucked up. Only that it doesn't apply to most people.

I don't know about that. I think it generally does apply. ;)

Not quite, I am really trying to point out the massive hypocracy in one of the major anti morality arguments.

Not quite what? I asked a whole bunch of questions in there, including some about this "morality" thing. Care to answer any of them?

What gives them more authority then any other moral code?

I like them.

And wouldn't that make you hypocritical by using the idea that morality is a concept as a criticizm?

I don't criticize other people's moralities that way.

When I said most people, I actually meant most of the people, as in most of the people who are anti morality etc..

I see. So you are saying that most of the people who are anti morality are anti morality.* Well, thanks for pointing that out.



*What does "anti morality" mean?**



** sigh.

I see. So you are saying that most of the people who are anti morality are anti morality.* Well, thanks for pointing that out.



*What does "anti morality" mean?**



** sigh.

He's talking about the people who'll say, in regard to gay marriage or abortion, that government shouldn't be making decisions based on morality, yet nevertheless insist that human rights should be respected.

I say let the majority decide.

He's talking about the people who'll say, in regard to gay marriage or abortion, that government shouldn't be making decisions based on morality, yet nevertheless insist that human rights should be respected.

Yeah, I kinda figured that's what he meant, only... well, to be honest, I was starting to wonder if he knew that's what he meant.

Of course, that still leaves him to answer my other questions about his ideas of morality, such as: If human rights are a moral code, how can he say that those who argue for them are against morality? He must be arguing for a particular but un-specified moral code that he values over others, so that those who argue for moral issues, like human rights, but do not adhere to his preferred code are somehow not being moral in their defense of moral concepts like human rights.

Also, it begs the question of whether a concept is moral just because it is included in someone's moral code. If Hydesland is concerned about fighting for human rights, then he must know that many abuses of human rights are committed in the name of morality. The Taliban executed women for trying to earn a living because of what they claimed as their moral code. Were those killings moral just because they were part of a code? Those who argue for the morality of human rights but against basing other government decisions on morality are often really saying that the specific issues they argue against are not really moral at all, their inclusion in a code notwithstanding.

What are we meaning when we say "human rights"? Are we talking about the universal declaration of human rights?

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
-Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I see major problems in just that begining. Not all people are born equal, some are more... lucky than others. I'm fine with that second sentence, but to think that all people are equal just seems stupid, some one will always have an advantage which they will use over others. That's life, it creates inequality, which, if it were a right, would be impossible as rights are undeniable. People probably shouldn't do this and I think we're naturaly good people who could avoid it, the problem is that we're too logical to allow one another to keep our "rights" as it often lessens our oppertunities.

Everything that is not a tangible object is a concept, which in fact is far more objective than a material object. The veracity of your perception of an object is doubtable, but the truth of concepts, and relations in between them, can be proven absolutely true a priori, making them far more objectively, provably true than assertions about tangible things.

All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic ... [which are] discoverable by the mere operation of thought ... Matters of fact, which are the second object of human reason, are not ascertained in the same manner; nor is our evidence of their truth, however great, of a like nature with the foregoing.

The question I believe you must truly be trying to ask is whether human rights are intrinsic properties inevitably logically derived from axiomatic first principles, or merely subjective beliefs and desires that individuals and groups agree on because they achieve the most beneficial results from a utilitarian or consequentialist perspective.

My answer is that they are the former, the axiomatic first principles being A=A, the assignment of the property of actorship to an individual's mind, and the standard of reason as a judge for the morality and ethicality of human actions and behaviors.

My argument from these first principles is that in reacting to a given environmental situation or stimulus, a person's decision of response is based on their rational self-interest, and is ergo a choice exercised by their quality of volitional, conscious actorship.

For another individual to coercively alter that person's decision away from their natural rational self-interest in response to that situation is to attempt to supplant their actorship with that person's own. Such an act is an attempted violation of A=A, or a contradiction.

