NationStates Jolt Archive

Why are there human rights? And self-evident freedoms?

Is there a logical reason or is the reason somehow a matter of what is right, just because it is right?

Isn't it just a way of maintaining peace in a society?

Can anyone for example name a reason why slavery is Wrong, other than because there are Rights and people should be (Equal and) Free?

Presently I can only think of economic reasons, that somewhy a society where people are free and have equal opportunities is more productive.

Locke and the concept of natural rights. Personally I think the idea of unalienable rights are bullshit, but Locke thinks that in the 'state of nature' humans are not naturally subordinate to others, thus they should not be forced to be the slaves of others.

The idea of rights are good in my opinion because they can help to promote a healthy respect between people. I don't ever want to be mugged, ergo people shouldn't be allowed to mug people. I base my idea of rights off of the principle of 'do on to others as you would have done on to yourself'.

Farily easy: Promoting human rights is the easiest way to make sure that lots of people will fight for the rights I'd like to have (for myself and the ones I love).

SNIP

1) right and wrong are a thing for bedtime stories

2) beyond the economic problems with slavery you have the problem of slave revolts which caused havoc in Rome and particularly Jamaica

3) Human rights tend to stop stagnation and wealth divides, it also allows the slave population to do what humans do best namely invent

4) there is little good reason to oppose human rights though by all means there are a few cases but mostly holding them back is because some old fossil is freighted of change

I think what your getting at here is that human rights are not fundamental rules for the human race they more serve as a guideline for what works which was laid out by Britain’s Imperial policy (hence why freedom of religion is there because of the first Indian revolt ect) which has spread to most of the globe hence why human rights have such support in the international community

Farily easy: Promoting human rights is the easiest way to make sure that lots of people will fight for the rights I'd like to have (for myself and the ones I love).

What if you already have those rights, and the power to keep them? Then why bother?

Can anyone for example name a reason why slavery is Wrong...?

Would you want it done to you? That's the basis of human rights right there, as far as I've always understood it.

..........they more serve as a guideline for what works.....

What works....to what end? Keeping people happy?

Would you want it done to you? That's the basis of human rights right there, as far as I've always understood it.

If I am king, that is not what I need to worry about.

Well To quote Nihilism 'the law is only in the interest of those in power' So 'ergo' (:P) if you have lost your 'pineal gland' yes, It doesn't matter, aslong as you keep your interest as to now quote Friedrich Nietzsche 'Will to power' Meaning there is no universal law or truth behind the chaos, do what thou wilt. But this is what most governments are like, they have no compassion. But why be productive? with that mind set you mayswell enslave all minorities stay as neobolus (sp?). But society will fail, through disorder and a more free <unsociety> will rise in order (even though these are illusions through chaos). Control, hopefully shall be lacking, multiverses will bind and we may inheret the law of fives. Maybe Transcend, but isn't that a 9 thing?

Well anyway 23 skidoo, the more disagreements the better, we need a bloody revolution and emphasis on bloody:mp5: , unless we can 'outgrow':fluffle: culture, but everyone is too ignorant. I hope Native Americans or Mohawks or whatever take over New York. Or there's an assination spree:sniper:

Locke and the concept of natural rights. Personally I think the idea of unalienable rights are bullshit, but Locke thinks that in the 'state of nature' humans are not naturally subordinate to others, thus they should not be forced to be the slaves of others.
Seems like a perfectly good position on part of Locke to me.

What works....to what end? Keeping people happy?
Um... yes? That's pretty much the purpose of living, as far as I can see it... just as food tastes good, sex feels good, human rights just feel right.

If I am king, that is not what I need to worry about.
Well, fewer and fewer kings nowadays, aren't there?

Locke and the concept of natural rights. Personally I think the idea of unalienable rights are bullshit, but Locke thinks that in the 'state of nature' humans are not naturally subordinate to others, thus they should not be forced to be the slaves of others.
.....

In the state of nature, there are parents, bosses, voters, wifes... so Locke is sorta owned.

If I am king, that is not what I need to worry about.

Until you get overthrown in a violent coup and beheaded because there was no Amnesty International to publicise human rights and campaign against the death penalty.:cool:

Seems like a perfectly good position on part of Locke to me.I don't like it as it's an absolute statement, it doesn't consider context, and he uses the same reason to justify property rights. This is what I'm remembering on the fly.

However, I tend to get to the same ends as Locke, just via different means...

What works....to what end? Keeping people happy?

generally what is profitable with a good dash of what keeps power

Um... yes? That's pretty much the purpose of living, as far as I can see it... just as food tastes good, sex feels good, human rights just feel right.

lolz this is the British empire where talking about :p

What works....to what end? Keeping people happy?

Heh it's easy man. Ask yourself this, how would you like to be treated by your fellow man, and how would you not like to be treated? Is it then right or wrong that we should extend these wants to every other human being?

If it is right then that is a human right. If it is wrong, then you are a socialopath.

In the state of nature, there are parents, bosses, voters, wifes... so Locke is sorta owned.You're taking 'the state of nature too literally. Locke's state of nature is theoretical, never has existed, and never will (I think that's by his own admission as well).

Until you get overthrown in a violent coup and beheaded because there was no Amnesty International to publicise human rights and campaign against the death penalty.:cool:
:p
"We now realise that We like Amnesty International, and by Our Royal Prerogative ordain that their persecution shall be brought to an End"

Heh it's easy man. Ask yourself this, how would you like to be treated by your fellow man, and how would you not like to be treated? Is it then right or wrong that we should extend these wants to every other human being?

If it is right then that is a human right. If it is wrong, then you are a socialopath.

Socialopathy is good4u

Socialopathy is good4u


Ahahah I guess there really is no denying that, not so good for other people though huh!;)

In the state of nature, there are parents, bosses, voters, wifes... so Locke is sorta owned.
Is he? So, these are not humans then? Or are they somehow superior by virtue of their constitution or something? And how do voters (and wives and bosses) arise out of a state of nature, if you will?

I don't like it as it's an absolute statement, it doesn't consider context, and he uses the same reason to justify property rights. This is what I'm remembering on the fly.

What of "absolute" statements? What context? What basis do you use?

There are no inalienable rights. There are no rights, even. Just privileges. We just call them 'rights' to legitimise them and give them an air of uncontestability.

That being said, the notion of human rights is based upon something called the 'The original position' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position) or 'veil of ignorance'. Basically the idea is that if an individual were place behind a complete veil of ignorance, knowing nothing about who they were, (their gender, their race, their nationality, the 'real world', ect..), then there is a basic intrinsic social contract implicit in human psychology comparable loosely to what we call fundamental rights.

Is he? So, these are not humans then? Or are they somehow superior by virtue of their constitution or something? And how do voters arise out of a state of nature, if you will?


What of "absolute" statements? What context? What basis do you use?Locke uses natural rights to justify property, but a natural right would also be your right to roam freely. These rights conflict, so there has to be a resolution of one superceding the other. Natural property rights are also incompatible with capitalism as labour is comodified as well as goods. Meaning a labourer does not retain that which was produced by his own hand. Capitalism engages in rent-seeking, and the process of taking more than you personally need and hording of resources and so on.

I guess I believe in a more Hobbesian state of nature. People should group together to stop life being short nasty and brutish. In this society rights should be granted to help prevent factionalisation, revolts, and so forth. In such a context I'm not sure if I have a problem with tempory slavery as a way of paying off debts. A sort of community service or indenturing as it were.

It might be nice if you provided an argument in favour of Locke rather than just questioning statements. It means the debate is in your favour. It's easier to find holes in a theory than fix them. I'd also like it as I'm not pulling an argument together very well. >_>

Why are there human rights? And self-evident freedoms?

Is there a logical reason or is the reason somehow a matter of what is right, just because it is right?

Isn't it just a way of maintaining peace in a society?

Can anyone for example name a reason why slavery is Wrong, other than because there are Rights and people should be (Equal and) Free?

Presently I can only think of economic reasons, that somewhy a society where people are free and have equal opportunities is more productive.
I, for one, am strongly motivated to participate in a society where I have civil and human rights which are protected and respected. I feel no motivation whatsoever to participate in a society where I lack these rights.

Now, I'm not trying to be arrogant here, but objectively speaking I have value to my society. I am well-educated (working on graduate degree) and trained in a highly skilled profession. I am young and in good physical health. I am capable of contributing a pretty fair amount.

By myself, I'm only one person, and not terribly significant on a national or global scale. But multiply me by a few million and you start to get the picture.

If you violate people's dignity enough, they will either leave or die (or both). They will expend more energy trying to figure out how to get away or destroy you than they will expend on trying to contribute to your society. Even if their spirits are totally broken, they will still be less motivated and in poorer health (mentally if not physically) and therefore will be less able to contribute.

I think there are plenty of very pragmatic reasons to support human rights, and the above is just one example.

Why are there human rights? And self-evident freedoms?

Is there a logical reason or is the reason somehow a matter of what is right, just because it is right?

Isn't it just a way of maintaining peace in a society?

Can anyone for example name a reason why slavery is Wrong, other than because there are Rights and people should be (Equal and) Free?

Presently I can only think of economic reasons, that somewhy a society where people are free and have equal opportunities is more productive.

outside of theistic presuppositions, there is no basis for human rights other than social contract. human sacrifice and slavery both existed on the same basis (and at least also had nominal theistic justification) - but a pure atheist has to admit that morality is completely subjective, and that human rights are an abstract concept with no objective basis in reality. I always love arguing with an atheist who insists that women have an absolute, irrefutable right to control their own bodies, based on subjective premises that ammount to personal preferences...human rights are based entirely on theistic, or at very least mystical premises. if you consider that to be subjective as well, then they have no objective basis, and don't really exist.

Why are there human rights? And self-evident freedoms?


There are no 'human' rights or 'self-evident' freedoms. There is only the convenient conspiracy of society.

Step outside of society, and try to explain your 'human' rights and 'self-evident' truths to the predators.

Is he? So, these are not humans then? Or are they somehow superior by virtue of their constitution or something? And how do voters (and wives and bosses) arise out of a state of nature, if you will?......

They are superior, in some aspects, by virtue of reality. Regardless of theory.

As for how they arise out of a state of nature, I can't say unless that state is clarified further.

