NationStates Jolt Archive

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. – P.J. O'Rourke

I think I agree.......if you disagree though, explain why so I can think about this more deeply.

I also agree.

edit: my first timewarp?!

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. – P.J. O'Rourke

I think I agree.......if you disagree though, explain why so I can think about this more deeply.

Well, that would mean that I have the right to shoot someone and then "deal with the consequences".

Those consequences are then completely undefined - neither I nor the friends and family of the victim have any right beyond doing what we damn well please. So pistols at dawn it is.

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. – P.J. O'Rourke

I think I agree.......if you disagree though, explain why so I can think about this more deeply.

i would agree if i thought that our only duty is to ourselves. but that is realisticly not the case, as nice an ideal as it might be. i'd modify that statement to "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And it comes with the only basic human duty, the duty to respect that right in others thereby endure the compromises" to fall in line with how i feel.

The only right I personally think of as vital is the right to move freely. I can't think of anything more horrible than to be kept somewhere against my will. I have no doubt that not too many people agree with me on this, though.

It's a meaningless statement, it sort of sounds like it could be saying something but it's just "You can do things, but then stuff might happen after it". Which is a concept as enlightening as "fire=hot!"

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. – P.J. O'Rourke

I think I agree.......if you disagree though, explain why so I can think about this more deeply.

I disagree. My ability to, for instance, commit murder and get away with it, does not give me the right to commit murder and get away with it. Boiled down, this philosophy is little more than might makes right.

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. – P.J. O'Rourke

I think I agree.......if you disagree though, explain why so I can think about this more deeply.

Reminds me of the old saying (don't know who said it first) "The right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

Perhaps a better measuring stick to use is the wiccan saying "an it harm none, do as you will."

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. – P.J. O'Rourke

I think I agree.......if you disagree though, explain why so I can think about this more deeply.

The only rights we have are the ones we fight for; survival, food, and shelter.

I disagree, based on that premise. Rights only exist if you entertain their notion, that is... to fight for them. Rather ironic how important fiction is, then, isn't it?

I disagree. My ability to, for instance, commit murder and get away with it, does not give me the right to commit murder and get away with it. Boiled down, this philosophy is little more than might makes right.

Worse, it doesn't make sense in its own flawed morality.

Basic human right: Do as you please

Me: Wants to break Glorious Alpha Complex's legs on Tuesday

GAC: Wants to sprint on Wednesay

My basic rights negate your basic rights.

There's no discussion here. And O'rouke wasn't even seriously commentating in the first place.

Yay! debate!

I am erring on the side of conditional agreeing now, which is basically I can't agree.

mood swings = fun

My understanding of this, any 'right' beyond the one posted is just society's expression of a preference for a certain rule that they will enforce with whatever sanctions they decide on. And that does not violate the original right, since society have done what they wanted and will face the consequences for these rules. The person who is prevented from doing something by these new rules can still violate the rules but he will face the consequences for doing something he isn't 'meant' to do. The person who is murdered is facing the consequence of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, even though this is 'unfair' to him (whatever unfair means).

In summary, I believe humans have no basic rights. They will do as they do and what happens to them happens to them. So when people talk about rights I just understand them to mean rules imposed by society in general because people in general would prefer life that way. The OP is correct in absolute terms but it is rather a pointless definition, you just need to understand that any other 'rights' are artificially imposed by people rather than being inherent and then you can have the actual useful discussion about what they should be.

I disagree. Having the ability to do as one pleases (which is indicated by be able to deal with the consequences) is not the same thing as having the right to do as one pleases.

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. – P.J. O'Rourke

I think I agree.......if you disagree though, explain why so I can think about this more deeply.

Yeah I agree. When it comes to human rights, that is what every human should have the freedom to do, it bears mentioning twice that this right is extenbded to every human.

So I have the right to do as I dame well please, but if my right interferes with your right to the same, then these conseqences come into play.

It is how we handle the consequences that matter.

Personally I would add the condition "do as you like as long as it does not harm anyone else".

Personally I would add the condition "do as you like as long as it does not harm anyone else".

Yeah I agree, but that is a hard way to live. Almost every thing we do cause harm to somebody else.

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. – P.J. O'Rourke

I think I agree.......if you disagree though, explain why so I can think about this more deeply.

I disagree to some extend. That right to do as you damn well please only goes right up to the point where you infringe on someone else's right to do as he/she damn well pleases.

That's the (stereo)typical American attitude to do whatever they please without ever thinking about consequences *before*, not just the consequences for themselves but especially for others. The arrogance in this is indescribable. Responsibility is inherently un-American it seems.
Human has no lordship over his environment and it is not his right to do whatever seems comfortable. But of course that's beyond the understanding of certain self-declared Christian fundamentalists around here.

That's the (stereo)typical American attitude to do whatever they please without ever thinking about consequences *before*, not just the consequences for themselves but especially for others. The arrogance in this is indescribable. Responsibility is inherently un-American it seems.

I disagree, the OP original statement said nothing about when such consequences come into play, only that one should face up to them. I find no lack of responsibility here nor arrogance.

Human has no lordship over his environment...
Actually, isn't our lordship over our environment the only thing that's kept our species alive?

I disagree, the OP original statement said nothing about when such consequences come into play, only that one should face up to them. I find no lack of responsibility here nor arrogance.I do. Smunkeeville chooses her quotes very carefully.
If you kill someone because it pleases you, how would you take the consequences you inflicted on the victim? P.J. O'Rourke's statement is rubbish, because in reality the taking of the consequences does not match whatever your action was, especially because it is impossible to take the place of that somebody who *really* has to bear the consequences.

I do. Smunkeeville chooses her quotes very carefully.
If you kill someone because it pleases you, how would you take the consequences you inflicted on the victim? P.J. O'Rourke's statement is rubbish, because in reality the taking of the consequences does not match whatever your action was, especially because it is impossible to take the place of that somebody who *really* has to bear the consequences.

But bear in mind as I have said elsewhere that the idea of rights extend to all of us. So it is a logical conclusion to say that if my right to do as I like impinges on anothers right to do the same, then I cannot in good conscionse choose to perform my prefered action. Yet if I don't let my concionse get in the way of my wants, then I have to take the consequences of my actions, probably jail time for killing somebody.

But bear in mind as I have said elsewhere that the idea of rights extend to all of us. So it is a logical conclusion to say that if my right to do as I like impinges on anothers right to do the same, then I cannot in good conscionse choose to perform my prefered action. Yet if I don't let my concionse get in the way of my wants, then I have to take the consequences of my actions, probably jail time for killing somebody.

More likely in a libertarian society you would be killed by a friend or relative of the person you killed starting a vendetta.

More likely in a libertarian society you would be killed by a friend or relative of the person you killed starting a vendetta.