Obviously, in this universe contradictions do not and cannot exist, in that in this specific situation the victim has merely had another factor added to their decision, but the agressor is nonetheless attempting and intending such a contradiction, and in effective comparative results is in a way succeeding. This intention, this action, this effect, is the root definition of an unethical or immoral act: the violation of the principle of self-ownership, whether this be by deprivation of property (self-created value, whether the original fruits of one's labor or something one traded for such) via theft or coercive taxation, or deprivation of life and consciousness via murder.

By the same token, no act which does not involuntarily violate the self-ownership-derived rights of another person or persons can be considered immoral or unethical, and no right that cannot be reduced back to self-ownership can actually be considered a true right, per se.

That is the objective logical reasoning from which the intrinsic qualities of human rights are derived.

Every moral imperative is a concept - a normative concept.

This is interesting, in arguments against morality, a lot of the people who use the idea that morality is just a concept and is not a real or objective thing which we have no obligation to follow.

Those same people would say that it is our highest obligation to respec peoples "human rights", but isn't that a concept as well? How can you prove that we must respect those rights without out using the same arguments as moralists?

Edit: To everyone who is admitting to Human rights just being a concept, you arn't answering my real question which is:

What gives them more authority then any other moral code? And wouldn't that make you hypocritical by using the idea that morality is a concept as a criticizm?


Unless all long term successful groups believe there is a reward for acting in a specific manner, any idea like "human rights" is only as good as the system of reward and punishment.

These can be abstract, as in, "well, if we treat the prisoners nicely, when they take ours prisoner, things will work out well". Whether or not this actually works is the real question. It has had mixed results throughout the history of warfare - in general, unless you surrender as part of a battalion sized group or larger, and are of the same rough ethnicity as your opponent, you're very likely to be killed on the spot, or treated to a lingering death by starvation and slavery.

It can also be quite real - there can be punishments for violations of "human rights". The problem here is one of enforcement - if you are counting on enforcement and deterrence to make this happen, you have to be very consistent, or everyone will say "fuck it".

And then we all can't agree on human rights. We have a religion today where it is widely accepted that people within that religion are "worth" more than other people (up to 16 times as much). This isn't as narrow a gap as the one where the US is trying to figure out who is a "uniformed soldier of a High Contracting Party" and who is an "enemy combatant". We're talking about a cultural, philosophical, and religious Gulf as wide as the timespan between the 10th Century and today.

---Excuse me for barging in on your debate, but I do not believe that morality exists on a universal level. Just like the concept of the differences between good and evil, and the concept of one's belief in a form of god, the idea of morality and immorality is a personal tangent that changes comstantly based on personal opinions and social shifts.

Yeah, I kinda figured that's what he meant, only... well, to be honest, I was starting to wonder if he knew that's what he meant.

Of course, that still leaves him to answer my other questions about his ideas of morality, such as: If human rights are a moral code, how can he say that those who argue for them are against morality? He must be arguing for a particular but un-specified moral code that he values over others, so that those who argue for moral issues, like human rights, but do not adhere to his preferred code are somehow not being moral in their defense of moral concepts like human rights.


You still have misunderstood me. I am not criticizing people who argue for human rights, I am for human rights. I am criticizing people who completely disragard and bash things like morality and values, respect etc... Because they are "subjective" and just a concept. Though, at the same time feel that everyone should be forced to follow another subjective moral code (human rights). I am not criticizing the latter idea but the former idea for hypocracy.

I wasn't aware that people argue in favor of human rights because it was the moral thing to do. Murder isn't legal, because if it were, all the politicians would be dead, and not because it's 'wrong' to murder someone.

You still have misunderstood me. I am not criticizing people who argue for human rights, I am for human rights. I am criticizing people who completely disragard and bash things like morality and values, respect etc... Because they are "subjective" and just a concept. Though, at the same time feel that everyone should be forced to follow another subjective moral code (human rights). I am not criticizing the latter idea but the former idea for hypocracy.

But, as Human Rights is itself a moral code, they aren't argueing against morality. Theirs just doesn't precisely match your version of morality. If you can provide objective proof that your moral code is the one and only moral code, or that all other possible beliefs are erroneous and invalid for all regardless of what any one person may believe then you can hold your postings to be truth. Otherwise, they're opinion.