There are no 'human' rights or 'self-evident' freedoms. There is only the convenient conspiracy of society.

Step outside of society, and try to explain your 'human' rights and 'self-evident' truths to the predators.

Are there predators in state of nature?

Are there predators in state of nature?

Yes?

Unless the question means something other than it appears to mean..?

Yes?

Unless the question means something other than it appears to mean..?

Don't know how it appears to you, but I am referring to Locke's state of nature, in which no human is superior to another.

Don't know how it appears to you, but I am referring to Locke's state of nature, in which no human is superior to another.

And what, humans are the only predator?

Try debating your 'inalienable right to life' with a hungry shark...

outside of theistic presuppositions, there is no basis for human rights other than social contract. human sacrifice and slavery both existed on the same basis (and at least also had nominal theistic justification) - but a pure atheist has to admit that morality is completely subjective, and that human rights are an abstract concept with no objective basis in reality. I always love arguing with an atheist who insists that women have an absolute, irrefutable right to control their own bodies, based on subjective premises that ammount to personal preferences...human rights are based entirely on theistic, or at very least mystical premises. if you consider that to be subjective as well, then they have no objective basis, and don't really exist.

No Basis?? Absolutely not so! What you have to realize in early times, (nomadic or before), the strong took what they wanted from the weak. It was just that simple. But then the many weak would ban together to fight the fewer strong. That literal fighting has evolved into what we know as law. If you kill a man in a fight, you are punished by society as a whole, (the court system). If you take something from someone then you are punished.
These laws allow a more smooth function of society as not only the strong have power, but everyone! Human rights is just an extension of the principle of the weak banning toghether against the strong.

Also you speak truth, religion does give a strong moral sense, and many laws are based on them. But most people agree to outlaw: Murder and theft.
I myself am the kind who says there is no signifcant proof either way to prove or disprove god. I also however recognize the great moral power religions have.

Locke uses natural rights to justify property, but a natural right would also be your right to roam freely. These rights conflict, so there has to be a resolution of one superceding the other. Natural property rights are also incompatible with capitalism as labour is comodified as well as goods. Meaning a labourer does not retain that which was produced by his own hand. Capitalism engages in rent-seeking, and the process of taking more than you personally need and hording of resources and so on.
Perhaps because Locke's formulation of property rights is incomplete - I do not know, I have not read him. Without a unified theory on ownership, it is likely he'd fall into contradictions. The Austrian School, via the homesteading principle, states that one owns themself, ergo they own their labour, ergo they own the product of their labour (provided resources used were unowned), all of which they may dispose of as they wish (hence the rights to free speech, movement and such, on your property). They then combine this with the non-aggression axiom, namely that you may not aggress another. Combine this with the self-ownership axiom and you get property rights. Under this theory, if one labours to transform owned resources, they cannot homestead them (else they'd be aggressing the original owner). However, as owner of their labour, an individual may sell it to transform owned resources on behalf of their owner. Because the owner owns both the resource and the purchased labour, no aggression arises.

If you simply state you have a right to property and a right to free speech, without correlating the two somehow, it's natural that you'd fall into contradictions.

I guess I believe in a more Hobbesian state of nature. People should group together to stop life being short nasty and brutish. In this society rights should be granted to help prevent factionalisation, revolts, and so forth. In such a context I'm not sure if I have a problem with tempory slavery as a way of paying off debts. A sort of community service or indenturing as it were.
I'd rather die than live under the absolute Hobbesian state. Such a society would not prevent factionalisation. Au contraire. Factionalisation will be necessary to protect groups of individuals from the unlimited power of the state ; as do pressure groups in a democracy (according to what I have been told, Hobbes does not even believe in a right to rebel). Also, keep in mind Hobbes does begin with the proposition that man in nature has a right to everything, even to another man. He then belongs to the absolute government that is set up. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.

It might be nice if you provided an argument in favour of Locke rather than just questioning statements. It means the debate is in your favour. It's easier to find holes in a theory than fix them. I'd also like it as I'm not pulling an argument together very well. >_>
I am questioning them to see what exactly you find wrong in Locke's arguments. I am not too familiar with them, but I do agree with natural rights systems.

They are superior, in some aspects, by virtue of reality. Regardless of theory.

Superior in ability. In what way are they superhuman though, and thus entitled to rights over others?

And what, humans are the only predator?

Try debating your 'inalienable right to life' with a hungry shark...
A shark need not worry about moral consistency. A human does - if a human claims a right to kill, they also recognise that other humans have the right to kill them. In dealing with predators it is implicitly understood that they have no regard for your life, and thus should be treated accordingly. I do not understand why people bring this example up everytime, as if it denoted some fault of natural rights.

My take on rights are that of Burke's set out in 'Refelctions on the Revolution in France'The pretended rights of these theorists are all extremes; and in proportion as they are metaphysically true, they are morally and politcally false. The rights of man are in a sort of middle, incapable of definition, but not impossible to be discerned.Burke sees rights in a legalistic fashion. They are not natural, but gradually implemented over time in a progressive society. As such, rights are to be considered inherited.

I think later Hegel or a Hegelian emphasise the concept of an organically grown society. That bits are slowly added, if they are detrimental they wither away and die, if another part of the structure of society becomes redundant it withers and dies, but all the while the whole of the structure remains strong and intact. The vast majority of rights that exist today help stabalise society and beneficial to society and individuals.

(Why didn't I remember this sooner?)

Well said Europa Maxima, well said.

Perhaps because Locke's formulation of property rights is incomplete - I do not know, I have not read him. Without a unified theory on ownership, it is likely he'd fall into contradictions. The Austrian School, via the homesteading principle, states that one owns themself, ergo they own their labour, ergo they own the product of their labour (provided resources used were unowned), all of which they may dispose of as they wish (hence the rights to free speech, movement and such, on your property). They then combine this with the non-aggression axiom, namely that you may not aggress another. Combine this with the self-ownership axiom and you get property rights. Under this theory, if one labours to transform owned resources, they cannot homestead them (else they'd be aggressing the original owner). However, as owner of their labour, an individual may sell it to transform owned resources on behalf of their owner. Because the owner owns both the resource and the purchased labour, no aggression arises.

If you simply state you have a right to property and a right to free speech, without correlating the two somehow, it's natural that you'd fall into contradictions.

I'd rather die than live under the absolute Hobbesian state. Such a society would not prevent factionalisation. Au contraire. Factionalisation will be necessary to protect groups of individuals from the unlimited power of the state ; as do pressure groups in a democracy (according to what I have been told, Hobbes does not even believe in a right to rebel). Also, keep in mind Hobbes does begin with the proposition that man in nature has a right to everything, even to another man. He then belongs to the absolute government that is set up. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.

I am questioning them to see what exactly you find wrong in Locke's arguments. I am not too familiar with them, but I do agree with natural rights systems.Interesting.

I'll reply later when I've finished my essay. Hopefully my brain won't be quite so scatty then and I can start making sense.

A shark need not worry about moral consistency. A human does - if a human claims a right to kill, they also recognise that other humans have the right to kill them. In dealing with predators it is implicitly understood that they have no regard for your life, and thus should be treated accordingly. I do not understand why people bring this example up everytime, as if it denoted some fault of natural rights.

Because it clearly denotes some fault of natural rights.

A 'natural right' shouldn't be something that is only true in 'un-natural' settings. As such, such romantic (but nonsensical) concepts as the 'right to life' are easily shown to be no such thing, when placed in a 'natural' scenario.

The 'right to life' is entirely a matter of pragmatism... agreement by groups of people to safeguard in others the things they want for themselves. There is nothing 'natural' about such 'rights' - quite the contrary - they are entirely artifacts of an 'un-natural' mechanism of social 'treaty' construction.

I would say it has something to do with the human conscience...we have an innate sense of right and wrong, and that provides us with the axiomatic framework necessary to construct our rights through use of logic and reason.

I would say it has something to do with the human conscience...we have an innate sense of right and wrong, and that provides us with the axiomatic framework necessary to construct our rights through use of logic and reason.

Who says we have 'an innate sense of right and wrong'?

You read too much C. S. Lewis, perhaps.

I would say it has something to do with the human conscience...we have an innate sense of right and wrong, and that provides us with the axiomatic framework necessary to construct our rights through use of logic and reason.

Why do you we have an innate sense of right and wrong? We know what we do not want to have done to us, and by developing systems by which we do not do these things to others in return for the same courtesy being extended to us we avoid these harms to some degree. It seems to me that morality is developed and then taught, rather than natural.

Because it clearly denotes some fault of natural rights.
No, it doesn't. It shows that they can be violated, not that they do not exist.

Who says we have 'an innate sense of right and wrong'?

You read too much C. S. Lewis, perhaps.

No, it makes sense. Certain moral ideas are universal, and it is hardly coincidental that similar values are espoused in almost all of the world's religions despite having disparate cultural backgrounds.

Altruism, honesty, and respect for others are nearly universal, and humans tend to follow those values out of their own volition rather than coercion.

Who says we have 'an innate sense of right and wrong'?

You read too much C. S. Lewis, perhaps.
According to my friend the kindergarten teacher, it requires a tremendous amount of effort to impart a sense of right and wrong to young human children.

Why do you we have an innate sense of right and wrong? We know what we do not want to have done to us, and by developing systems by which we do not do these things to others in return for the same courtesy being extended to us we avoid these harms to some degree. It seems to me that morality is developed and then taught, rather than natural.

Well, the thing is that developing morality and teaching it are natural.

Humans exist naturally in societies, and so any of our moral traits are going to be shaped and transmitted by those societies. So, you've either got the situation where moral behavior is built in to us or we are taught it, which still raises the question of who the first teacher was and how they developed a near-universal code of morals.

Well, the thing is that developing morality and teaching it are natural.

Humans exist naturally in societies, and so any of our moral traits are going to be shaped and transmitted by those societies. So, you've either got the situation where moral behavior is built in to us or we are taught it, which still raises the question of who the first teacher was and how they developed a near-universal code of morals.

By natural I meant innate. There was no 'first teacher', morality changes, adapting to the social environment. What is immoral may not always have been so, and what is moral may become immoral. Morality systems are set up to help us avoid being subjected to things we do not wish to be subjected to. The reason that some of the core principles of most moral systems are often similar is because, in general, humans want to avoid the same basic things (such as death, pain and loss of belongings).