Perhaps, but vendetta's stop when somebody choose not to take revengeful actions.

i don't know about rights - its complicated. the state exercises legitimate force, and as such has authority to dicate the rights of its citizens. any such rights are granted as part of an unwritten social contract, formed at birth, and we - in turn for receiving our rights - must act within the constraints upon those rights (ie. laws)

thankfully in a democracy there is citizen sovereignty.

in the example, killing somebody would be acting outside the constraints of your right to do as you please. as such this action is punishable by the state. the concequence.

so i would say that there is no 'one ultimate right', but whatever rights the state and its citizens compromise on. these may be negative rights (the right to do as you please, so long as you don't harm another), or positive rights (the right to shelter, water, food and healthcare)... it depends on the system and the citizens.


of course, that's for individuals' rights. moving into the realm of property rights, the state becomes yet more important and also more of an arbiter.

I agree, the consequences that are being spoken of are ones we have to face not only within ourselves, and the ones in our community as well.

I agree, the consequences that are being spoken of are ones we have to face not only within ourselves, and the ones in our community as well:).

Worse, it doesn't make sense in its own flawed morality.

Basic human right: Do as you please

Me: Wants to break Glorious Alpha Complex's legs on Tuesday

GAC: Wants to sprint on Wednesay

My basic rights negate your basic rights.

There's no discussion here. And O'rouke wasn't even seriously commentating in the first place.

A sound analysis. If the original statement holds then preventing others from doing as they please is simultaneously justified and unjustified.

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. – P.J. O'Rourke

I think I agree.......if you disagree though, explain why so I can think about this more deeply.

With the addendum "without infringing on the rights of others" this statement is not only absolutely true, but it is the core pillar of Objectivism. If I shoot someone, I must suffer the consequences.

Is that any different from our current judicial system? We respond to actual violent crime, not prevention (in most cases). Much more good comes from an armed populace than from disarming the law-abiding citizens. Criminals will have weapons regardless, (just as most of us have drugs even though they're against the law). Preventative steps are worse off for everyone. Speed limits, gun restrictions, seatbelt laws, and bike helmet laws are all examples of this.

My point is, the doctrine above is what was intended to govern us as a nation in 1776. Whether or not the federal government still abides by anything close to this dogma is up for debate, but I will point out that socialistic wealth-redistribution programs like Medicare and Social Security, along with preemptive foreign wars like Iraq are fairly clear indications that it does not.

Yeah I agree, but that is a hard way to live. Almost every thing we do cause harm to somebody else.

Actually, very little does. When have you harmed someone else lately? Success hurts no one. By making more money than someone, you're not harming them, you're helping yourself, and through the extra capital and jobs you may be creating, there's even a good chance you're helping the economy as a whole.

In any business transaction, both parties receive some benefit. This is why the free market is so much more moral than socialism--in socialism, money is extorted from one party at the end of a gun and given to another; in the free market, the goods and services are exchanged voluntarily and in good faith.

Unless you murder people or steal their property on a day to day basis, I'd hazard to say that you infringe on the rights of others very little. (unless you count the actions of our government, which I won't, because we'd all be guilty)

With the addendum "without infringing on the rights of others" this statement is not only absolutely true, but it is the core pillar of Objectivism. If I shoot someone, I must suffer the consequences.The consequences for whom? You cannot suffer the consequences for your victim as if you were in place of the victim, can you?
"without infringing on the rights of others" is indeed necessary, although "rights" is somewhat unspecific. Life is not a right.

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. – P.J. O'Rourke

I think I agree.......if you disagree though, explain why so I can think about this more deeply.
I don't agree. I don't believe I have an automatic duty to "take the consequences" for my choices. Sometimes the consequences are bullshit.

Example:

When I was about 9 or so, I wore a pair of shorts to school. It was hot, I wore shorts. There was no dress code at my school.

A teacher stopped me and told me I couldn't wear shorts because they were not modest. (I remember this clearly, because I didn't understand her and my mother later had to explain what "modest" meant.) She sent me to the principle's office and made me wait until she called my parents and told them they had to come bring a change of clothes. My mother did show up, and promptly ripped into the teacher and explained all the many reasons why she could take her "modesty" and shove it.

I wore shorts until it snowed, that year.

I did as I pleased that morning, when I picked out what I wanted to wear. The consequence of my choice was some jackass hassling me because they didn't approve of my choice. And my mom taught me to never roll over and play dead when people try to impose unreasonable consequences on you because they don't approve of your choice.

There are some consequences that exist because that's the nature of our world. For instance, if I wore shorts in winter, I'd have gotten sick or injured (Minnesota winters are deeply evil). That's a consequence I cannot change. But the consequence of being pushed around because another human doesn't like what I wear, well, that's a consequence I certainly don't have to accept, and I most certainly do not have any duty to put up with it.

I don't agree. I don't believe I have an automatic duty to "take the consequences" for my choices. Sometimes the consequences are bullshit.

Example:

When I was about 9 or so, I wore a pair of shorts to school. It was hot, I wore shorts. There was no dress code at my school.

A teacher stopped me and told me I couldn't wear shorts because they were not modest. (I remember this clearly, because I didn't understand her and my mother later had to explain what "modest" meant.) She sent me to the principle's office and made me wait until she called my parents and told them they had to come bring a change of clothes. My mother did show up, and promptly ripped into the teacher and explained all the many reasons why she could take her "modesty" and shove it.

I wore shorts until it snowed, that year.

I did as I pleased that morning, when I picked out what I wanted to wear. The consequence of my choice was some jackass hassling me because they didn't approve of my choice. And my mom taught me to never roll over and play dead when people try to impose unreasonable consequences on you because they don't approve of your choice.

There are some consequences that exist because that's the nature of our world. For instance, if I wore shorts in winter, I'd have gotten sick or injured (Minnesota winters are deeply evil). That's a consequence I cannot change. But the consequence of being pushed around because another human doesn't like what I wear, well, that's a consequence I certainly don't have to accept, and I most certainly do not have any duty to put up with it.

and her consequence was having to put up with your mother?

Actually, very little does. When have you harmed someone else lately? Success hurts no one. By making more money than someone, you're not harming them, you're helping yourself, and through the extra capital and jobs you may be creating, there's even a good chance you're helping the economy as a whole.

In any business transaction, both parties receive some benefit. This is why the free market is so much more moral than socialism--in socialism, money is extorted from one party at the end of a gun and given to another; in the free market, the goods and services are exchanged voluntarily and in good faith.

Unless you murder people or steal their property on a day to day basis, I'd hazard to say that you infringe on the rights of others very little. (unless you count the actions of our government, which I won't, because we'd all be guilty)


Naaa I disagree. Almost every action you take is to the detriment of somebody else. I use a certian brand of butter, because I do this my money goes to ultimatly to the coffers of this brand, rather than it's nearest competitor, so by actions I deny the other company my money.

A silly little example but one that i hope points out what I mean.

I don't agree. I don't believe I have an automatic duty to "take the consequences" for my choices. Sometimes the consequences are bullshit.

Example:

When I was about 9 or so, I wore a pair of shorts to school. It was hot, I wore shorts. There was no dress code at my school.

A teacher stopped me and told me I couldn't wear shorts because they were not modest. (I remember this clearly, because I didn't understand her and my mother later had to explain what "modest" meant.) She sent me to the principle's office and made me wait until she called my parents and told them they had to come bring a change of clothes. My mother did show up, and promptly ripped into the teacher and explained all the many reasons why she could take her "modesty" and shove it.