But, as Human Rights is itself a moral code, they aren't argueing against morality. Theirs just doesn't precisely match your version of morality. If you can provide objective proof that your moral code is the one and only moral code, or that all other possible beliefs are erroneous and invalid for all regardless of what any one person may believe then you can hold your postings to be truth. Otherwise, they're opinion.

You must be talking about completely different people. Many people say morality should be thrown out of the window yet are still heavy on human rights. And why did you make the assumption that I have a different moral code?

You must be talking about completely different people. Many people say morality should be thrown out of the window yet are still heavy on human rights. And why did you make the assumption that I have a different moral code?

If I was assuming falsely that you were referring to Evangelical Christianity, then I apologize. But then, to what were you referring? And who has ever said that "morality" should be thrown over infavor of "Human Rights"? I have never heard that arguement made.

If I was assuming falsely that you were referring to Evangelical Christianity, then I apologize. But then, to what were you referring? And who has ever said that "morality" should be thrown over infavor of "Human Rights"? I have never heard that arguement made.

Well I havn't directly heard the Argument "throw out morality for human rights", but I have heard the argument "throw out morality" by people who are very pro human rights (which is hypocritical).

This is interesting, in arguments against morality, a lot of the people who use the idea that morality is just a concept and is not a real or objective thing which we have no obligation to follow.
Concepts can be both real and objective. Is obligation real? Is cause-and-effect objective? (hint: the answers are "yes".)

To everyone who is admitting to Human rights just being a concept, you arn't answering my real question which is:

What gives them more authority then any other moral code? And wouldn't that make you hypocritical by using the idea that morality is a concept as a criticizm?
The only thing that gives any concept authority over us is us.

For another individual to coercively alter that person's decision away from their natural rational self-interest in response to that situation is to attempt to supplant their actorship with that person's own. Such an act is an attempted violation of A=A, or a contradiction.

Obviously, in this universe contradictions do not and cannot exist, in that in this specific situation the victim has merely had another factor added to their decision, but the agressor is nonetheless attempting and intending such a contradiction, and in effective comparative results is in a way succeeding.

You cannot "succeed" if you intend a contradiction.

The fact that he succeeds in his attempt - and he does, for he has managed to coerce his victim into submitting to his will - is proof that he does not intend a contradiction. All he intends to do is to add "another factor" strong enough to successfully coerce his victim.

Edit: And even if he could supplant his victim's actorship with his own, that is no more contradictory than painting a blue ball red is.

This intention, this action, this effect, is the root definition of an unethical or immoral act: the violation of the principle of self-ownership, whether this be by deprivation of property (self-created value, whether the original fruits of one's labor or something one traded for such) via theft or coercive taxation, or deprivation of life and consciousness via murder.

By the same token, no act which does not involuntarily violate the self-ownership-derived rights of another person or persons can be considered immoral or unethical, and no right that cannot be reduced back to self-ownership can actually be considered a true right, per se.

That is the objective logical reasoning from which the intrinsic qualities of human rights are derived.

No, that is equivocation.

In one case "self-ownership" means the capability to consciously choose one's own actions, and in the other it means that others do not attempt to coercively influence one's actions.

One is implied by free will, the other is not only control over one's actions but over one's circumstances.

You cannot "succeed" if you intend a contradiction.

The fact that he succeeds in his attempt - and he does, for he has managed to coerce his victim into submitting to his will - is proof that he does not intend a contradiction. All he intends to do is to add "another factor" strong enough to successfully coerce his victim.



No, that is equivocation.

In one case "self-ownership" means the capability to consciously choose one's own actions, and in the other it means that others do not attempt to coercive influence one's actions.

One is implied by free will, the other is not only control over one's actions but over one's circumstances.

A) He does attempt and succeed at contradiction, he contradicts his own commitment to the right of autonomy of free deliberative agents, which he relies on himself.

B) The former implies the latter. Right does not equal control, a person cannot, by virtue of free deliberative agency, control his circumstances, but he has a right to have certain circumstances obtain.