No, it doesn't. It shows that they can be violated, not that they do not exist.

So - your argument is that there are somehow some kind of 'natural' rights... but that they only apply if everyone consents?

To assume a 'natural' right is illogical... where would such a right 'come' from? What even makes it a 'right', if it only applies when no one challenges it?

Perhaps we think the word 'right' means different things?

Occam suggests there are no 'natural' rights... either there are no natural rights, or there are natural rights, but they appear to not exist... Occam suggests we go with the one that multiplies our uncertainties least... so there are no 'natural' rights.

Perhaps we think the word 'right' means different things?
I think so. Natural rights, in the sense I evoke them, mean they are deduced by way of reason and insights into man's nature. They are the rights that must form the bases of any society, as necessary tools for man to function - and they must be simultaneously non-contradictory (a right not to be aggressed means forfeiting a right to enslave via force). All others are socially-agreed-upon, perhaps through voluntary concessions. It's not a guarantee that the right will be recognised; only a qualifier pertaining to its actual nature.

Occam suggests there are no 'natural' rights... either there are no natural rights, or there are natural rights, but they appear to not exist... Occam suggests we go with the one that multiplies our uncertainties least... so there are no 'natural' rights.
Yes, Occam's Razor.

No, it makes sense. Certain moral ideas are universal, and it is hardly coincidental that similar values are espoused in almost all of the world's religions despite having disparate cultural backgrounds.

Altruism, honesty, and respect for others are nearly universal, and humans tend to follow those values out of their own volition rather than coercion.

Which moral ideas are universal? Even the big ones are dubious...

Rape? Has been a war and peacetime activity of numerous peoples over thousands of years...

Murder? Same thing - and it only applies to 'certain' people in most cultures.

As for the assertion that there are values that apply across religious barriers... and that that might somehow mean something? Often times, these things aren't even true within cultural groups, or evolutions within ONE religion... example - the rape and murder of the Pentatauch doesn't seem consistent with the 'love thy neighbour' of the Greek scripture.

Honesty? Certain cultures have allowed that 'honesty' requires honour... so, it would be impossible to be 'dishonest' with someone who wan't of 'your kind', for example... because they are without honour. Thus - it is okay to lie to other people... it isn't a lie, unless it is to one of your own.

Respect for others? Thou shalt not tolerate the witch to live? Or the Canaanite... and I'm still in just one book here.

C. S. Lewis made the exact same argument... and it was hyperbole then, too.

Why are there human rights? And self-evident freedoms?

Is there a logical reason or is the reason somehow a matter of what is right, just because it is right?

Isn't it just a way of maintaining peace in a society?

Can anyone for example name a reason why slavery is Wrong, other than because there are Rights and people should be (Equal and) Free?

Presently I can only think of economic reasons, that somewhy a society where people are free and have equal opportunities is more productive.

Why are there human rights? Simply because we want them.

Morality is our subjective and emotive expression of how we should live.

Rights are expressions of will in the social continuum; they are expressions of what we want from our society. "I have the right to healthcare", "I have the right to vote" etc...

All rights are moral rights as they are all statements about how we should live. However, not all rights are legitimate and those rights that are, are called legal rights. I may think that I have the right to healthcare from a moral perspective, but from a legal perspective, de jure, that may not be the case at all.

Which moral ideas are universal? Even the big ones are dubious...

Rape? Has been a war and peacetime activity of numerous peoples over thousands of years...

Murder? Same thing - and it only applies to 'certain' people in most cultures.

Observe what is similar in both these situations. The right evoked is a right not to be aggressed. The violation of the right is an aggression. One can reasonably surmise that fellowmen do not wish to be aggressed. That they are inconsistent in applying this principle is another matter entirely.

I think so. Natural rights, in the sense I evoke them, mean they are deduced by way of reason and insights into man's nature. They are the rights that must form the bases of any society, as necessary tools for man to function - and they must be simultaneously non-contradictory (a right not to be aggressed means forfeiting a right to enslave via force). All others are socially-agreed-upon, perhaps through voluntary concessions. It's not a guarantee that the right will be recognised, only pertaining to its actual nature.


I don't think I understand you... ALL of our 'rights' are socially agreed upon. There are two states... either you are not with people (in which case you can do whatever the hell you like, because no one objects... but the world is unforgiving and pays no attention to your protestations that it is unfair), or you are with people (in which case you have the 'rights' and 'restrictions' that are consistent with associating with your chosen crowd).

You say these 'natural' rights must form the basis of any society, as necessary tools for man to function... and yet, you provide an example that shows this to be untrue... we have thousands of years of history of enslaving one another, in perfectly 'functional' societies.

I think you are describing the world how you wish it was, rather than as the cold, uncaring world it really is.

Observe what is similar in both these situations. The right evoked is a right not to be aggressed. The violation of the right is an aggression. One can reasonably surmise that fellowmen do not wish to be aggressed. That they are inconsistent in applying this principle is another matter entirely.

"I don't want to be raped" is not a 'right'... it is an opinion, or a statement of intent.

Well, the thing is that developing morality and teaching it are natural.

Humans exist naturally in societies, and so any of our moral traits are going to be shaped and transmitted by those societies. So, you've either got the situation where moral behavior is built in to us or we are taught it, which still raises the question of who the first teacher was and how they developed a near-universal code of morals.

If morality is 'innate', then feral children should have the same moral code as those raised in (any given) society, no?

You say these 'natural' rights must form the basis of any society, as necessary tools for man to function... and yet, you provide an example that shows this to be untrue... we have thousands of years of history of enslaving one another, in perfectly 'functional' societies.
A parasite too can survive at the expense of its host. A society (as in one faction of individuals) can survive at the expense of another group of individuals. Natural rights in my view are those which an individual on its own requires to survive. That a society may ignore them, and violate them, just tells me of how immoral it is. To further expound my notion, I believe a just society is one in which concessions, if any are made, are done on a voluntary basis, and there is moral consistency.

I think you are describing the world how you wish it was, rather than as the cold, uncaring world it really is.
Not quite. I state how I think it should be - what its proper moral bases are. I am not simply wishing it to be so.

"I don't want to be raped" is not a 'right'... it is an opinion, or a statement of intent.
Erm, duh. It is the basis of the claim to the right. If others want to claim the right not to be aggressed, they must on grounds of consistency recognise it in others. The reason these specific rights are called natural is for the aforementioned reasons. It is an ethical concern.

A parasite too can survive at the expense of its host. A society (as in one faction of individuals) can survive at the expense of another group of individuals. Natural rights in my view are those which an individual on its own requires to survive.


Individuals on their own have no rights.

Back to my tiger... a 'right' is a protection. Your fancy sophistry is remarkably unconvincing to the hungry tiger.

Oh, sure - you could argue that the man alone has the 'right' to walk freely where he will - but that isn't a 'right', it is a coincidence of location... and it certainly isn't 'needed to survive'.

What are these 'natural' rights?


Erm, duh. It is the basis of the claim to the right. If others want to claim the right not to be aggressed, they must on grounds of consistency recognise it in others. The reason these specific rights are called natural is for the aforementioned reasons. It is an ethical concern.

No - the fact that such things only exist because they are agreed upon seems to me to make them entirely un-natural. I don't understand why you apply such an obviously inappropriate terminology?

I don't want to pay tax. You don't want to pay tax. Does this mean we have a 'right' to not pay tax?

What about if I don't want to be bound by the laws of society? Does this mean I have a 'right' to kill?

Human rights is just a prescriptivist concept.

What are these 'natural' rights?
You keep on reiterating that rights arise as a matter of social organisation. I agree with this. I view a society as a collection of individuals, and not some superhuman entity. Therefore, I believe a moral society is one which views the individual as an end in itself, and recognises those basic rights an individual on its own possesses, deduced by way of reason and insights into man's nature - to remain morally consistent, each individual must recognise it in their fellowmen (rights which they may voluntarily delegate and concede as well). An individual would not enter a society which chose to oppress them - the only way this would happen is by force. If it is so, I view both it and its bases as invalid.

So please put to death this overused tiger/shark/whatever example. It is irrelevant.

I don't want to pay tax. You don't want to pay tax. Does this mean we have a 'right' to not pay tax?
Yes. It means we recognise the institution taxing us as immoral and unjust. We do not approve of it. Why should we submit to it? It expects us not to aggress each other, but aggresses us. See? Imagine that it was not taxation, but forced reproduction the government imposed. Would you not claim a right in this case? Or would you maintain you have no rights, and that the government as their author, may do what it wants with you?

What about if I don't want to be bound by the laws of society? Does this mean I have a 'right' to kill?
Then you must recognise this right in others too. In so doing, you forfeit your right to not be aggressed due to the self-contradiction you'd be entering. Aggress those who have not forfeited this right, and they will take action to defend themselves against you, who have given up your right.

You keep on reiterating that rights arise as a matter of social organisation. I agree with this. I view a society as a collection of individuals, and not some superhuman entity. Therefore, I believe a moral society is one which views the individual as an end in itself, and recognises those basic rights an individual on its own possesses, deduced by way of reason and insights into man's nature - to remain morally consistent, each individual must recognise it in their fellowmen (rights which they may voluntarily delegate and concede as well). An individual would not enter a society which chose to oppress them - the only way this would happen is by force. If it is so, I view both it and its bases as invalid.

So please put to death this overused tiger/shark/whatever example. It is irrelevant.


Yes. It means we recognise the institution taxing us as immoral and unjust. We do not approve of it. Why should we submit to it? It expects us not to aggress each other, but aggresses us. See? Imagine that it was not taxation, but forced reproduction the government imposed. Would you not claim a right in this case? Or would you maintain you have no rights, and that the government as their author, may do what it wants with you?


Then you must recognise this right in others too. In so doing, you forfeit your right to not be aggressed due to the self-contradiction you'd be entering. Aggress those who have not forfeited this right, and they will take action to defend themselves against you, who have given up your right.

Again - you describe the world as you want it to be, not as it is.

Why do you think there is some kind of reciprocal thing going on... it seems that you entertain that idea only because it sounds nice.

If I want to kill, I have to accept that others might kill me... why?