I wore shorts until it snowed, that year.

I did as I pleased that morning, when I picked out what I wanted to wear. The consequence of my choice was some jackass hassling me because they didn't approve of my choice. And my mom taught me to never roll over and play dead when people try to impose unreasonable consequences on you because they don't approve of your choice.

There are some consequences that exist because that's the nature of our world. For instance, if I wore shorts in winter, I'd have gotten sick or injured (Minnesota winters are deeply evil). That's a consequence I cannot change. But the consequence of being pushed around because another human doesn't like what I wear, well, that's a consequence I certainly don't have to accept, and I most certainly do not have any duty to put up with it.

Yet you mother ripping into the teachers was the consequences of his/her actions. In the end you both faced the consequences of your actions. His where worse because by his actions he tried to over haul your right.

My dad has a saying for such stuff, yep, yep 'Swings and roundabouts'

and her consequence was having to put up with your mother?
She didn't have to put up with my mother. If she'd wanted to, she could have ignored my mother, pushed the matter, and tried to force me to change clothes. And at that point, she would have been breaking the law, and would have been fired.

Thing is, she knew she was wrong and out of line. She had been trying to push around somebody because she thought she could get away with it. Soon as somebody stood up to her, she backed down.

Most people who try to impose bullshit "consequences" on you will end up being like that.

[Aside: In my opinion, the law is sort of mid-way between the "I don't have to take it" and the "I can't change it" type of consequences. You can change the law, and you absolutely SHOULD try to change it if you believe it is wrong, but you also have to recognize that you cannot simply flout the law.]

Yet you mother ripping into the teachers was the consequences of his/her actions. In the end you both faced the consequences of your actions. His where worse because by his actions he tried to over haul your right.

Please remember that I am not denying that consequences exist. I am saying that I don't believe anybody has a duty to accept all consequences of their actions.

Please remember that I am not denying that consequences exist. I am saying that I don't believe anybody has a duty to accept all consequences of their actions.


Yeah yeah I know that. I was taking it back to the point about the consequences of trying to over ride another's right to do as they wish.

In the example you gave it seems to me that the teacher had to pay a higher consequence for her trampling over you right, than you had to pay your self.

It seems 'almost' self regulating, as my dad also says 'rough with the smooth'

Yeah yeah I know that. I was taking it back to the point about the consequences of trying to over ride another's right to do as they wish.

In the example you gave it seems to me that the teacher had to pay a higher consequence for her trampling over you right, than you had to pay your self.

It seems 'almost' self regulating, as my dad also says 'rough with the smooth'
Sure, you can certainly look at it that way. That's why I think it is so important for people to "regulate" things by NOT simply accepting bullshit consequences that are imposed upon them.

Disagree on the aforesaid issue of trampling other's rights as well as a general notion that trying to be aware of others might be a good idea.

I disagree primarily with the second part, there is no such thing as an automatic human "duty." The mere act of existence doesn't obligate me to do or accept anything.
The first part is close, but somewhat flawed: a person has only the right to do whatever s/he possessed the ability to do in the moment. Impossible desires and future wants aren't rights.

I disagree primarily with the second part, there is no such thing as an automatic human "duty." The mere act of existence doesn't obligate me to do or accept anything.
The first part is close, but somewhat flawed: a person has only the right to do whatever s/he possessed the ability to do in the moment. Impossible desires and future wants aren't rights.

Heh and guess what, I disagree with you. There are plenty of duties bound up with being alive. The duty to keep you body sustained, the duty to provide for your young.

Impossible desires and future wants aren't rights.And neither are abilities.

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. – P.J. O'Rourke

I think I agree.......if you disagree though, explain why so I can think about this more deeply.Smunkee- I'm shocked. I did't have you pegged as one of those "No one but me matters" right-wing libertarian type. My definition of a "good" Christian has always been the type of person whop accepts that in a certain sense, we are our brothers keepers. We have a duty to help look after the welfare of our fellow beings. But what do I know? I'm just one of those evil ammoral atheists.
:p

Heh and guess what, I disagree with you. There are plenty of duties bound up with being alive. The duty to keep you body sustained, the duty to provide for your young.
My body is my body, and I'll do with it whatever I want. Becoming too concerned about a rapidly expiring mass of animate carbon is a waste of time, anyway.
And any hypothetical offspring I may have possess no claim on me or my resources. I may choose to support them if I feel so inclined at the time, but a mere accident of genetics doesn't give them any rights that supersede my own.

And neither are abilities.
According to whom? Obviously, there are a number of laws about what I can and can't do, but the only thing that makes those laws "legitimate" is the fact that the government has the ability to enforce them.

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. – P.J. O'Rourke

I think I agree.......if you disagree though, explain why so I can think about this more deeply.

I agree with the basic sentiment. That said, in human society, this basic, simple sentiment is only incompletely applicable. If it were applied without restraint, there would be no society, just one big brawl with the more sensible people scuttling off to safe places.

According to whom? Obviously, there are a number of laws about what I can and can't do, but the only thing that makes those laws "legitimate" is the fact that the government has the ability to enforce them.Not the only thing. Slavery was seen as illegitimate before it was banned. If it hadn't been seen that way, they wouldn't have banned it. Likewise, certain rights are seen as legitimite before they are enshrined in law, otherwise they wouldn't be enshrined in law.

Smunkee- I'm shocked. I did't have you pegged as one of those "No one but me matters" right-wing libertarian type. My definition of a "good" Christian has always been the type of person whop accepts that in a certain sense, we are our brothers keepers. We have a duty to help look after the welfare of our fellow beings. But what do I know? I'm just one of those evil ammoral atheists.
:p

amoral or immoral? because I can hang out with you if you are the first but not so much with the second :p

I take care of others, often to my detriment. I don't think it has anything to do with this statement though.

Not the only thing. Slavery was seen as illegitimate before it was banned. If it hadn't been seen that way, they wouldn't have banned it. Likewise, certain rights are seen as legitimite before they are enshrined in law, otherwise they wouldn't be enshrined in law.
Slavery has nothing to do with abilities of the present, it is a construction relying entirely upon the future (I will punish you) or the past (I have bought/captured you).
And this still has nothing to do with what people have the right to do, you're just arguing about public perceptions of right and wrong, something that is easily manipulated, widely varying from place to place and constantly changing.

And this still has nothing to do with what people have the right to do, you're just arguing about public perceptions of right and wrong, something that is easily manipulated, widely varying from place to place and constantly changing.Public perceptions of right and wrong greatly affect what people have the right to do.
Furthermore, what any particular government has the ability to do changes from time to time, as well.

amoral or immoral? because I can hang out with you if you are the first but not so much with the second :p

I take care of others, often to my detriment. I don't think it has anything to do with this statement though.

i kinda like the statement. i wouldnt take it as my personal life motto or anything but its pretty true in a lot of ways.

i DO do as i please and part of that is understanding that there are consequences so i dont do any fool thing that enters my head.

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. – P.J. O'Rourke

I think I agree.......if you disagree though, explain why so I can think about this more deeply.