A) He does attempt and succeed at contradiction, he contradicts his own commitment to the right of autonomy of free deliberative agents, which he relies on himself.

How can you "succeed" at a contradiction?

I guess you could claim that he wills a contradiction, but I have trouble with that, too - he gets what he wills, so how could he be willing a contradiction?

Why do you think he cares about the "right of autonomy of free deliberative agents"? Clearly, he does not; otherwise, he would not commit the action he commits (unless that "commitment" is outweighed by his desire to control his victim, which is still no more a contradiction than any choice with costs is.)

B) The former implies the latter.

No, it doesn't. The two have nothing to do with one another.

Is it "contradictory" to block a creek with a large boulder?

Right does not equal control, a person cannot, by virtue of free deliberative agency, control his circumstances, but he has a right to have certain circumstances obtain.

I agree, but this right is not implicit in free deliberative agency.

How can you "succeed" at a contradiction?

I guess you could claim that he wills a contradiction, but I have trouble with that, too - he gets what he wills, so how could he be willing a contradiction?

Why do you think he cares about the "right of autonomy of free deliberative agents"? Clearly, he does not; otherwise, he would not commit the action he commits (unless that "commitment" is outweighed by his desire to control his victim, which is still no more a contradiction than any choice with costs is.)


No, it doesn't. The two have nothing to do with one another.

Is it "contradictory" to block a creek with a large boulder?

I agree, but this right is not implicit in free deliberative agency.


I suppose a better phrasing would be "he contradicts his duty." He has a duty to be committed to freedom for deliberative agents, because he relies on that freedom himself and has a duty to universalize it.

A free deliberative agent has a right to certain circumstances because the only forces capable of working against those circumstances and at the same time being capable of being evaluated in terms of right are other free deliberative agents. These agents are necessarily constrained by their duty to commitment to freedom for free rational agents.

An 'act of god' like a landslide or an earthquake cannot be evaluated in terms of right/wrong, and is necessarily removed from any discussion of a person's rights. It is impossible to have a right not to be killed in an earthquake, but it is necessary to have a right to be free as a free deliberative agent.

I suppose a better phrasing would be "he contradicts his duty." He has a duty to be committed to freedom for deliberative agents, because he relies on that freedom himself and has a duty to universalize it.

He relies on his own freedom, not on "freedom for deliberative agents."

If some free deliberate agent that is not him is denied freedom, why should he care?

Well I havn't directly heard the Argument "throw out morality for human rights", but I have heard the argument "throw out morality" by people who are very pro human rights (which is hypocritical).

If you can justify each idea on its own merit then what is the problem with liking one over the other? For example with human rights I want that so people are not physical harmed or killed. I want those rights to protect myself and others where as morality is such a wide term that it needs to be defined and if you are refering to gay rights, sexuality (as in what you do in your spare time not orientation) whatever (those are jst what I usually think of that is not harming anyone else which is where I draw the line. How is that hypocritical?

He relies on his own freedom, not on "freedom for deliberative agents."

If some free deliberate agent that is not him is denied freedom, why should he care?

Duty to universalize, categorical imperative. It isnt that he should care per se about the victim, rather he should care that the offender is punished and that he himself is not an offender.

Or, more in speaking to the point of the thread, this gives him normative concepts about denying freedom from rational agents.

Duty to universalize, categorical imperative.

Why does he have this duty? Why should this universalization be reserved to free deliberative agents?

It isnt that he should care per se about the victim, rather he should care that the offender is punished and that he himself is not an offender.

But how can he punish the offender? After all, he has a commitment to avoid harming other free deliberative agents, since he himself relies on this protection from harm... right?

Or do you make a distinction, now, between "free deliberative agents" and "free deliberative agents who have violated their moral duty"?

If you can do that, why I can't I make a distinction between "free deliberative agents with an NS username of Soheran" and "free deliberative agents without an NS username of Soheran"?

Or, more in speaking to the point of the thread, this gives him normative concepts about denying freedom from rational agents.