I am better than them, they are fodder. Thus, it is okay for me to kill them, and they must merely choose to accept my godlike vengeance.

So - either their society chooses to protect them (in which case there is nothing 'natural' about that right... I still really don't get the 'natural' part), of they will be protected by their 'natural' rights. I don't see how this is supposed to work - since their 'natural' rights only protect them from me if I choose to allow it.

Again - you describe the world as you want it to be, not as it is.
The realm of morality concerns both how things are and how they should be. Legal codes (as a living expression of an agreement of social conduct) are based on things as they should be. They represent moral ideologies (be it consequentialism, utilitarianism, natural rights, whatever; even now we use one - a utilitarian basis I believe). For a legal code you must have a moral code which defines properly moral actions. It is antecedent to it. This is much more fundamental than you seem to think it is. A person whose morality is based in natural rights theory will of course not endorse a consequentialist-based legal code (and following from this, mode of social organisation).

Why do you think there is some kind of reciprocal thing going on... it seems that you entertain that idea only because it sounds nice.

If I want to kill, I have to accept that others might kill me... why?

I am better than them, they are fodder. Thus, it is okay for me to kill them, and they must merely choose to accept my godlike vengeance.
Provide a non-arbitrary basis for this distinction, then.

So - either their society chooses to protect them (in which case there is nothing 'natural' about that right... I still really don't get the 'natural' part), of they will be protected by their 'natural' rights. I don't see how this is supposed to work - since their 'natural' rights only protect them from me if I choose to allow it.
Alright. In a society of the type I outlined you would delegate your right to self-defence to a competent agent ; a defence agency, such as the police. Provided you renumerate them appropriately, they'd exercise your right for you. The agency would become illegitimate, morally (and legally), from the moment it forced you to delegate your right to it.

Why are there human rights? And self-evident freedoms?
Are there?
Is there a logical reason or is the reason somehow a matter of what is right, just because it is right?
No.
Isn't it just a way of maintaining peace in a society?
Yes.
Can anyone for example name a reason why slavery is Wrong, other than because there are Rights and people should be (Equal and) Free?
No.

People have a concept of rights precisely as a way of trying to protect their own. It's sort of like when two special interest groups band together politically even though they may have very little in common.

Over the millenia we've learned that certain freedoms are good for a society, and so we codified them into rights. That's it. I do personally believe there's a certain level of Divine guidance in that, since only in a society with certain rights can religion flourish, but other than that, no.

Which moral ideas are universal? Even the big ones are dubious...

Rape? Has been a war and peacetime activity of numerous peoples over thousands of years...

Murder? Same thing - and it only applies to 'certain' people in most cultures.

As for the assertion that there are values that apply across religious barriers... and that that might somehow mean something? Often times, these things aren't even true within cultural groups, or evolutions within ONE religion... example - the rape and murder of the Pentatauch doesn't seem consistent with the 'love thy neighbour' of the Greek scripture.

Honesty? Certain cultures have allowed that 'honesty' requires honour... so, it would be impossible to be 'dishonest' with someone who wan't of 'your kind', for example... because they are without honour. Thus - it is okay to lie to other people... it isn't a lie, unless it is to one of your own.

Respect for others? Thou shalt not tolerate the witch to live? Or the Canaanite... and I'm still in just one book here.

C. S. Lewis made the exact same argument... and it was hyperbole then, too.

There will always be exceptions, but won't a close look reveal that there is some inherent morality? Stemming perhaps from humanity's origin as a pack animal?

Like care for one's offspring and close family, because those used to be the characteristics that carried on genes.

In that way, it seems in accordance with a natural order that some rights, such as the right to life, may reasonably seen as a natural right within a certain group, or a family.

Hence the cliché; "he ain't heavy, he's my brother"

So, there is an example of actual natural law. Yay me!

If morality is 'innate', then feral children should have the same moral code as those raised in (any given) society, no?

It should be similar, but then again many of those core morals exist in other animals as well. We're all biologically built to be good...

It should be similar, but then again many of those core morals exist in other animals as well. We're all biologically built to be good...

...to our selfish ends only, I'd say.

It should be similar, but then again many of those core morals exist in other animals as well. We're all biologically built to be good...

Intresting, are you saying we have instincts that tell us to protect the family, continue the species etc..?

Intresting, are you saying we have instincts that tell us to protect the family, continue the species etc..?

at least to protect your personal genes and pass them on... Multiple Mini Mes

Intresting, are you saying we have instincts that tell us to protect the family, continue the species etc..?

Yes. Many of our moral behaviors are rooted in their evolutionary origins, so humans by virtue of that process are hard-wired to be good. From there, we developed it further to address human-specific situations.

I of course see it as especially fascinating from a spiritual angle (a universe where the laws of biology themselves inherently produce a moral good...rather interesting, huh?), but it is based in solid evidence as well. Being good is good for everyone, from yourself to your family to the species as a whole.

Just as you recognize your own status as a morally worthy being and object to the attempts of others to abuse you, so you ought to recognize the moral worth of others as well.

The recognition of your own dignity leads you to the recognition of the dignity of others, through simple empathy and through a lack of any good reason to make a distinction.

Yes. Many of our moral behaviors are rooted in their evolutionary origins, so humans by virtue of that process are hard-wired to be good. From there, we developed it further to address human-specific situations.
Good in what sense? Good itself is a highly subjective term.

Good in what sense? Good itself is a highly subjective term.

Firstly, in a utilitarian sense. Secondly in the sense that it enables each individual to optimize their potential in an environment conducive to their needs, and thirdly in the sense that it feels right to act in that manner.

Firstly, in a utilitarian sense. Secondly in the sense that it enables each individual to optimize their potential in an environment conducive to their needs, and thirdly in the sense that it feels right to act in that manner.
Personally, I am inclined to believe that even if there were an absolute Good we'd still perceive our behaviours as dictated by biology generally characterised by that term, even if it were closer to an absolute Evil, simply because we know no more than this. That would be me nitpicking though...

thirdly in the sense that it feels right to act in that manner.

That's circular. It feels good because it is natural; if something else were natural, it would not feel good.

Which moral ideas are universal? Even the big ones are dubious...

Rape? Has been a war and peacetime activity of numerous peoples over thousands of years...

Murder? Same thing - and it only applies to 'certain' people in most cultures.

As for the assertion that there are values that apply across religious barriers... and that that might somehow mean something? Often times, these things aren't even true within cultural groups, or evolutions within ONE religion... example - the rape and murder of the Pentatauch doesn't seem consistent with the 'love thy neighbour' of the Greek scripture.

Honesty? Certain cultures have allowed that 'honesty' requires honour... so, it would be impossible to be 'dishonest' with someone who wan't of 'your kind', for example... because they are without honour. Thus - it is okay to lie to other people... it isn't a lie, unless it is to one of your own.

Respect for others? Thou shalt not tolerate the witch to live? Or the Canaanite... and I'm still in just one book here.

C. S. Lewis made the exact same argument... and it was hyperbole then, too.

Google "Naturalistic Fallacy" sometime.

You are pointing out that people don't always act morally. The whole point of moral questions, however, is whether or not they ought to act in a certain way. Whether or not they follow through with that has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of a moral maxim in the first place.

That's circular. It feels good because it is natural; if something else were natural, it would not feel good.
Precisely. We have not experienced an alternative to know otherwise, nor do we possess an objective sense of good or evil.

That's circular. It feels good because it is natural; if something else were natural, it would not feel good.

But then it means that why it is good doesn't necessarily need justification; it's natural to act that way, and correspondingly we feel "good" when we act in that manner. The goodness of that act is self-evident.

Personally, I am inclined to believe that even if there were an absolute Good we'd still perceive our behaviours as dictated by biology generally characterised by that term, even if it were closer to an absolute Evil, simply because we know no more than this. That would be me nitpicking though...

Of course, it doesn't really matter primarily because what is good corresponds with what is natural; theoretically, there could be a situation where such is the case, but given that natural behavior corresponds generally with good behavior, it's not really an issue.

Note that "what is good is generally natural" is what I'm saying, NOT vice versa, that's what's called the "naturalistic fallacy".

Precisely. We have not experienced an alternative to know otherwise, nor do we possess an objective sense of good or evil.

Well, we do if you consider it correct that natural laws produce an inherent sense of right or wrong; our objective morality is hard-wired in to us by virtue of the forces that produced our biological form. The interpretation and application of that knowledge is the domain of ethics and religion.

Without objective morality, whether it is explicitly stated or not, a species will go extinct; an elephant might not know the particulars of the Critique of Pure Reason, but he does know that protecting his family, working for the good of others and defending his social group from predators is something he should do.

For one thing, inalienable rights are inalienable. Take, for example, the "pursuit of happiness". There is no conceivable way that you could stop me from pursuing happiness. There is no way anyone could. If imprisoned, I may try to escape.

Freedom of Speech, to. If I want to hold a certain opinion, and there is a way to express that opinion, you can't really stop me. The only time inalienable rights no longer matter is upon death. At best, these rights can be suppressed.

These rights which are present at birth are inherent to the human condition- every human will seek to do what is considered best for him. The natural, inalienable rights needed to be defended from repression, which is the reason that social contracts are formed.

Why are there human rights? And self-evident freedoms?
To help protect the weak and the defenseless. To stop abuse. To affirm our humanity. To stop dehumanising our enemies / prisoners / captives / minorities. As a means to hinder a second holocaust.

That's just some reasons.

Well, we do if you consider it correct that natural laws produce an inherent sense of right or wrong; our objective morality is hard-wired in to us by virtue of the forces that produced our biological form. The interpretation and application of that knowledge is the domain of ethics and religion.

Alright, I think we are more or less in agreement then.

Alright, I think we are more or less in agreement then.

I would say so. Of course, what the existence of objective morality means is something else entirely.

There will always be exceptions, but won't a close look reveal that there is some inherent morality? Stemming perhaps from humanity's origin as a pack animal?

Like care for one's offspring and close family, because those used to be the characteristics that carried on genes.

In that way, it seems in accordance with a natural order that some rights, such as the right to life, may reasonably seen as a natural right within a certain group, or a family.

Hence the cliché; "he ain't heavy, he's my brother"

So, there is an example of actual natural law. Yay me!