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/calvinends.gif

:)

The statement is true up until your actions infringe on others. However, the latter part of that is open to interpretation, both personally and as a society.

'Duty' exists only if you choose it. No-one has an inherent 'duty' to do anything, but relationships built around mutual duties are very beneficial e.g. family and society.

Public perceptions of right and wrong greatly affect what people have the right to do.
No they don't. Rights are absolute, public perception only effects how the public will react to one's actions.

No they don't. Rights are absolute, public perception only effects how the public will react to one's actions.It isn't possible for rights to be absolute if people only have the right to do what they have the ability to do. Abilities will change for various reasons; this would mean that rights would change as well.
The only way for rights to be absolute is to tie them into something that is unchangeable.

I disagree that we have the right to do as we damn well please. If I had the right to do as I damn well pleased then I'd be flying around the world right now travelling. I don't have the money to do this, however, so I don't have the right to do what I damn well please at all.

I also don't think that anyone has the right to kill someone else or rape them or generally set out to harm them in any way.

It isn't possible for rights to be absolute if people only have the right to do what they have the ability to do. Abilities will change for various reasons; this would mean that rights would change as well.
The only way for rights to be absolute is to tie them into something that is unchangeable.
One has the absolute right to act on their abilities, but one doesn't have the right to abilities. You're confusing the two.

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. – P.J. O'Rourke

I think I agree.......if you disagree though, explain why so I can think about this more deeply.

I agree.

The problem is choice...
...or is choice the problem?
Purpose drives the choice...
...or does the choice create purpose?
Do we control the system...
...Or have we become controlled?

Freedom is not free
There is no spoon.

I disagree that we have the right to do as we damn well please. If I had the right to do as I damn well pleased then I'd be flying around the world right now travelling. I don't have the money to do this, however, so I don't have the right to do what I damn well please at all.

Nay good sir, you indeed have the right. Just not the means or power.

One has the absolute right to act on their abilities, but one doesn't have the right to abilities. You're confusing the two.You said earlier that rights were abilities.

What about having abilities confers the right to act upon them?

The only right I personally think of as vital is the right to move freely. I can't think of anything more horrible than to be kept somewhere against my will. I have no doubt that not too many people agree with me on this, though.


Maybe you'd be interested in getting a "World Passport" (http://www.worldservice.org/docpass.html)


The World Passport represents the inalienable human right of freedom of travel on planet Earth. Therefore it is premised on the fundamental oneness or unity of the human community.

In modern times, the passport has become a symbol of national sovereignty and control by each nation-state. That control works both for citizens within a nation and all others outside. All nations thus collude in the system of control of travel rather than its freedom. If freedom of travel is one of the essential marks of the liberated human being, as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then the very acceptance of a national passport is the mark of the slave, serf or subject. The World Passport is therefore a meaningful symbol and sometimes powerful tool for the implementation of the fundamental human right of freedom of travel. By its very existence it challenges the exclusive assumption of sovereignty of the nation-state system. It is designed however to conform to nation-state requirements for travel documents. It does not, however, indicate the nationality of its bearer, only his/her birthplace. It is therefore a neutral, apolitical document of identity and potential travel document.

I think I agree.......if you disagree though, explain why so I can think about this more deeply.

I disagree.

Our duties are, in fact, independent of the consequences. For instance, we must not kill people arbitrarily regardless of whether or not we will get caught. Even if killing a person who did not deserve to be killed brought us wealth and fame, success and happiness, it would still be wrong--we do not have the right to buy success for ourselves at the expense of the lives of others.

The statement you quoted reduces all morality to mere prudence... and in truth has nothing to do with right or duty at all, but is in fact their denial. Right and duty are based on obligation: whether we are inclined to comply or not, we must or must not do certain things. The quote assumes that our only "duties" come from inclination, from fear of the consequences or desire for them.

My body is my body, and I'll do with it whatever I want. Becoming too concerned about a rapidly expiring mass of animate carbon is a waste of time, anyway.
And any hypothetical offspring I may have possess no claim on me or my resources. I may choose to support them if I feel so inclined at the time, but a mere accident of genetics doesn't give them any rights that supersede my own.

Okay yeah I agee you can surly do what you will with your body. If though you want to remain alive then you have duty to keep it nourished

As to children, you absolutly do have the duty to care for them until they are able to care from themselves.

I talk not about any human, intelectual thought out, meaning of the word duty, I talk in terms of Dawinian evolution.

Why should you be exempt from this, is it because you can reason better than the other animals?

As to children, you absolutly do have the duty to care for them until they are able to care from themselves.

I talk not about any human, intelectual thought out, meaning of the word duty, I talk in terms of Dawinian evolution.

Why should you be exempt from this, is it because you can reason better than the other animals?
To be fair, "Darwinian evolution" doesn't impose any particular duty to care for one's young. Many animals reject their offspring for any number of reasons. This can be an evolutionarily sound choice.

I really think this discussion boils down to the goals you have in mind. Your concept of "duty" and "rights" will relate directly to what you think we're all supposed to be working toward. Evolutionarily speaking, the only "goal" is to produce fertile offspring who have matured to adulthood. I don't think that particular goal is one that would satisfy the moral views of most people here.

To be fair, "Darwinian evolution" doesn't impose any particular duty to care for one's young. Many animals reject their offspring for any number of reasons. This can be an evolutionarily sound choice.

I really think this discussion boils down to the goals you have in mind. Your concept of "duty" and "rights" will relate directly to what you think we're all supposed to be working toward. Evolutionarily speaking, the only "goal" is to produce fertile offspring who have matured to adulthood. I don't think that particular goal is one that would satisfy the moral views of most people here.

I can't help but disagree with on that point Bottle. Evolution certianly does impose the duty to re-produce, and make sure that as many offspring as possible also live to reproduce.

Yes of course many animals reject their offspring and for many reasons but I'm sure that you'll agree that this is the exception and not the norm?

Yeah I agree ones goals will be all about ones beliefes (irrational or not) and to a great degree ones duties the same, but having said that there are still some duties that are imposed upon all that lives merely for being alive.

These are not the type of duties we have any choice in. We must breathe for example, it is the duty of my diaphragm, and lungs to help oxygenate my blood.

In a similar vein then the duty to care for ones young is not really ours to make. That is not to say that if we didn't feel like it, there is anything stopping us from walking away form our children and leaving them to die, yet look at how our species view people that do that.

As to morality and child rearing, well morality is nothing more than what we think is wrong or right, we have (as has all life) evolved to continue our genetic heritage, there really can be no moral attitude to take about that. Except perhaps to ask is it right or wrong to propergate our species.

I can't help but disagree with on that point Bottle. Evolution certianly does impose the duty to re-produce, and make sure that as many offspring as possible also live to reproduce.

That's not a disagreement with what I said.

Rejecting one particular offspring in favor of protecting one's future reproductive potential is actually a relatively common choice made by animals in the wild.


Yes of course many animals reject their offspring and for many reasons but I'm sure that you'll agree that this is the exception and not the norm?

I don't know that I can agree with that. It's not the most common strategy, but it's also not really exceptional or unusual.