If he can ever figure out how to apply it meaningfully. And if he is really convinced that it makes sense in the first place.

Well I havn't directly heard the Argument "throw out morality for human rights", but I have heard the argument "throw out morality" by people who are very pro human rights (which is hypocritical).

I have never heard anyone make an argument "throw out morality" other than a few hard-headed libertarians and even then only in debate forums. Nobody argues for an immoral society in real life. Nobody with any experience of politics even argues for an amoral society. The only real world debate is about the definition of what constitutes "morality."

As I said earlier, when people who are otherwise moral and ethical say that morality has no place in government, they are usually talking about a limited set of very specific issues which they think should not be under the jurisdiction of government. That is all they are talking about. They are rejecting such issues as restrictions on abortion rights, gay rights, sex education, etc. They are not rejecting morality as a concept in and of itself.

The reason "morality" has become a shorthand reference to this specific set of issues is because the factions that want to push them into politics has already labeled them with the generic term "morality," as if they are the entire measure of what is moral in the world.

Why does he have this duty? Why should this universalization be reserved to free deliberative agents?



But how can he punish the offender? After all, he has a commitment to avoid harming other free deliberative agents, since he himself relies on this protection from harm... right?

Or do you make a distinction, now, between "free deliberative agents" and "free deliberative agents who have violated their moral duty"?

If you can do that, why I can't I make a distinction between "free deliberative agents with an NS username of Soheran" and "free deliberative agents without an NS username of Soheran"?



If he can ever figure out how to apply it meaningfully. And if he is really convinced that it makes sense in the first place.


Time for class, will respond tonight.

You still have misunderstood me. I am not criticizing people who argue for human rights, I am for human rights. I am criticizing people who completely disragard and bash things like morality and values, respect etc... Because they are "subjective" and just a concept. Though, at the same time feel that everyone should be forced to follow another subjective moral code (human rights). I am not criticizing the latter idea but the former idea for hypocracy.

All morals and ethics are nothing more than concepts and they are all subjective, but they are subjective concepts to which more or less value is attached. The degree of value is proportionate to the degree of real or perceived damage if the morals are not followed.

Even though all morals are subjective, the subjectivity is lessened if the damage done by not following them is real, rather than itself conceptual. If human rights are abused, real people suffer real damage. They starve, get sick, die, can't get work, can't move about freely, etc. This is factual, not conceptual. Thus human rights tend to be considered less subjective than other morals, such as taboos against homosexuality. The person who thinks gays are immoral does not actually suffer any damage at all as a result of the way gays live, so his moral condemnation of them is entirely subjective.

I do not think it is hypocritical at all to say that government should be used to stop real people from suffering real damage but that government should not be used to satisfy one group's personal feelings when they are not in any danger of being damaged if they don't get their way.

Everything that is not a tangible object is a concept, which in fact is far more objective than a material object. The veracity of your perception of an object is doubtable, but the truth of concepts, and relations in between them, can be proven absolutely true a priori, making them far more objectively, provably true than assertions about tangible things.



The question I believe you must truly be trying to ask is whether human rights are intrinsic properties inevitably logically derived from axiomatic first principles, or merely subjective beliefs and desires that individuals and groups agree on because they achieve the most beneficial results from a utilitarian or consequentialist perspective.

My answer is that they are the former, the axiomatic first principles being A=A, the assignment of the property of actorship to an individual's mind, and the standard of reason as a judge for the morality and ethicality of human actions and behaviors.

My argument from these first principles is that in reacting to a given environmental situation or stimulus, a person's decision of response is based on their rational self-interest, and is ergo a choice exercised by their quality of volitional, conscious actorship.

For another individual to coercively alter that person's decision away from their natural rational self-interest in response to that situation is to attempt to supplant their actorship with that person's own. Such an act is an attempted violation of A=A, or a contradiction.