I think there is confusion.... some things may be instictive - but that doesn't make them a moral code. For example, we tend to fear things with big teeth and big eyes (because, from our origins, they are the very embodiment of our predators)... but that doesn't make it a morality.. just a survival instinct.

Similarly, the nurture of the pack (it isn't alwys our own offspring or families) is pragmatic - we hang in groups because it is safer than hanging alone. But, one only has to look at the range of behaviours in a typical social group to see that the specifics of our gregariousness are far from universal... and hardly sufficient to constitute a 'moral' code.

It should be similar, but then again many of those core morals exist in other animals as well. We're all biologically built to be good...

What a ridiculous notion.

We are built to be good... at surviving. There is no empirical drive to be good or bad... just a balance between the pragmatic urges to satisfy self, and the pragmatic urges to satisfy our groups.

at least to protect your personal genes and pass them on... Multiple Mini Mes

But, this obviously isn't true. Our cultures have had to institute such mentality in us, because it is not something universal in our nature. As pack animals, we feel the urges to produce young, but we are just as satisfied nurturing any young that we consider 'in our pack'.

Google "Naturalistic Fallacy" sometime.

You are pointing out that people don't always act morally. The whole point of moral questions, however, is whether or not they ought to act in a certain way. Whether or not they follow through with that has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of a moral maxim in the first place.

You don't actually appear to be making an argument, so I'm not sure how to respond.

Your entire response to everything I had typed, was to refer me to a higher power... and your contribution to the morality debate is to talk about the fact that moral questions... what... cannot be judged by examination of the data?

Firstly, in a utilitarian sense. Secondly in the sense that it enables each individual to optimize their potential in an environment conducive to their needs, and thirdly in the sense that it feels right to act in that manner.

So - by 'good', you mean:

1) We are adapted to survival?

2) We actively try to survive?

and

3) pragmatism is a satisfying fulfillment?


The argument that it 'feels right to act in that manner' suggests that there are universal things that are satisfying to the universal spectrum of mankind. I've already shown that cultures have differening moralities - so I'm not seeing any reason to suspect one defining set of characteristics that are true of all people(s).

But then it means that why it is good doesn't necessarily need justification; it's natural to act that way, and correspondingly we feel "good" when we act in that manner. The goodness of that act is self-evident.

So - we are good, not because you can point to a governing principle, or because we conform to a common morality... but just because you say so?

To help protect the weak and the defenseless. To stop abuse. To affirm our humanity. To stop dehumanising our enemies / prisoners / captives / minorities. As a means to hinder a second holocaust.

That's just some reasons.

None of which are common to all human cultures. Most of which have actually been displayed to be counter-intuitive.

I think there is confusion.... some things may be instictive - but that doesn't make them a moral code. For example, we tend to fear things with big teeth and big eyes (because, from our origins, they are the very embodiment of our predators)... but that doesn't make it a morality.. just a survival instinct.

Similarly, the nurture of the pack (it isn't alwys our own offspring or families) is pragmatic - we hang in groups because it is safer than hanging alone. But, one only has to look at the range of behaviours in a typical social group to see that the specifics of our gregariousness are far from universal... and hardly sufficient to constitute a 'moral' code.

okay, I have confused natural law with morality. If there is such a thing as natural law, then of course it need not have anything to do with morals or ethics.

Still, I feel there is a connection, but cannot establish it due to lack of ethics and morality...well maybe not, but at least the lack of study of ethics and morality:(

In other words, a survival instinct is amoral. Such an instinct might however be basis for a rule of natural law.

The killing and mistreatment of foreigners, or non-family-members, would not violate that rule.

None of which are common to all human cultures. Most of which have actually been displayed to be counter-intuitive.

Yeah, and?

The basic premises for rights does indeed date back to dear old Locke, but beyond the bits mentioned by Europe (the Austrian School took Locke's concept lock, stock, and two smoking barrels and just recycled it) there is a single fundamental basis for Locke's creation of rights:

Christianity.

Based on his interpretations of several passages from the Bible, Locke concludes that the Earth was given to all men, and that we, if anything, are the owners of our own body. He then just leaps along the path already illustrated and eventually you have property and other rights.

Now, I disagree with the concept of rights articulated as such for two reasons - I am an atheist and don't buy the notion that the Earth was given to all men in common. I don't buy any God stuff, so there is that.

The second and more interesting element is the notion that we can be divorced from the self in such a manner as to be able to say we own the self. Having just begun studying phenomenology, it struck me almost instantly how odd a concept it was to be able to say "You own your body." As various thinkers have said in the past, this opens the door for a number of issues such as exploitation and justified slavery or servitude.

The whole mind and body divide goes back to the Greeks and in particular Plato, who articulated a division between the mental world and the sensual world, so to speak. He indicated the mental world was superior to the sensual world, and thus many of the problems of philosophy were born in a single stroke. What is the relationship between the mind, the internal, and the external? Repeat ad nauseum.

Thanks to Husserl though, all that can be discarded as rubbish, not that I found it particularly interesting to begin with.

And so to make a long and tangential story short, Locke's premises are based on flawed conceptions of humanity and on Christianity. If you want to entertain the notion of rights (natural ones at any rate) and are not Christian or do not believe in a mind body divide, you are going to need to start philosophizing to develop new justifications and theories.

Rights in the form of a social contract are another matter, one I am less familiar with (having not studied as much), but beyond the silly premises of a 'state of nature' as most contract theorists articulate, the notion that rights are a social construct only seems more plausible than any kind of natural rights.

Naturally speaking, there are things you are capable of doing and things you are not physically or mentally capable of doing. If you are capable of doing it, you have a 'right' to do so.

But as Xenophobialand put it so eloquently, let's not make the mistake of committing a naturalistic fallacy.

Whew. Philosophy lesson over.

.....Naturally speaking, there are things you are capable of doing and things you are not physically or mentally capable of doing. If you are capable of doing it, you have a 'right' to do so...........

What kind of right?

I can punch you in the face. I have the ability to do so (if I were standing beside you). That is my 'right', in the most basic sense of the word. You can punch me back, if you remain capable of doing so (I AM a fairly large and strong man) and that would be your 'right'.

That is just natural ability. I can do it, therefore I can do it should I chose to do so.

Surely you mean a moral right, since the topic of natural 'rights' is really a dead end.

Human rights is an attempt to solve society as game theory. Attempting to find the Pareto optimum rather than the Nash Equilibrium

A lot of society's choices can be summed up in the prisoners dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma).

If you have human rights then the life of your average person should be better.

Its therefore in peoples best interests (on average) to promote human rights. Some will flaunt them and will benefit.. some will be without them and suffer, but the overall push from society as a whole will (if pursued logically) be towards promoting human rights.

Of course society and logic rarely mix ;)

So - we are good, not because you can point to a governing principle, or because we conform to a common morality... but just because you say so?

Well, no. I would say that given that "good at surviving" and "morally good" overlap fairly extensively, that's a pretty clear sign that we do have a common moral structure.

You don't actually appear to be making an argument, so I'm not sure how to respond.

Your entire response to everything I had typed, was to refer me to a higher power... and your contribution to the morality debate is to talk about the fact that moral questions... what... cannot be judged by examination of the data?

The point was, quite simply, to terminate any discussion about how all morality is obviously a matter of subjectivity because different people and different cultures practice different moralities. That is a question of sociology. We are asking a question of morality, which is and ought to be fundamentally divorced from questions of what happens in the world.

To give an example, it is a fact of sorts that in Judeo-Christian myth, a man named Moses came down from Mount Sinai bearing two stone tablets enshrined with 10 or 11 (depending on how you count) fundamental principles of ancient Israelite society. That fact, however, has absolutely nothing to do with answering the question of whether or not those axioms conform with what is good, whether or not there is a good, or whether or not there is more than one good. Irrespective of which way you answer any of those questions, it is still a fact that Judeo-Christian myth cites Moses bringing down the Commandments from Mount Sinai. The validity of that fact has nothing to do at all with answering affirmatively or negatively to any of the above questions. There is therefore a fundamental distinction between matters of fact about the world, and their coherence to an unobserved but possibly inferred higher good.

My point then, simply, was to help the debate move forward by killing the whole "America and Papau New Guinnea have different moralities, so there is no one true morality" argument in the cradle. The statement is obviously fallacious, because it confuses a question of whether or not societies in states have different moralities, and that of whether or not they ought to have different moralities and why.

My point then, simply, was to help the debate move forward by killing the whole "America and Papau New Guinnea have different moralities, so there is no one true morality" argument in the cradle. The statement is obviously fallacious, because it confuses a question of whether or not societies in states have different moralities, and that of whether or not they ought to have different moralities and why.

I think it is also important to bring up a term that seems to be sorely lacking in most discussion surrounding subjectivity/objectivity:

'intersubjectivity'

Essentially it means a set of beliefs held by groups of people that share similarity, are the same, or are able to be grouped together. Christians would share an intersubjective understanding of the world (or ostensibly should if they are practicing Christians).

Anyway, intersubjectivity, while important, doesn't save us from the distinction Xenophobialand makes in terms of what is and what ought to be.

My point then, simply, was to help the debate move forward by killing the whole "America and Papau New Guinnea have different moralities, so there is no one true morality" argument in the cradle. The statement is obviously fallacious, because it confuses a question of whether or not societies in states have different moralities, and that of whether or not they ought to have different moralities and why.

You are not considering the implicit premise in the argument: that if we have competing cultural conceptions of morality, this conflict is fundamentally unresolvable on an objective level. (For this reason, when cultural relativists use this argument, they often add something to the effect of "how do we know who's right?")

In ordinary circumstances, it isn't that difficult to decide right and wrong (most of the time, anyway); our culture (or nature) teaches us that murder and rape are wrong, and we accept this for truth. Within that kind of cultural framework, conflicts are indeed resolvable; if someone declares that rape is justified, he is clearly wrong, because "everyone knows" that rape is wrong. In a world with many cultural frameworks, however, where is our framework when it comes to intercultural relations?

I'm not actually a cultural relativist; I think their analysis ultimately breaks down when it comes to dealing with the individuals who have convictions contrary to those of their culture. But their argument about cultural differences in morality is stronger than it seems.

Can anyone for example name a reason why slavery is Wrong, other than because there are Rights and people should be (Equal and) Free?