Yeah I agree ones goals will be all about ones beliefes (irrational or not) and to a great degree ones duties the same, but having said that there are still some duties that are imposed upon all that lives merely for being alive.

Such as...?


These are not the type of duties we have any choice in. We must breathe for example, it is the duty of my diaphragm, and lungs to help oxygenate my blood.

That assumes that one's goal is to remain alive. Some people do not share that goal. There are people who would prefer to die.


In a similar vein then the duty to care for ones young is not really ours to make.

Sure it is. How not?


That is not to say that if we didn't feel like it, there is anything stopping us from walking away form our children and leaving them to die, yet look at how our species view people that do that.

Our species has pretty mixed views on that. There have been many times and many places in which infanticide has been accepted as a practice. It still endures in many places to this day.


As to morality and child rearing, well morality is nothing more than what we think is wrong or right, we have (as has all life) evolved to continue our genetic heritage, there really can be no moral attitude to take about that.

We haven't "evolved to" do anything. Evolution does not impart any purpose to us. That's up to us to decide.

Some people decide that part of their purpose is to see that their personal genetic material is passed on to the next generation. Other people do not choose to do so. "Evolution" doesn't say either choice is morally wrong or morally right, it simply informs us that the genetic composition of the next generation will be impacted by which individuals reproduce.

Hey Bottle I think that perhaps(once again) we are talking at cross purposes here.

If we start to talk about another animal instead of the human one, perhaps it will become clearer.


That assumes that one's goal is to remain alive. Some people do not share that goal. There are people who would prefer to die.

A lion doesn't have goals as we do, other than to eat, to live, and to propagate.

When I talk about goals I mean that which is inherent with being alive, and that which we share with all such living things. In short the goal of life is simply to live, to continue to live, to make sure that our genetic code thrives.

So then I distinguish between an imposed duty and a duty that comes to us via our reasoning skills, it is the impossed duty of all life to live and to contiune liveing via a process of passing on the genes.


We haven't "evolved to" do anything. Evolution does not impart any purpose to us. That's up to us to decide.

To which I would ask, then what is the goal(if it can be said to have one) of evolution? Getting back to the Lion, what is the lions goal, other than that which has been impossed upon it by evolution?


Some people decide that part of their purpose is to see that their personal genetic material is passed on to the next generation. Other people do not choose to do so. "Evolution" doesn't say either choice is morally wrong or morally right, it simply informs us that the genetic composition of the next generation will be impacted by which individuals reproduce.

Exactly, this is my point. I have already said that there really cannot be any moral attitude to take, when it comes to the duty that evolution places upon us to breed. Any such moral choices come to us only because of our reasoning skills and although we may be able to 'reasonably' say that we can contradict the evolutionary perogative to breed, that does not make it null.

In essance we have the power to ignore it, but this does not make it go away, we are as bound by the 'laws of nature' as our lion friend is.

A lion doesn't have goals as we do, other than to eat, to live, and to propagate.

When I talk about goals I mean that which is inherent with being alive, and that which we share with all such living things.

But that's my point: you are choosing to define survival and reproduction as goals shared with all living things, even though all living things do not share those goals.


In short the goal of life is simply to live, to continue to live, to make sure that our genetic code thrives.

See?

I'm living (har har) disproof of your theory. I don't particularly care if my genetic code thrives.


So then I distinguish between an imposed duty and a duty that comes to us via our reasoning skills, it is the impossed duty of all life to live and to contiune liveing via a process of passing on the genes.

Yes, it is an imposed duty. You are imposing it.


To which I would ask, then what is the goal(if it can be said to have one) of evolution?

Evolution doesn't really have a goal, which is why I put "goal" in scare quotes earlier.

Evolution is the result of selection. Selection is simply what occurs. Evolution doesn't have desires or aims or any such thing. It is simply what occurs.


Getting back to the Lion, what is the lions goal, other than that which has been impossed upon it by evolution?

Biological organisms, even relatively simple ones, have a range of motivations. These motivations are generally aimed at survival and self-propagation, as you mentioned, since animals which possess such motivations are more likely to thrive. But you are ascribing a false consciousness to this process. It's not like evolution consciously "wants" anything to survive. Evolution is just what happens based on which life survives and propagates.

Also, it is interesting that you picked a lion for your example, given that this began as a debate about the care of young. Male lions are particularly well known for killing cubs, and female lions are known for mating with the males who have just killed their offspring.


Exactly, this is my point. I have already said that there really cannot be any moral attitude to take, when it comes to the duty that evolution places upon us to breed.

Evolution does not place any duty upon anybody or anything. Evolution doesn't give a shit.


Any such moral choices come to us only because of our reasoning skills and although we may be able to 'reasonably' say that we can contradict the evolutionary perogative to breed, that does not make it null.

There's no evolutionary requirement for life to breed. Indeed, there are entire species in which the majority of the individuals do not ever reproduce at all.


In essance we have the power to ignore it, but this does not make it go away, we are as bound by the 'laws of nature' as our lion friend is.
Evolution does not impose any duty on us, nor do any "laws of nature." You may choose to impose various duties upon yourself based on your personal goals and perceptions, but evolution doesn't care. Evolution has no opinion on the subject.

Hey Bottle,

I get the feeling that I'm still not making my point clear for you.

I only wish to distinguish between the duties that we thinking humans reasonably decided for our selves and those that by the chance of being alive are imposed upon us.

When I say duty imagine me to be using the word job instead.

What would you say that the purpose of life is? I am not asking what you think the purpose of human life is, but more broader, what is the purpose of life?

Again I am not suggesting that there is a 'reason' behind the propagation of life, but in so far as life does go on what seems to be the overriding principle behind it?

It is my contention that this 'purpose' is simply, to live, to carry on living, and to do so by a process of passing on genetic code to the next generation.

It is this 'duty' that life imposes on all that lives, I say that just because we are of a higher intelligence than the other types of life on this planet, we are not immune to this duty, and although arguments can be ranged at how we are, it is simply not true.

You say that you your self are living disproof, but you are not. Not really, yes you may choose not to breed, but that does not negate the fact that your body is made to do so, nor that the process of evolution has made it this way.

Hey Bottle,

I get the feeling that I'm still not making my point clear for you.

I only wish to distinguish between the duties that we thinking humans reasonably decided for our selves and those that by the chance of being alive are imposed upon us.

I know. And my counterpoint is that I don't feel there are any duties imposed on us by being alive.


When I say duty imagine me to be using the word job instead.

What would you say that the purpose of life is? I am not asking what you think the purpose of human life is, but more broader, what is the purpose of life?

There isn't any broader purpose for life.


Again I am not suggesting that there is a 'reason' behind the propagation of life, but in so far as life does go on what seems to be the overriding principle behind it?

There is no overriding purpose behind it.


It is my contention that this 'purpose' is simply, to live, to carry on living, and to do so by a process of passing on genetic code to the next generation.

That is not a purpose. That is simply what occurs in many cases.

In many other cases, life does not carry on living and/or does not pass on its genetic code to the next generation. Also, to get back closer to the original topic we were chewing on, in some cases a life does continue living and does pass on its genetic code to the next generation, but it does not accomplish this by reproducing itself.


