15 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI think what troubles me about your view is that 'rights' and 'laws' are indistinguishable; that is,
It does. And thank you for not twisting what I have said just so as to argue with me. It's not that I don't understand what they believe or what they mean. I just don't subscribe to it.
That is, a person in Alabama has no grounds to appeal his right to marry another man because it isn't merely that the right isn't recognized but that the right doesn't exi ng themselves to believe that such 'unorthodoxy' is possible.
if I understand you correctly, there are no properties of rights that are not already contained in laws
(although, naturally, there are some laws that do not pertain the issues of rights). This means
the term 'rights' is sort of a redundancy in your system.
And I'm not sure that I am not being deliberate when I consider that rights should be imposed
on other cultures. That is, I neither have a problem with nor objection to the idea of saying that
a culture that thrives on the subjugation and enslavement of other people is a morally inferior one
to one which does not do so. This is not about imposing dress, culinary, or musical tastes,
only rights.
The reason I think that rights are universal is because I think they stem from reason, which is
something that I believe exists outside of the human condition (i.e., it exists wherever/whenever
there are intellects enough to discern it, just like light exists wherever/whenever there are
photoreceptors to perceive it).
I have no objection to what you are saying on a practical level, of course: if slavery is the norm,
then the discussion of the right to freedom is solely an intellectual one. And I'm sure that the
slave who tried to reason his freedom out of his master was sorely beaten. However, I believe
-- and perhaps naïvely -- that the inertia of reason inexorably triumphs over ignorance. And I
think that it is this which is what drives people to sacrifice something which might be demonstrably
personally beneficial (such as a slave-based economic system) in the name of those unrecognized
rights.
I think I'm being atypically vague throughout this post -- a combination of fatigue and confusion
about your position. But I'm trying to be receptive to it as I strive to at least understand it,
which I hope you can discern.
Nemesio
15 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI suppose I see it that it is the unorthodox view that seems to run aground (I know your post wasn't
To my way of thinking, you and your orthodoxy ran aground 30 seconds out of harbour, on 'same-sex marriages' and the 'right to life'.
directed at me specifically, but I hold a rather more orthodox viewpoint of rights, so it might as
well have been). If rights are merely the product of social whimsy, then we don't have any
reason to think that the rights that are recognized now are any better than those of the past.
That is (and I'm sorry if the 'slavery' example is becoming tired, but I am tired myself), if
it's only popular opinion and/or circumstance that affords us the particular rights that we have,
then a slave-based society is no worse than one in which all are afforded equal opportunity.
And, consequently, if America were to say repeal the recognition of the rights of black people
(&c &c), one couldn't say that the rights situation had diminished in quality.
I think it's only because we can appeal to rights independent from laws that enables us to
make judgments about whether our current recognition of those rights can be improved.
The reason I think your system appears to run aground quickly is because of the contradictions
it seems to entail: the 'right' to same-sex marriage (personally, I don't think that the government
ought to have any say or business in marriage whatsoever, but as long as they do, they have
no business placing restrictions on it) is recognized in one place but not in another. The right
fluctuates dependent on what side of an arbitrary line you live on. It is this very arbitrary
quality which I find problematic: I don't consider freedom to be arbitrary.
This might be at the root of our disagreement: I think freedom is intrinsic, you think it's extrinsic.
(Or I'm putting the wrong words in your mouth, for which I apologize in advance.)
Nemesio
15 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioConfusion?
The reason I think that rights are universal is because I think they stem from reason, which is something that I believe exists outside of the human condition (i.e., it exists wherever/whenever there are intellects enough to discern it, just like light exists wherever/whenever there are
photoreceptors to perceive it). [...] a combination of fatigue and confusion about your position.
Others say I am stupid, incoherent, my view is non sequitur, stupid (again), "forgive them oh great FMF. if it pleases your highness...", daft, "substitute your name with DSR", dull, stupid (yet again), semanticist, talking mumbo-jumbo, "you obviously don't have the vaguest clue what a right is", shrill, hysterical, nonsensical, "you don't have any conception of rights", hypocritical, "you don't understand the American/Lockean concept of rights" (although I do, as it happens), "[my belief]... leads to the idea that the Nazi concentration camps did not violate anyones' rights" (ouch!), irrelevant, and this last absolute beauty, from someone who has traded maybe ten or more posts directly with me in this debate: "Ok, you're talking about something other than what the rest of us are. Enjoy."
I think the words everybody is looking for (or should be) is "I disagree with you." But it seems philosophy is a real rough and tumble thing in which an unorthodox view - or one that can't be "proved" with a wikipedia quote (a 'zeeblebot'😉 - is simply unacceptable.