You could look at that from the Kantian perspective, he contends that human beings have moral responsibility toward one another, and that one should not treat another as merely a means to their own ends, but rather as ends in themselves.

The basic premises for rights does indeed date back to dear old Locke, but beyond the bits mentioned by Europe (the Austrian School took Locke's concept lock, stock, and two smoking barrels and just recycled it) there is a single fundamental basis for Locke's creation of rights:

Christianity.

Based on his interpretations of several passages from the Bible, Locke concludes that the Earth was given to all men, and that we, if anything, are the owners of our own body. He then just leaps along the path already illustrated and eventually you have property and other rights.

Now, I disagree with the concept of rights articulated as such for two reasons - I am an atheist and don't buy the notion that the Earth was given to all men in common. I don't buy any God stuff, so there is that.

The second and more interesting element is the notion that we can be divorced from the self in such a manner as to be able to say we own the self. Having just begun studying phenomenology, it struck me almost instantly how odd a concept it was to be able to say "You own your body." As various thinkers have said in the past, this opens the door for a number of issues such as exploitation and justified slavery or servitude.

The whole mind and body divide goes back to the Greeks and in particular Plato, who articulated a division between the mental world and the sensual world, so to speak. He indicated the mental world was superior to the sensual world, and thus many of the problems of philosophy were born in a single stroke. What is the relationship between the mind, the internal, and the external? Repeat ad nauseum.

Thanks to Husserl though, all that can be discarded as rubbish, not that I found it particularly interesting to begin with.

And so to make a long and tangential story short, Locke's premises are based on flawed conceptions of humanity and on Christianity. If you want to entertain the notion of rights (natural ones at any rate) and are not Christian or do not believe in a mind body divide, you are going to need to start philosophizing to develop new justifications and theories.

Rights in the form of a social contract are another matter, one I am less familiar with (having not studied as much), but beyond the silly premises of a 'state of nature' as most contract theorists articulate, the notion that rights are a social construct only seems more plausible than any kind of natural rights.

Naturally speaking, there are things you are capable of doing and things you are not physically or mentally capable of doing. If you are capable of doing it, you have a 'right' to do so.

But as Xenophobialand put it so eloquently, let's not make the mistake of committing a naturalistic fallacy.

Whew. Philosophy lesson over.

While I appreciate the kudos, I do think this does somewhat of a disservice to the complexity and intellectual rigor that Locke had. While you certainly cannot completely divorce Locke from religious sentiment, as when he argues against the possibility of reasonably committing suicide by arguing that we are in fact God's property, I do think that you can extract most if not all religious sentiment from the primary understanding of natural rights. I furthermore think that once you do so, natural rights become almost impossible not to agree with.

As I understand Locke, his fundamental understanding of natural rights does not come from his understanding of the state of nature; in point of fact, as I understood it, it was the other way around. Men by nature are the kind of animals that 1) struggle, sometimes violently and to the point of death, to survive, and 2) require material means to facilitate this survival. As such, men will try to survive, they will try to secure the material means of existence, and they will also naturally struggle to secure the conditions by which they can secure those material means. Failure to do any of the three is an invitation to death, because if a person controls you, controls your food supply, or he makes the social rules that prohibit you from getting to the food supply, he is in effect commanding both your death and something you have a natural inclination to avoid. It is from this that we develop the thesis of life, liberty, and property being natural rights: they are the necessary pre-requisites for human existence as well as things men naturally seek to acquire.

The state of nature, then, is little more than an idealized state that allows men to acquire these necessary goods without the need for formal societal bonds; i.e. government. In the state of nature, people pursue their material conditions necessary for life, and they have (at least in the initial, ideallized conception) by definition the means to pursue it free from government prohibition. The only limits on a man are those imposed by reason and common sense: if a man fences off more land than he can reasonably farm, he infringes unnecessarily on the rights of another man to make proper use of that land. If a man hordes more apples than he can eat, he infringes on the rights of another man to eat apples. As such, the only real law in the state of nature is to obey man's natural rational impulse to use no more than one needs, the only violation of such a law the imposition through excessive resource acquisition of one person's will on another, and the only punishment the cool redistribution of goods back to an equitable pattern and that which reason and prudence indicates will deter future violations.

The problem with this is obvious: it's an idealized state that doesn't account for excesses on the part of man and vagaries on the part of the environment. Men do in fact gather together more than they need, and nature often provides less than men think favorable. Nonetheless, this condition only necessitates the formation of more favorable distribution patterns of wealth in the form of the social contract. The rich desire to ensure that what wealth they have isn't dispersed by the mob; the many desire a bigger slice of the pie. Rather than war, the best solution is to compromise and create a government that at once protects the wealth of the rich and allows the means of securing survival for the many. The cost of such a compromise is that men must surrender some of the liberty they had (but could not always exercise) in the state of nature. The only condition that such a compact becomes null and void is when the exigencies of the state of nature are preferable to continued existence in the compact.

Note that nowhere did I mention God in this account. Locke does, but I think that the basics can be described purely rationally, and I find it very hard to refute Locke's basic premise. We are creatures that pursue means to survival. We do require liberty and property to secure that survival. Anarchy and oligopoly does threaten access to those means. Government does seem an effective response to the threat of anarchy and oligopoly. The only time I would agree to dissolve such a government is when it is worse than anarchy or oligopoly. As such, I think Locke has a lot more to say than most of the people on this thread have been giving him credit for.

You are not considering the implicit premise in the argument: that if we have competing cultural conceptions of morality, this conflict is fundamentally unresolvable on an objective level. (For this reason, when cultural relativists use this argument, they often add something to the effect of "how do we know who's right?")

In ordinary circumstances, it isn't that difficult to decide right and wrong (most of the time, anyway); our culture (or nature) teaches us that murder and rape are wrong, and we accept this for truth. Within that kind of cultural framework, conflicts are indeed resolvable; if someone declares that rape is justified, he is clearly wrong, because "everyone knows" that rape is wrong. In a world with many cultural frameworks, however, where is our framework when it comes to intercultural relations?

I'm not actually a cultural relativist; I think their analysis ultimately breaks down when it comes to dealing with the individuals who have convictions contrary to those of their culture. But their argument about cultural differences in morality is stronger than it seems.

Yes and no. At best (and I agree that this argument is not the best or at its best), it proves that the good is unknowable among many possible iterations. It doesn't prove that it is non-existent. To give an analogy: supposing that a moth species was faced with a change in climate, many possible evolutionary adaptations exist. Many might be picked by various subgroups of the species, or none. Which one would have generated the best possible chance for successful overcoming of climate change is largely unknowable in this circumstance; it is certainly unobservable. It doesn't follow from this, however, that an ideal evolutionary adaptation doesn't exist.

At best (and I agree that this argument is not the best or at its best), it proves that the good is unknowable among many possible iterations. It doesn't prove that it is non-existent.

If objective good is unknowable, how is it relevant to human life?

If objective good is unknowable, how is it relevant to human life?

It fails truth-conditional logic to claim it necessarily does not exist. Plus, keep in mind that "unknowable" is the absolute best-case scenario post-modernism can make of the good. To be honest, I'm pretty sure they don't manage that.

The only rights people have are those that can be protected.

It fails truth-conditional logic to claim it necessarily does not exist.

I don't think you answered my question.

And while I agree that we cannot tell simply from observation of human views of morality that objective good exists, if the concept itself is incoherent, that is not necessary.

Plus, keep in mind that "unknowable" is the absolute best-case scenario post-modernism can make of the good. To be honest, I'm pretty sure they don't manage that.

How would you go about discovering an objective good?

Is there a logical reason or is the reason somehow a matter of what is right, just because it is right?

Yes some answers are as simple as that.



Isn't it just a way of maintaining peace in a society?

And this relates to human rights how? Care to be more specific?

Can anyone for example name a reason why slavery is Wrong, other than because there are Rights and people should be (Equal and) Free? Maybe because human beings were born free and should remain that way. That is a secular way of thinking. Now from my religious pov, God gave all man free agency that he may exercise it and how did so that would deterimn his path back to eternal glory. I challange you to live as a slave for a week. And I mean a real slave, not a sevant, I mean a demeining slave where you have to adress a person as master.

Presently I can only think of economic reasons, that somewhy a society where people are free and have equal opportunities is more productive.

Okay Little Adolf, thanks for sharing, now run of to your Wal-Mart Sweatshop

Can't be bothered reading through 8 pages. So to answer the OP. Most human rights basically boil down to, treat someone as you would like to be treated.

Humans are a pack animal. In a pack, if someone is selfish, treats others poorly, abuses their human rights in modern parlance, they get kicked out of the pack. It will be much harder for them to survive by themselves, so they get evolved out.

Selfish bastards will keep popping up every now and then, and as most of us believe in human rights, they take advantage of the pack. Hitler, Kenneth Lay, Stalin, Kissinger, etc.

Another thing that can mess this up, is you may only support human rights for your pack. Which is how slavery, white supremacy, can pop up. Most people in more enlightened times can empathise with others, and broaden their "pack" to mean the entire world, with some exceptions. U.S.A. neo-cons for one.

Humans are a pack animal. In a pack, if someone is selfish, treats others poorly, abuses their human rights in modern parlance, they get kicked out of the pack. It will be much harder for them to survive by themselves, so they get evolved out.
Actually, in packs there is a dominant alpha male and female. In lion prides, although these are not representative of truly "social animals" (how I loathe that term), there is a hierarchy. According to your logic, human rights would devolve to might makes right, with the dominant elite (be it a King, an aristocracy, the "majority", whatever) establishing the rules of the game. The concomitant rights theory would be Hobbes', with the individuals eventually instituting an absolute government to protect them from each other (but who would protect them from it?).

Individual rights are NOT there to give society unlimited sanction over the individual. They are there to protect the individual from the majority.

And let's frame this in proper terms. If others are abused it will be out of their own selfishness too that they ostracise the individual in question. Let's not even pretend it is otherwise.

...................They are there to protect the individual from the majority.
This applies in democracies only, right?


And let's frame this in proper terms. If others are abused it will be out of their own selfishness too that they ostracise the individual in question. Let's not even pretend it is otherwise.
explain further, please?

