Rooster:An atheist cannot speculate on the existence of God? Or does that not count as part of your claim?
What I mean to say is an atheist cannot speculate on things like 'Is God good or evil?' without actually establishing the existence of God in the first place.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Anarchist Cain: Then explain to me this because it seems like a common problem of yours. If individuals have no rights before this social contract...then what gives them rights after the contract?
Then explain to me this because it seems like a common problem of yours. If individuals have no rights before this social contract...then what gives them rights after the contract?
Well, it seems like you answered your own question. Obviously the "contract" does it. The only problem with this "before" and "after" thinking is that there was never a "before" - man was a social animal long before he actually became human enough to think of "rights". At least that's if you believe archeological evidence.
There just ain't such a thing as a "natural law" - all prescriptive laws are set by humans. Live with it.
scyg:Obviously the "contract" does it. The only problem with this "before" and "after" thinking is that there was never a "before" - man was a social animal long before he actually became human enough to think of "rights". At least that's if you believe archeological evidence.
What authority does the 'contract' have to enable rights?
Anarchist Cain: What I mean to say is an atheist cannot speculate on things like 'Is God good or evil?' without actually establishing the existence of God in the first place.
Well, that's easy enough to get around: "Is God [as presented in Christian/Buddhist/Jewish, etc. tradition/scripture] good or evil?"
scyg:Well, that's easy enough to get around: "Is God [as presented in Christian/Buddhist/Jewish, etc. tradition/scripture] good or evil?"
Actually no because to speculate on if God is good or evil is still presenting a deity therefore contradicting atheism.
Theologian: Is God good or evil?Atheist: God does not exist in the first place. Therefore the question is invalid.
Anarchist Cain: What authority does the 'contract' have to enable rights?
Whatever authority is prevalent in your group - in my case the fat cats in Washington/state capital/city hall and the even fatter corporate cats who pull their strings and keep a standing army of cops to keep people from sticking their noses out too far or breaking the rules.
If you need more proof that your rights are entirely social conventions, consider the fact that if you switch social groups, you're likely to be granted different rights and have different obligations imposed on you. If the rights were "natural" they would not change from place to place.
scyg:Whatever authority is prevalent in your group
If it is prevalent in the group then it is prevalent in the individual.
scyg:If you need more proof that your rights are entirely social conventions, consider the fact that if you switch social groups, you're likely to be granted different rights and have different obligations imposed on you.
Actually they wouldn't. I would still expect the same rights as I retain now.
Anarchist Cain: Actually no because to speculate on if God is good or evil is still presenting a deity therefore contradicting atheism.
Well, no. There is a big difference between discussing God as a supernatural deity and as a cultural phenomenon. If I start discussing whether the Easter Bunny as presented in the media is good or evil, that doesn't mean I admit its existence outside the context of the media.
scyg:Well, no. There is a big difference between discussing God as a supernatural deity and as a cultural phenomenon.
A cultural phenonmenon? Explain what you mean by this.
Anarchist Cain: If it is prevalent in the group then it is prevalent in the individual.
Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you agree with everything the people in power in your community do?
Anarchist Cain: Actually they wouldn't. I would still expect the same rights as I retain now.
Your expectations have nothing to do with it. For instance, if you moved to North Korea for some reason, your set of rights would be drastically reduced, like it or not.
Anarchist Cain:A cultural phenonmenon? Explain what you mean by this.
Well, God exists as a character in a book, the Bible, and that's something atheists don't deny. They deny his existence outside that framework, as a supernatural deity. Acknowledging the existence of the former (i.e. the literary character) does not imply acceptance of the latter (i.e. the spiritual being).
this is boring scyg, you are not talking about moral rights, you are talking about political or defacto rights.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
scyg: Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you agree with everything the people in power in your community do?
It is impossible for a group to establish rights if the individuals themselves have no rights in the first place.
scyg:Your expectations have nothing to do with it. For instance, if you moved to North Korea for some reason, your set of rights would be drastically reduced, like it or not.