Obviously, in this universe contradictions do not and cannot exist, in that in this specific situation the victim has merely had another factor added to their decision, but the agressor is nonetheless attempting and intending such a contradiction, and in effective comparative results is in a way succeeding. This intention, this action, this effect, is the root definition of an unethical or immoral act: the violation of the principle of self-ownership, whether this be by deprivation of property (self-created value, whether the original fruits of one's labor or something one traded for such) via theft or coercive taxation, or deprivation of life and consciousness via murder.

By the same token, no act which does not involuntarily violate the self-ownership-derived rights of another person or persons can be considered immoral or unethical, and no right that cannot be reduced back to self-ownership can actually be considered a true right, per se.

That is the objective logical reasoning from which the intrinsic qualities of human rights are derived.

You have described a possible real state of morality from which logical human rights might be derived if your suppositions are true. However you have not defined or described human rights. More on that in a sec. The main reason that I consider your description of morality possible rather than true or complete is that it presupposes that an individual have one and only one reaction to a given situation or set of stimuli, and that the only way to alter this reaction is by changing the conditions. Choice can also be random.

If I place one black card and one white card in front of and ask you to choose one by touching it, then there are four possible responses available to you with no further change in situation regarding the two cards. Touch white. Touch black. Touch both. Touch neither. No response is logical and none are illogical. None furthers or hinders your interests. No change in situation has occured and still there are four equal reactions and outcomes. As you said contradictions do not and cannot exist. Only one outcome actually will or even can occur, and this outcome is solely dependant upon your choice. Unless and until the situation changes (I tell you to touch the black card or I will encourage Ruffy will hump your leg for instance) your choice will not be a choice which is based upon your rational self interest. Choice can be random.

The implications of random choice are disturbingly chaotic. In fact random choice should be ignored because it crippleor logical artifices constructed to jump accross this pit because it cripples logical morality so badly. That is somewhat preferable in day to day life than dumping morality for being too tenuous and ethereal to be defended with logic. I dont know much but I know what I like and I dont like sociopaths TBH.

Anyhoo back to the nit I wanted to pick about the difference between morals(whether a systemof them can be purely and properly based and defended in logic or not) and rights. Morals are those behaviors we choose as individuals to do so that we might not negatively affect those around us. We do this in the dual hopes that they might reciprocate (thus not making our lives worse). Morals tend to consist mostly of personal rules with which we limit our own actions (dont steal ,dont lie, dont kill.) When a grouping of people largely agrees upon a unified set of morals the individuals are not just less apt to actively harm one another, their individual behaviors become notably more consistant and predictable which allows them as a group to be more effective and efficient in actions and more far more united in decisions and desires for the group.

Rights on the other hand are not internal individual choices. Rights are always controlled granted, instilled or denied by the group but are never an internal aspect of the individual Despite what any document implies rights are only inalienable as long as the group does not alienate them.. Rights are codified agreements between an overall group of people and individuals (or parties) within that group. A right is in essence a guarantee from the group to some or all of the individual members.

Most of these guarantees are guarantee of inaction by the group against the individual. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom against false imprisonment, no unreasonable search and seizure and so on would be examples of guarantees of inaction. If the individual practices these behaviors the group does nothing to hinder him.
There are also rights which are guarantees of action by the group on behalf of the individual. These would include healthcare and providing an attorney to represent persons accused of crimes, and education etc etc

In my opinion the guarantees of inaction are by far the higher quality of the two guarantees and by far the most dangerous to everyone involved. I wish that they would call those guarantees of action by the group on behalf of the individual "benefits" rather than "rights" . Not only because it would make the concept of what a "right" is more clear but also because the two groupings of rights are often at legal and ethical odds with eachother.

And a parting shot at morals ethics and decay.
Shared morality is in my opinion the real glue which (barely) holds any society together and also therefore that thing which we can least afford to lose. I also think that unless and until we can come up with a logical reasonable and codifiable morality the only noteworthy sets of shared morals are derived from from the various religions. Most countries that evict their resident religions and attempt to replace the shared morality with laws and codes tend to lose focus after a very few generations. I have some hope for China's slow steady and thoughtful crossover however since they are seemingly accomplishing the least horriffic industrial revolution of any large group of humans ever.