This applies in democracies only, right?
In any group structure, but typically democracies.

explain further, please?
Because the ostracised individual could be said to be harming the interests of those harmed. Although it could be phrased in terms of "protecting the common good", that is more or less what it amounts to. Nothing selfless about it.

there is no logical reason for any moral standpoint, you cant justify a moral position as a universal objective axiom. That said from my own perspective things work best when people simply put "try to get along" as opposed to fighting or subjegating each other, lifes too short in other words for playground nonsense, although we are animals we dont have to be assholes. Basically I think people should attempt to live in a way which keeps them happy and which does not reduce the happiness of others and to negotiate problems in a rational way with sincere non malevolent intentions when conflicts may arise.

In any group structure, but typically democracies.
.......

I was thinking about Evil Tyrantonia, where everone but Evil Tyrant (and his/her Chief Torturer) is being tortured to death everyday. Or a mild version, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc

Can't be bothered reading through 8 pages. So to answer the OP. Most human rights basically boil down to, treat someone as you would like to be treated.

Humans are a pack animal. In a pack, if someone is selfish, treats others poorly, abuses their human rights in modern parlance, they get kicked out of the pack. It will be much harder for them to survive by themselves, so they get evolved out.

Selfish bastards will keep popping up every now and then, and as most of us believe in human rights, they take advantage of the pack. Hitler, Kenneth Lay, Stalin, Kissinger, etc.

Another thing that can mess this up, is you may only support human rights for your pack. Which is how slavery, white supremacy, can pop up. Most people in more enlightened times can empathise with others, and broaden their "pack" to mean the entire world, with some exceptions. U.S.A. neo-cons for one.

Yes, this is all true, good post

.......
Another thing that can mess this up, is you may only support human rights for your pack........
This is an interesting one. What are the deciding factors for pack broadness?

I do think this does somewhat of a disservice to the complexity and intellectual rigor that Locke had. While you certainly cannot completely divorce Locke from religious sentiment, as when he argues against the possibility of reasonably committing suicide by arguing that we are in fact God's property, I do think that you can extract most if not all religious sentiment from the primary understanding of natural rights. I furthermore think that once you do so, natural rights become almost impossible not to agree with.

As I understand Locke, his fundamental understanding of natural rights does not come from his understanding of the state of nature; in point of fact, as I understood it, it was the other way around. Men by nature are the kind of animals that 1) struggle, sometimes violently and to the point of death, to survive, and 2) require material means to facilitate this survival. As such, men will try to survive, they will try to secure the material means of existence, and they will also naturally struggle to secure the conditions by which they can secure those material means. Failure to do any of the three is an invitation to death, because if a person controls you, controls your food supply, or he makes the social rules that prohibit you from getting to the food supply, he is in effect commanding both your death and something you have a natural inclination to avoid. It is from this that we develop the thesis of life, liberty, and property being natural rights: they are the necessary pre-requisites for human existence as well as things men naturally seek to acquire.

The state of nature, then, is little more than an idealized state that allows men to acquire these necessary goods without the need for formal societal bonds; i.e. government. In the state of nature, people pursue their material conditions necessary for life, and they have (at least in the initial, ideallized conception) by definition the means to pursue it free from government prohibition. The only limits on a man are those imposed by reason and common sense: if a man fences off more land than he can reasonably farm, he infringes unnecessarily on the rights of another man to make proper use of that land. If a man hordes more apples than he can eat, he infringes on the rights of another man to eat apples. As such, the only real law in the state of nature is to obey man's natural rational impulse to use no more than one needs, the only violation of such a law the imposition through excessive resource acquisition of one person's will on another, and the only punishment the cool redistribution of goods back to an equitable pattern and that which reason and prudence indicates will deter future violations.

The problem with this is obvious: it's an idealized state that doesn't account for excesses on the part of man and vagaries on the part of the environment. Men do in fact gather together more than they need, and nature often provides less than men think favorable. Nonetheless, this condition only necessitates the formation of more favorable distribution patterns of wealth in the form of the social contract. The rich desire to ensure that what wealth they have isn't dispersed by the mob; the many desire a bigger slice of the pie. Rather than war, the best solution is to compromise and create a government that at once protects the wealth of the rich and allows the means of securing survival for the many. The cost of such a compromise is that men must surrender some of the liberty they had (but could not always exercise) in the state of nature. The only condition that such a compact becomes null and void is when the exigencies of the state of nature are preferable to continued existence in the compact.

Note that nowhere did I mention God in this account. Locke does, but I think that the basics can be described purely rationally, and I find it very hard to refute Locke's basic premise. We are creatures that pursue means to survival. We do require liberty and property to secure that survival. Anarchy and oligopoly does threaten access to those means. Government does seem an effective response to the threat of anarchy and oligopoly. The only time I would agree to dissolve such a government is when it is worse than anarchy or oligopoly. As such, I think Locke has a lot more to say than most of the people on this thread have been giving him credit for.

Well put, but you are missing the essential Christian and more specifically protestant nature of Locke's thinking.

The entire basis for the equality of men in the state of nature for Locke is that each individual is answerable for himself (we can presume that this extends to herself as well) to God. There are no differences between men in this respect (for Locke) and thus there can be no differences between men in terms of their power relationships in the 'natural state'. Only when we develop society do hierarchies appear for him, with these being unnatural and contrary to the will of God.

The arguments that we all struggle to survive etc. does not require, in any sense, that we are all equal in respect to each other. A slave and the slave's owner both struggle to survive - the inequality between these two positions is not relevant to this struggle. If a man hordes more apples than he needs he simply makes the struggle harder for the others. there is no infringement of any right involved unless there is some pre-established arrangement that is concerned with the equality of these agents. That pre-established equality derives, in Locke, purely from his protestant ethos.

Well put, but you are missing the essential Christian and more specifically protestant nature of Locke's thinking.

The entire basis for the equality of men in the state of nature for Locke is that each individual is answerable for himself (we can presume that this extends to herself as well) to God. There are no differences between men in this respect (for Locke) and thus there can be no differences between men in terms of their power relationships in the 'natural state'. Only when we develop society do hierarchies appear for him, with these being unnatural and contrary to the will of God.

The arguments that we all struggle to survive etc. does not require, in any sense, that we are all equal in respect to each other. A slave and the slave's owner both struggle to survive - the inequality between these two positions is not relevant to this struggle. If a man hordes more apples than he needs he simply makes the struggle harder for the others. there is no infringement of any right involved unless there is some pre-established arrangement that is concerned with the equality of these agents. That pre-established equality derives, in Locke, purely from his protestant ethos.

I don't know about purely; I'm not a Locke scholar, but to my knowledge Locke took such a strongly Christian stance as much because of historical circumstance as out of genuine conviction. Remember that as of the time he was writing the Two Treatises (roughly circa 1685 or so), the monarchy of England had been overthrown and replaced with a fundamentalist Dominion within his living memory. As the dominant thinking of the period was thoroughly Christian-infused, he couldn't possibly have spoken a different language and still had his thinking

Nonetheless, to my knowledge there was no such "pre-established arrangement" in the state of nature. Any equality that existed was purely equal chance to exploit available resources and an assumption of rationality that prohibited a person from collecting more than he could use until the development of hard currency. That equality, in other words, was little more than the blind luck that allowed everyone to grab as much as they could within subject to reason, not a posit of a deity that gave people equal ability to grab it or equal capacity to understand what needed to be grabbed. Locke himself allowed for wide inequality in the state of nature; in point of fact, he credited such wide inequality as the essential factor behind the development of the state. Nor still were such states abberrant or immoral; they were in fact the crucial means of establishing earthly morality, because part of establishing the social contract is establishing the agreed social norms.

In short, I still think that it is a serious misjudgment of Locke to say that he reduces his claims to theological ones. More than any writer of his period, except possibly Montaigne, Locke to my understanding goes out of his way to establish secular grounding for the existence of a state and the character of humanity. While I suppose you could say that his writings still have some tinge of religious flavor, and it is unquestionable that he has and uses a commanding understanding of the Bible, he is going out of his way to lay down an extra-Biblical and non-Biblical foundation for the state. The reason for doing so is obvious: as an opponent to the divine right school of thought, the then monarch of England, and fundamentalist government in general, he must oppose a Biblical foundation for the state, because according to then and current English law, the King is also the head of the state church. Locke's only choice as opponent of the English government was to undercut the theological foundation for the King's claim to power and replace it with a grounding in secularism: support for the King derives not from God but from the people.

The Golden Rule

The Golden Rule

...does not really, in and of itself, give us human rights.

Except perhaps the "love your neighbor as yourself" formulation. Which is probably the best anyway.

...does not really, in and of itself, give us human rights.

Except perhaps the "love your neighbor as yourself" formulation. Which is probably the best anyway.

And which is a perfect example of pragmatism... but it is still just a 'convenience' of a culture rather than some kind of 'right'... much less an inherent right.

Well, no. I would say that given that "good at surviving" and "morally good" overlap fairly extensively, that's a pretty clear sign that we do have a common moral structure.

Rape is an example of a survival mechanism.. and yet - while it does have a strong historical history- it is not well represented in modern 'moral' patterns.

If 'morality' and survival overlap, it is a peculiarity of the moral structure of the given culture.. nothing more.

The point was, quite simply, to terminate any discussion about how all morality is obviously a matter of subjectivity because different people and different cultures practice different moralities. That is a question of sociology. We are asking a question of morality, which is and ought to be fundamentally divorced from questions of what happens in the world.

To give an example, it is a fact of sorts that in Judeo-Christian myth, a man named Moses came down from Mount Sinai bearing two stone tablets enshrined with 10 or 11 (depending on how you count) fundamental principles of ancient Israelite society. That fact, however, has absolutely nothing to do with answering the question of whether or not those axioms conform with what is good, whether or not there is a good, or whether or not there is more than one good. Irrespective of which way you answer any of those questions, it is still a fact that Judeo-Christian myth cites Moses bringing down the Commandments from Mount Sinai. The validity of that fact has nothing to do at all with answering affirmatively or negatively to any of the above questions. There is therefore a fundamental distinction between matters of fact about the world, and their coherence to an unobserved but possibly inferred higher good.