It is this 'duty' that life imposes on all that lives, I say that just because we are of a higher intelligence than the other types of life on this planet, we are not immune to this duty, and although arguments can be ranged at how we are, it is simply not true.

I know you're saying that. And I'm saying that "duty" doesn't exist.


You say that you your self are living disproof, but you are not. Not really, yes you may choose not to breed,

You asserted that the goal of all life is to reproduce. I am one example of life which does not have the goal of reproducing. There are many others, of course, I just happen to be one handy example.


but that does not negate the fact that your body is made to do so,

My body isn't "made to do" anything. My body takes its particular form because of the path selection has taken with our species.

The form of my body does not in any way dictate what I must or should do. It may dictate what I am physically capable of doing, of course, but it does not have any "goal" or "purpose" for what I choose to do with my capabilities.

*shrug* Hey Bottle,

I guess then we are gonna disagree, I can't help feeling though that you still have not got what I mean. All of my words do not indicate any plan, nor purpose behind evolution or life. I am not talking about any sort of reason, or goal behind life. Only that life, all life does exist, and when looking at life in it's myriad of forms it is clear to see that what life does better than anything else is live.

In effect life seems to be geared around living, and continuing to live via a process of carrying on it's genetic stock, it is simply what life does.

Do you deny that this seems to be the case?

*shrug* Hey Bottle,

I guess then we are gonna disagree, I can't help feeling though that you still have not got what I mean. All of my words do not indicate any plan, nor purpose behind evolution or life. I am not talking about any sort of reason, or goal behind life.
Then why did you say:

"When I talk about goals I mean that which is inherent with being alive, and that which we share with all such living things. In short the goal of life is simply to live, to continue to live, to make sure that our genetic code thrives."

"What is the lions goal, other than that which has been impossed upon it by evolution?"

"Evolution certianly does impose the duty to re-produce, and make sure that as many offspring as possible also live to reproduce."

"Yeah I agree ones goals will be all about ones beliefes (irrational or not) and to a great degree ones duties the same, but having said that there are still some duties that are imposed upon all that lives merely for being alive."

(Bolds mine)


Only that life, all life does exist, and when looking at life in it's myriad of forms it is clear to see that what life does better than anything else is live.
That statement is no different that saying that what the color red does best is be red.


In effect life seems to be geared around living, and continuing to live via a process of carrying on it's genetic stock, it is simply what life does.

Do you deny that this seems to be the case?
This has nothing to do with what I was talking about. The fact that life is alive is self-evident.

This was a discussion about duty, remember.

Then why did you say:

"When I talk about goals I mean that which is inherent with being alive, and that which we share with all such living things. In short the goal of life is simply to live, to continue to live, to make sure that our genetic code thrives."

"What is the lions goal, other than that which has been impossed upon it by evolution?"

"Evolution certianly does impose the duty to re-produce, and make sure that as many offspring as possible also live to reproduce."

"Yeah I agree ones goals will be all about ones beliefes (irrational or not) and to a great degree ones duties the same, but having said that there are still some duties that are imposed upon all that lives merely for being alive."

(Bolds mine)


That statement is no different that saying that what the color red does best is be red.


This has nothing to do with what I was talking about. The fact that life is alive is self-evident.

This was a discussion about duty, remember.



Hey Bottle,

Lets start again huh. First off let me say that when I talk about evolution, I know that there is no game plan, or reasoning, or goal or whatever word you choose to use behind it, I understand that it is just that way. Quite frankly you know this too, so why choose to take any usage of such words literally?

Would you agree that what life does is to ensure that it carries on via a process of passing on genetic code, in many different species and in many different ways? Would you agree that if all living things could be said to have anything in common then it is this propensity to carry on?

Remember when I ask this, I am not talking about our wants or needs, but just what life does.

Hey Bottle,

Lets start again huh. First off let me say that when I talk about evolution, I know that there is no game plan, or reasoning, or goal or whatever word you choose to use behind it, I understand that it is just that way. Quite frankly you know this too, so why choose to take any usage of such words literally?

I respond to what you say. I'm not a mind-reader. When you say, "When I talk about goals I mean that which is inherent with being alive," that is what I respond to.

If you didn't mean "goal," then why did you use that word repeatedly? Why are you surprised that I assumed you meant "goal" when you said "goal"?


Would you agree that what life does is to ensure that it carries on via a process of passing on genetic code, in many different species and in many different ways?

That is one thing which life quite often does, yes.


Would you agree that if all living things could be said to have anything in common then it is this propensity to carry on?

No, I wouldn't say that. For one thing, living things don't have a general tendency to "carry on," because all living things that we know of will eventually die. Living things have a tendency to be alive for a span of time, after which point they die. Some living things manage to reproduce, multiply, divide, or otherwise contribute biological information into subsequent generations. Others do not.


Remember when I ask this, I am not talking about our wants or needs, but just what life does.
Why?

The topic was duty.

That is one thing which life quite often does, yes.

Good now we are getting somewhere.


No, I wouldn't say that. For one thing, living things don't have a general tendency to "carry on," because all living things that we know of will eventually die. Living things have a tendency to be alive for a span of time, after which point they die. Some living things manage to reproduce, multiply, divide, or otherwise contribute biological information into subsequent generations. Others do not.

Okay then read living things as life.


The topic was duty.

We are getting there.

In the regard then that what life does is to ensure that it carries on being alive via a process of passing on it's genetic code. Then we can say that this is a role that life fulfills(in that it has any)?(or in less wordy prose, a Goal)

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. – P.J. O'Rourke

I think I agree.......if you disagree though, explain why so I can think about this more deeply.

Agree on one condition: that you don't impinge upon others' ability to do the same.

You said earlier that rights were abilities.

What about having abilities confers the right to act upon them?
That I possess them and a, more or less, free will is justification enough.
Okay yeah I agee you can surly do what you will with your body. If though you want to remain alive then you have duty to keep it nourished
That's not about duty, that's just biological cause and effect. Obviously, if I quit eating, I'll suffer the consequences of starvation.
As to children, you absolutly do have the duty to care for them until they are able to care from themselves.

I talk not about any human, intelectual thought out, meaning of the word duty, I talk in terms of Dawinian evolution.
Nature is filled with examples of mothers who ignore their offspring or even try to destroy them. If anything, most parents are anti-Darwinian in the amount of effort that goes into protecting genetically "inferior" young, who would simply be allowed to die were they an animal with similar disabilities.
Why should you be exempt from this, is it because you can reason better than the other animals?
Well, yeah. If you somehow granted human intelligence to a male honey bee or praying mantis, don't you think that they'd realize that the act of procreation would have immediately lethal consequences for them and avoid it? Sure, there is a certain level of biological programming existent in most people, but that doesn't mean anyone has to act upon it.

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. – P.J. O'Rourke

I think I agree.......if you disagree though, explain why so I can think about this more deeply.

It's P.J. O'Rourke, so without even thinking it through, I'd guess that he's joking.

"Damn well please" is rather misleading. If you have any belief in free will, people do what they please ... no need for a right.

So he's basically saying "there are no rights."