You said: "The reason I think that rights are universal is because I think they stem from reason, which is something that I believe exists outside of the human condition (i.e., it exists wherever/whenever there are intellects enough to discern it".
I disagree. I believe that rights are not universal. And you disagree with me. I'm totally at peace with it. There's no need for you to be confused anymore. My view is non-standard, therefore it is apparently irrelevant.
But I do think, if AThousandYoung doesn't feel 'got at' by it, I am going to use this exquisite, flouncy put down... "Ok, you're talking about something other than what the rest of us are. Enjoy." ...humorously in future on other Threads when someone says something I disagree with! It's a beaut.
15 May 08
Originally posted by FMFI'm sorry you're upset at people's inability to say 'I disagree.' I didn't mean to be upsetting in
I disagree. I believe that rights are not universal. And you disagree with me. I'm totally at peace with it. There's no need for you to be confused anymore. My view is non-standard, therefore it is apparently irrelevant.
my not saying that. My confusion was less in understanding your viewpoint and more in why
you would espouse such a viewpoint, I suppose. I (think I) have tried to explain why I lean
towards the more orthodox viewpoint (because I think it gives us a forward direction rather than
ambling blindly). And perhaps you believe it for no other reason than your gut pushes in you
in that direction, in which case there is nothing for me to understand.
I certainly didn't intend to give the impression that I thought your viewpoint was irrelevant; I
suppose if I thought it was irrelevant, I would not have posted in the first place. I'm comfortable
disagreeing with you (and others) on philosophical matters and I'm sorry if it appeared otherwise.
Nemesio
15 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioWhimsy?
If rights are merely the product of social whimsy...
If what I am saying is so weak (and perhaps it is), I hardly think it necessary for you to characterize it flippantly in order to weaken it further.
What I said was I argue that in practical terms there is no absolute standard of what is and is not a right. It shifts. It evolves. It comes and it goes. Humans each carry their own concept of standards, and throughout history, in the political and cultural domains, these perceptions and beliefs have locked horns with each other, compromises have been made, norms have been established, rights and responsibilities have been defined.
I am alluding to the whole history of civilization and the entire evolution of the human condition. Are both these things merely whimsy-driven?
And if that is so, what's to stop someone from arguing that the establishment or recognition of these allegedly intrinsic 'Natural Rights' is not also the result of social whimsy?
But it's ok. This is just rhetorical. I am waving a white flag. As I grow older I have moved steadily and deliberately away from the American/Lockean conception, so it's not as if I am confused or insecure about my own point of view. You're not going to change my mind. And I feel no imperative to try to change yours. I understand your view, if you don't understand mine, I can live with that. Once a contributor feels like I do, he might as well bow out!
I am done with this. Beaten, it would seem!
I've got to get down to some work on this Central Java flood aftermath thing. Among other things, we are wrestling with a patchy recognition of the 'right to food' on the part of the Provincial Government... a basic right, I might just mention, that was enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 (Article 25), and ratified by Indonesia.
15 May 08
Originally posted by NemesioWhoops. Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you were being dismissive. In fact I have enjoyed your effort to engage my unorthodoxy! But I am all burnt out on this topic. I typed and I typed reams of stuff about my view and people just replied with "But what is your view?" Repeatedly. Then I realised that the people I was discussing it with seem to want me to denounce my own view of rights as a prerequisite to discussing rights with them! he he he. My wheels have fallen off. I'm going to spend some time on some frivolous threads.
I certainly didn't intend to give the impression that I thought your viewpoint was irrelevant; I suppose if I thought it was irrelevant, I would not have posted in the first place. I'm comfortable disagreeing with you (and others) on philosophical matters and I'm sorry if it appeared otherwise.
18 May 08
5 edits
From now on, when we talk about the poor, It's going to be about people who haven't kissed my ass. That's what poor is.
I'm glad you're fighting poverty, FMF. Keep at it! My buttocks need attention.
You better not argue with me about what it is to be poor. There's no reason why we should have to discuss only YOUR definition of poverty when we discuss poverty. From now on, we need to also discuss your lips on my ass when we discuss poverty.
(That's an 'FMF'😉
As I grow older I have moved steadily and deliberately away from the American/Lockean conception
...and instead of admitting he doesn't acknowledge rights any more, he's just going to redefine the word to his convenience. See above if you don't understand how silly this is.
Wait! Here's a good one!
An alternate definition of 'poor' is "people who don't have any DNA".
I just cured worldwide poverty! Go me! Yay!
18 May 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThank you for your thoughts.
From now on, when we talk about the poor, It's going to be about people who haven't kissed my ass. That's what poor is. I'm glad you're fighting poverty, FMF. Keep at it! My buttocks need attention. [...] From now on, we need to also discuss your lips on my ass when we discuss poverty.