My point then, simply, was to help the debate move forward by killing the whole "America and Papau New Guinnea have different moralities, so there is no one true morality" argument in the cradle. The statement is obviously fallacious, because it confuses a question of whether or not societies in states have different moralities, and that of whether or not they ought to have different moralities and why.

On the contrary... the fact that Papua New Guinea and The US have different 'moralities' is exactly the point. If 'morality' can be shown to be a factor of a culture - and differing from culture to culture - then there is no overall morality.

I don't care that there are different moralities, I'm not losing any sleep over why such a thing might exist. I am satisfied that the evidence suggests there are differing takees on what is 'moral', and that that means there is no one overarching 'morality'.

I tend to concur with the OP. "Fundamental Human Rights" are the great fallacy of our epoch, and serve to weaken political government and practice.

On the contrary... the fact that Papua New Guinea and The US have different 'moralities' is exactly the point. If 'morality' can be shown to be a factor of a culture - and differing from culture to culture - then there is no overall morality.

I don't care that there are different moralities, I'm not losing any sleep over why such a thing might exist. I am satisfied that the evidence suggests there are differing takees on what is 'moral', and that that means there is no one overarching 'morality'.

Or, it could be a problem of Kant's "conflicting duties", where people are prioritizing certain moral truths (for example, making yourself happy) over other moral truths (respect others), leading you to make yourself happy at the expense of others.

I tend to concur with the OP. "Fundamental Human Rights" are the great fallacy of our epoch, and serve to weaken political government and practice.

Hmmm...did the OP say that? I'm not sure, but maybe you're right.

As for being the great fallacy...how different is the notion of those rights from an organised religion? Not very much. Both are an elaborate, well-intended hoax.

Whether this serves to weaken political government and practise....... it does, in the sense that the freedom of government is limited by those Rights. Does that mean it is weaker? Maybe it is even stronger, because the decisions that can be made are more kosher, carry a certificate of quality.

Or, it could be a problem of Kant's "conflicting duties", where people are prioritizing certain moral truths (for example, making yourself happy) over other moral truths (respect others), leading you to make yourself happy at the expense of others.

The problem is, there is no reason to assume that either of the 'certain moral truths' (or any so-called entities) are moral truths... much less in any way universal.

The problem is, there is no reason to assume that either of the 'certain moral truths' (or any so-called entities) are moral truths... much less in any way universal.
As a proponent of intuitive altruism, that idea kinda grates on me a bit. While it is true that a great many rights we humans grant ourselves in society (life, liberty, equality etc.) are things that nature would not hesitate to demonstrate stripping from us, is it not also true that constructive engagement with their immediate environment, whether used by it or benefitting from it, is what grants any living thing its existence?

As a proponent of intuitive altruism, that idea kinda grates on me a bit. While it is true that a great many rights we humans grant ourselves in society (life, liberty, equality etc.) are things that nature would not hesitate to demonstrate stripping from us, is it not also true that constructive engagement with their immediate environment, whether used by it or benefitting from it, is what grants any living thing its existence?

I'll not argue against us being interactive with our environments, obviously. But, that doesn't mean there is some set of rules that governs those interactions, except a simple survival-of-the-most-efficient mechanism.

I'd possibly argue against the 'constructive' part of your concept, depending on what you mean by it... is the reaction of an infectious disease 'constructive', because the 'germ' benefits?

I'll not argue against us being interactive with our environments, obviously. But, that doesn't mean there is some set of rules that governs those interactions, except a simple survival-of-the-most-efficient mechanism.

I'd possibly argue against the 'constructive' part of your concept, depending on what you mean by it... is the reaction of an infectious disease 'constructive', because the 'germ' benefits?
Well, yes. So, of course, is the defense mechanism set up by the host designed to fight off invasion. Each new interaction yields experience and change; that's what Growth is about, really.

I like to think that that is one underlying standard of ethics in nature. Things grow, they acquire experience, they spread their influence and interact more and more with the environment they occupy. Instinctively, all living things exist to foster growth, whether in ourselves, in those around us, in the colonies and organisations we are composite parts of or wherever else we can find it.

With this in mind, maybe the social constructs of Human rights don't seem quite so ungrounded.

not even god cares about human rights, slaves are accepted in the bible, they help provide services that would otherwise not be done in a modern society.

not even god cares about human rights, slaves are accepted in the bible, they help provide services that would otherwise not be done in a modern society.

F -, good effort though.

Well, yes. So, of course, is the defense mechanism set up by the host designed to fight off invasion. Each new interaction yields experience and change; that's what Growth is about, really.

I like to think that that is one underlying standard of ethics in nature. Things grow, they acquire experience, they spread their influence and interact more and more with the environment they occupy. Instinctively, all living things exist to foster growth, whether in ourselves, in those around us, in the colonies and organisations we are composite parts of or wherever else we can find it.

With this in mind, maybe the social constructs of Human rights don't seem quite so ungrounded.

Again, I'll not argue with the fact that things 'grow'. That doesn't equate in any way to a 'standard of ethics', though... unless the way sand poured into a pile assumes the form of a cone is a 'standard of ethics' for inanimate matter.

To take what can be observed, and extrapolate some idea of a 'code of laws' to govern it - above and beyond simple physics, chemistry and biology - seems to me to be wishful thinking. It sounds like people looking for 'meaning' in the universe, when 'it is' might be the only governing principle.

According to your logic, human rights would devolve to might makes right, with the dominant elite (be it a King, an aristocracy, the "majority", whatever) establishing the rules of the game. The concomitant rights theory would be Hobbes', with the individuals eventually instituting an absolute government to protect them from each other (but who would protect them from it?).
I'm suggesting that, the be nice to one another morality, comes from evolution. Bad humans get booted from the pack. That's where morals come from in the 1st place. Due to our rapid development into a modern animal in a non-genetics relevant time frame, we have to look at Memes not Genes. Look at most structures. We had tribal leaders, then kings, and the a group of the tribe kicked out the kings. The king was behaving poorly, the tribe kicked him out. The tribe protects themselves.

Individual rights are NOT there to give society unlimited sanction over the individual. They are there to protect the individual from the majority.
But the theory of "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" still works. A smart group realises that they should give rights to a minority, as they may be the minority later. Remember the famour WW II quote. "When they came for the Jews, I did nothing, as I was not a Jew. When they came for the gypsies, I did nothing, etc, etc. "

And let's frame this in proper terms. If others are abused it will be out of their own selfishness too that they ostracise the individual in question. Let's not even pretend it is otherwise.
I'm not saying that osracising someone is a good thing. What I am saying, is that when humans were developing their brains, and a genetically relevant time scale was about, they would ostracise a selfish individual.

This is an interesting one. What are the deciding factors for pack broadness?
Sorry for multi-posting replies. I only have a chance to spend time on this forum rarely, so I try to do it all in one shot. I'll also admit a large part of what I am saying is inspired by Richard Dawkins thoughts on this.
I think it comes to education and the "shrinking" of the world. A Millenia ago, maybe 10% of the poulation would see people outside their own village. Even 50 years ago I'd say less than 10% of people would see people outside this country. Thus, back then , you can only really associate that the "be nice to your tribe members and they'll be nice to you", to yourself.

Now, the world is a lot smaller and a lot more interconnected. It is a small mental leap from "tribe" to "world". Also, the wealthier a place is will help in pack broadness. It is a term called conspicuous generosity. Basically, in our old "in the tree" days, the alpha male would give fruit and other goodies to other members of the pack. Basically he is saying "I am so cool, I am such a legend that I can afford to give things away, and still be top dog."

In modern society, being conspicously generous is a way of keeping up with the Joneses.

Sorry for multi-posting replies. I only have a chance to spend time on this forum rarely, so I try to do it all in one shot. I'll also admit a large part of what I am saying is inspired by Richard Dawkins thoughts on this.
I think it comes to education and the "shrinking" of the world. A Millenia ago, maybe 10% of the poulation would see people outside their own village. Even 50 years ago I'd say less than 10% of people would see people outside this country. Thus, back then , you can only really associate that the "be nice to your tribe members and they'll be nice to you", to yourself.

Now, the world is a lot smaller and a lot more interconnected. It is a small mental leap from "tribe" to "world". Also, the wealthier a place is will help in pack broadness. It is a term called conspicuous generosity. Basically, in our old "in the tree" days, the alpha male would give fruit and other goodies to other members of the pack. Basically he is saying "I am so cool, I am such a legend that I can afford to give things away, and still be top dog."

In modern society, being conspicously generous is a way of keeping up with the Joneses.

So, globalization fuels universal human rights awareness?

So, globalization fuels universal human rights awareness?
Knowing there are lots of other people in other countries as a real concept, instead of as a vague idea, helps the average person understand that human rights don't need to just be applied to the tribe.

As I mentioned previously, there are some in the tribe, who every now and then get away with being bastards. These are the people responsible for the globalisation that robs the 3rd world of it's resources, and creates sweatshops for the benefit of the west.

The achievement of a universally accepted, universal human rights is more developed than it was in 1000 A.D., but it is a long way from being there.

I've referred to Richard Dawkins, and now I've referred to Globalisation. :headbang:
Any people wishing to do a comment on Atheism and Dawkins, or "Globalisation doesn't screw the poor", pease start a new thread.

The tribe protects themselves.
Call me misanthropic, but I find all animals more social than a lion disgusting. Irrelevant, however I felt like saying it.

I'm not saying that osracising someone is a good thing. What I am saying, is that when humans were developing their brains, and a genetically relevant time scale was about, they would ostracise a selfish individual.

If you rephrase that to "callously selfish" I will agree. Otherwise the "tribe" would end up ostracising the majority of its members.

This whole thread is ridiculous. Who even came up with this question in the first place? Does that person want his rights taken away? That seems counter-intuitive/masochistic to me, everyone should want the best for their life and the lives of their fellow human being. I do NOT however condone of socialism, because it simply does not work, and takes away my rights. How many people here know what it was like to live in a communist state? Not many i assume. For example, you could not own an instrument unless you were a musician, could not own a saw unless you were in construction, etc. Government was all pervasive, completely controlling of every aspect of your life, you were as a prisoner of our own design. Is that what all these pseudo intellectual "democratic socialists" want? Because let me tell you, Socialism can NOT be Democratic, Socialism is the opposite of Liberty and Freedom, the two cannot coexist, at least not peacefully.