I admire the witty symmetry of his attitude to "responsibilities" or as he calls it "duty." Actions have consequences, and consequences can only be measured when they have actually happened. Again, he is joking because whether you "take it" or not, they happen.

Suppose I murder an acquaintance of mine. For much the same selfish reasons I do this act, I also seek to avoid going to jail (by disposing of the weapon and body skillfully.) The consequences are: the person isn't around any more; I may feel pangs of conscience; I may fear being caught due to some slip-up. There are other consequences I cannot know (I may save my own life a week after the act, when the person would otherwise have killed me in a freak automobile accident.)
Do I get a choice in any of those things? I don't think so. I "take the consequences" because I have no option not to.

I'd say he was joking.

Yeah I agree, but that is a hard way to live. Almost every thing we do cause harm to somebody else.

"May cause" perhaps. But as a society we are successful (with much room for improvement.) So clearly acts benefit others, perhaps unpredictably, and not always do they harm others. If every act harmed others without benefiting others, hermits would be the most successful humans ... heck, probably the only humans.

Please remember that I am not denying that consequences exist. I am saying that I don't believe anybody has a duty to accept all consequences of their actions.

You are taking a definition of consequences which didn't even occur to me reading O'Rourkes flamebait: consequences = punishment or reward. I was reading it more like Fiddlebottoms did, as "effect" in "cause and effect."

Yours is probably a more legit interpretation, given that this forum is primarily political. I simply find it too hard to think about.

Nay good sir, you indeed have the right. Just not the means or power.

Dakini. Rhymes with "bikini" ... ;)

Okay yeah I agee you can surly do what you will with your body. If though you want to remain alive then you have duty to keep it nourished

As to children, you absolutly do have the duty to care for them until they are able to care from themselves.

I talk not about any human, intelectual thought out, meaning of the word duty, I talk in terms of Dawinian evolution.

Why should you be exempt from this, is it because you can reason better than the other animals?

Cuckoos. No, this is not a stupid joke about Dawinian evolution.

*snip*

That's not about duty, that's just biological cause and effect. Obviously, if I quit eating, I'll suffer the consequences of starvation.

*snip*

I for one see exactly where you are coming from, a philosophical view (causality) which is far clearer than the moral philosophy of 'inalienable rights' or even the political philosophy 'rights granted by the state.'

P.J. O'Rourke has some learning and much wit. But he's also a real-life troll who tells jokes utterly deadpan.

Cuckoos. No, this is not a stupid joke about Dawinian evolution.

Yeah even so they care for their young buy laying their eggs in the nest of another bird to fulfill that function.

It would be different if cuckoo's layed there eggs in the middle of the mown lawn, easy viewed and reached by predators but they don't.

Anyhow I think once again I have been mistaken, so let me clear a few things up.

My assertion that humans certainly do have duty to care for their young, of course is only valid for those that have young. The duty I speak is not one of human rights, or of intellectual reasoning, it is one of Dawinian evolution, we have evolved the compulsion to care for our young. In this respect the word duty is equal to the word job, or role.

Nature is filled with examples of mothers who ignore their offspring or even try to destroy them. If anything, most parents are anti-Darwinian in the amount of effort that goes into protecting genetically "inferior" young, who would simply be allowed to die were they an animal with similar disabilities.

Then I guess this is part our evolved reasoning skills, coupled with our evolved empathy, and part evolution making sure that the genes responsible for the compulsion to protect our young are present. How can that be anti-Darwinian?


Well, yeah. If you somehow granted human intelligence to a male honey bee or praying mantis, don't you think that they'd realize that the act of procreation would have immediately lethal consequences for them and avoid it? Sure, there is a certain level of biological programming existent in most people, but that doesn't mean anyone has to act upon it.

You misunderstand me. This compulsion to care for our young, should we be exempt from it just because we are able to reason? Again I'm talking of the duty to provide for our young, for those that have them. If of course you don't have children, nor do you ever want them, then there is nowt there to trigger the compulsion to care for them.

i don't consider a wrong to be a right. i don't believe in a 'right' to cause suffering and harm.

short of that though, then of course there is a valid point. also the point is valid that if it isn't prevented arbitrarily from doing so, the universe one way or another, sooner or later, and more probably then not, kicks naughty butt.

not always nor reliably, but probability IS reality.

=^^=
.../\...

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. – P.J. O'Rourke

I think I agree.......if you disagree though, explain why so I can think about this more deeply.I disagree.

I believe humans have a right to be autonomous, provided they can fulfill one basic obligation; to live by the harm principle.

Per this system, people who lack the capacity to take responsibility for their actions, such as children, murderers and sweatshop owners, none of which your nice quote deals with, can be protected from themselves (and we from them), by people bound to act in these unfortunates' best interest. In short, it's a beautiful system. It's just too bad nobody wants it - not that I don't understand why. It's much to easy, profitable and consequence-free to abuse and exploit.

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. – P.J. O'Rourke

If you do something, weather it be good or bad you should be ready to deal with the consequences. I also believe that the circumstances should be different for every person and every different situation. For example: two people murder people. One of those people may have been defending themself, and should not be punished, the other may have been getting some sick pleasure out of it. I dont think either person should go to jail, but I do think that both need therapy, the first man just to deal with the tragic event that he or she just had to deal with, and the other man, a long term mental hospital, because just putting him in jail for 20 years isnt going to fix him, and that should be the point.

You are taking a definition of consequences which didn't even occur to me reading O'Rourkes flamebait: consequences = punishment or reward. I was reading it more like Fiddlebottoms did, as "effect" in "cause and effect."

Yours is probably a more legit interpretation, given that this forum is primarily political. I simply find it too hard to think about.

Not exactly. I don't necessarily think a consequence must be a punishment or a reward. It's an outcome. My stance is that there is no obligation to accept or embrace any particular outcome of one's actions. Indeed, much of what we consider "higher reasoning" has to do with rejecting otherwise-"natural" outcomes and taking deliberate action to alter them.

Then I guess this is part our evolved reasoning skills, coupled with our evolved empathy, and part evolution making sure that the genes responsible for the compulsion to protect our young are present. How can that be anti-Darwinian?

The "compulsion" to care for one's young is not present in many life forms. Some are "lower" life forms, while others are "higher" life forms.


You misunderstand me. This compulsion to care for our young, should we be exempt from it just because we are able to reason? Again I'm talking of the duty to provide for our young, for those that have them.

These are two very different subjects, yet you appear to be equating them.

The fact that SOME individuals feel a compulsion to care for their young is, as you say, something that goes beyond reason. It is an impulse. The impulse can be over-ridden by conscious thought (just like how your impulse to eat when you are hungry can be resisted consciously), but the impulse itself cannot simply be deleted.

But in your second sentence you are suddenly talking about the DUTY to provide for one's young. That's an entirely different subject. I sometimes feel compelled to eat large quantities of candy. Does that mean I have a "duty" to eat candy?


If of course you don't have children, nor do you ever want them, then there is nowt there to trigger the compulsion to care for them.
There are plenty of people who do have children yet don't feel the compulsion you are talking about. So do those people, then, have no duty to care for their children?

In the regard then that what life does is to ensure that it carries on being alive via a process of passing on it's genetic code.

You keep saying this, but it's still not true. A whole fuckton of living things do not pass on their genetic codes.

You keep saying this, but it's still not true. A whole fuckton of living things do not pass on their genetic codes.

Such as?

Such as?
Such as all the living things which live their full lifespan without passing on their genes. Happens fairly often, you know. That's why natural selection occurs...if every individual was equally likely to pass on their genetic code, there would be no natural selection as we know it.

Personally I would add the condition "do as you like as long as it does not harm anyone else".

EXACTLY! As someone has said: "Freedom ends where your freedom disturbs and limits the freedom of others" (or something like that)

The "compulsion" to care for one's young is not present in many life forms. Some are "lower" life forms, while others are "higher" life forms.

Can you name one of these things that does not make any type of provision for the continued growth of it's it's young?


These are two very different subjects, yet you appear to be equating them.

Not at all. My initial post on this matter was in reply this from Fiddlebottoms:

'And any hypothetical offspring I may have possess no claim on me or my resources. I may choose to support them if I feel so inclined at the time, but a mere accident of genetics doesn't give them any rights that supersede my own.'

I merely pointed out that in fact evolutionary speaking you have a duty to provide for any young you may have. As you say below, this duty can of course be over-ridden, but it cannot be deleted.



The fact that SOME individuals feel a compulsion to care for their young is, as you say, something that goes beyond reason. It is an impulse. The impulse can be over-ridden by conscious thought (just like how your impulse to eat when you are hungry can be resisted consciously), but the impulse itself cannot simply be deleted.

But in your second sentence you are suddenly talking about the DUTY to provide for one's young. That's an entirely different subject. I sometimes feel compelled to eat large quantities of candy. Does that mean I have a "duty" to eat candy?

And as I have already explained I am not using the word duty how you obviously think I am. The duty of a soldier is to obey orders. The duty of a tap washer is to stop the tap from leaking.

It is this mechanical, imposed by evolution duty that I speak of, not like the soldier but like the tap washer.


There are plenty of people who do have children yet don't feel the compulsion you are talking about. So do those people, then, have no duty to care for their children?

Of course they have the duty, where did you get that idea from?

Such as all the living things which live their full lifespan without passing on their genes. Happens fairly often, you know. That's why natural selection occurs...if every individual was equally likely to pass on their genetic code, there would be no natural selection as we know it.

Like what? Name one single thing that does that.

Can you name one of these things that does not make any type of provision for the continued growth of it's it's young?

Well, how about plant species which simply release their seeds into the air? There's a lot of those.

A host of turtle species don't even see their young. They simply deposit their fertilized eggs and leave. They're not even around when the young hatch.

Fish aren't known for caring for their offspring, either.

And this is all assuming that we're talking about macroorganisms.

In terms of biomass, I'd actually guess that the majority of life on this planet doesn't engage in brood care of any kind.


Not at all. My initial post on this matter was in reply this from Fiddlebottoms:

'And any hypothetical offspring I may have possess no claim on me or my resources. I may choose to support them if I feel so inclined at the time, but a mere accident of genetics doesn't give them any rights that supersede my own.'

I merely pointed out that in fact evolutionary speaking you have a duty to provide for any young you may have. As you say below, this duty can of course be over-ridden, but it cannot be deleted.

Yes. I know. And what I've been trying to explain to you for pages is that you are wrong when you say "evolutionary speaking you have a duty to provide for any young you may have."

No, you really don't. Evolution does not impose any duties on you whatsoever.


And as I have already explained I am not using the word duty how you obviously think I am. The duty of a soldier is to obey orders. The duty of a tap washer is to stop the tap from leaking.

I agree that this is a weird way for you to use the term "duty." It would probably be better to say that the function of the tap washer is to stop the tap from leaking.

However, I know that's what you've been saying, and I know that's how you've been using the word, and you're still wrong.


It is this mechanical, imposed by evolution duty that I speak of, not like the soldier but like the tap washer.

There is no such duty placed on living things to reproduce or to pass on their genetic codes (which doesn't necessarily require reproduction at all).

You are making several mistakes. The two biggest mistakes are:

1) Passing on one's genetic code doesn't require that one reproduce biologically. You keep interchanging these two elements. Pick one and stick to it, and things will be more clear.

2) Evolution doesn't impart any duty, purpose or intended function to living things. Evolution is what happens. It is a descriptor. It is not an imperative or a goal.

Well, how about plant species which simply release their seeds into the air? There's a lot of those.

A host of turtle species don't even see their young. They simply deposit their fertilized eggs and leave. They're not even around when the young hatch.

Fish aren't known for caring for their offspring, either.

And this is all assuming that we're talking about macroorganisms.

In terms of biomass, I'd actually guess that the majority of life on this planet doesn't engage in brood care of any kind.

And again you fail to understand what I am talking about. I asked you to provide me with the names of any living thing that makes no provision(that is none, nada, nilch, nowt) for it's offspring.

All of the things you have mentioned here do make provision to ensure the survival of there young. The turtles bury their eggs instead of laying them on the surface of the sand within easy reach of predators. The plants you speak of much like the fish, have as many young as possible to ensure that at least some survive.


Yes. I know. And what I've been trying to explain to you for pages is that you are wrong when you say "evolutionary speaking you have a duty to provide for any young you may have."

No, you really don't. Evolution does not impose any duties on you whatsoever.

And again you just show that you have failed to grasp my meaning. Again as I have already said evolution has not thought behind it(baring God if that is you belief) nor plan, and so in the sense you mean, not it cannot impose any such duty upon you. Yet it is true to say that you are bound by the restrictions of your body. A body that has been provided for you by the process of evolution. You can no more run at 30 MPH, because of the restrictions that evolution(or nature if you prefer) has placed upon you.

If it is true then that evolution has placed this restriction upon you, then exactly why can it not have imposed the duty to care for your young on you also? Instead of telling me I am wrong, explain why. This has so far been only one way traffic re explanations.


I agree that this is a weird way for you to use the term "duty." It would probably be better to say that the function of the tap washer is to stop the tap from leaking.

However, I know that's what you've been saying, and I know that's how you've been using the word, and you're still wrong.

Weird, perhaps, but still valid. So why am I wrong then?


There is no such duty placed on living things to reproduce or to pass on their genetic codes (which doesn't necessarily require reproduction at all).

You are making several mistakes. The two biggest mistakes are:

1) Passing on one's genetic code doesn't require that one reproduce biologically. You keep interchanging these two elements. Pick one and stick to it, and things will be more clear.

2) Evolution doesn't impart any duty, purpose or intended function to living things. Evolution is what happens. It is a descriptor. It is not an imperative or a goal.

1) Passing on genetic code via any method is, still basically reproducing. If I clone myself, or if I have sex to pass on my genetic code, I am still engaged in the act of re-production.

2) Really? So evolution is not responsible for the duty, purpose or function of say the human eye; of course it is. Yes it is what happens, but it is also ultimately responsible for what and how we are. Can you show me any on thing about a human that does not have evolution as an ultimate source?