That would not mean that natural rights are now nonexistent. It merely means that the government trangresses it to a greater degree.
scyg:Well, God exists as a character in a book, the Bible, and that's something atheists don't deny. They deny his existence outside that framework, as a supernatural deity. Acknowledging the existence of the former (i.e. the literary character) does not imply acceptance of the latter (i.e. the spiritual being).
There is a character in the bible given the title of God. However, debating the validating of the bible is different from debating the existence of God [ excluding those who think that the Bible is the word of God ]
nirgrahamUK:this is boring scyg, you are not talking about moral rights, you are talking about political or defacto rights.
That's what I told him...
nirgrahamUK: this is boring scyg, you are not talking about moral rights, you are talking about political or defacto rights.
That's because I deny the existence of a priori moral rights, at least until someone can set me straight. :-P
And I don't see what's boring about political rights in any case. Isn't this the political theory section of the forum?
scyg: That's because I deny the existence of a priori moral rights, at least until someone can set me straight. :-P And I don't see what's boring about political rights in any case. Isn't this the political theory section of the forum?
http://libertariannation.org/a/f42l1.html#4.3
I think you should read the section: Objection One. You may find it a good read.
Anarchist Cain:It is impossible for a group to establish rights if the individuals themselves have no rights in the first place.
Umm... just because you don't have the power to do so doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people who do. They're the ones who make the rules. Did you notice how throughout history the little guys had exactly as many rights as their rulers allowed them to have? Power is spread a tad more evenly these days than under Genghis Khan or Stalin, but it's the power brokers who decide what happens. Currently it's in their interest to guarantee everyone some measure of economic entitlement. That's all.
Sorry if I can't share your romantic vision of inherent moral rights, but you haven't exactly produced any convincing arguments.
what is attractive about denying your own moral rights? even if you believe the truth of what you say, how is it benefiting you toremove the moral restraints,( which play a part in keeping you safe), by talking your peers out of any semblance of moral belief?
(please note, i am not arguing here, these are questions prompted by my curiosity at what seems to be prima faciecounter-intuitive, though perhaps the morality denier can explain this mystery by explaining they internal psychology on this matter , their subjective valuations that bring about this phenomoneon)
it would seem 'clever' for a morality denier to keep their 'truth' a silent secret, neh? (I am probably missing something)
scyg:Umm... just because you don't have the power to do so doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people who do.
So you concede that there are individuals who can establish rights? Thereby contradicting that rights come from a social contract.
Anarchist Cain: http://libertariannation.org/a/f42l1.html#4.3 I think you should read the section: Objection One. You may find it a good read.
Yes, I see your point. However, I'm not denying the existence of normative rights, just their "natural" quality. Example: personally I think everyone should have the right to free speech, to minimum interference in their affairs from the outside, and so on. However, I've known plenty of people who think people should have a right to guaranteed minimum income, to a free education, free healthcare, etc. All of these are normative rights in the sense that someone believes everyone should be endowed with them, but none of them could be called "natural", simply because there is no basis for them in nature. They differ from group to group, and even from individual to individual.
Anarchist Cain: scyg:Umm... just because you don't have the power to do so doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people who do. So you concede that there are individuals who can establish rights? Thereby contradicting that rights come from a social contract.
I'll wait while you work this one out.
scyg:However, I'm not denying the existence of normative rights, just their "natural" quality.
The basis of an unperverted human exchange is voluntary and non-violent in nature. Therefore that is natural.
nirgrahamUK: scyg: That's because I deny the existence of a priori moral rights, at least until someone can set me straight. :-P And I don't see what's boring about political rights in any case. Isn't this the political theory section of the forum? what is attractive about denying your own moral rights? even if you believe the truth of what you say, how is it benefiting you toremove the moral restraints,( which play a part in keeping you safe), by talking your peers out of any semblance of moral belief? (please note, i am not arguing here, these are questions prompted by my curiosity at what seems to be prima faciecounter-intuitive, though perhaps the morality denier can explain this mystery by explaining they internal psychology on this matter , their subjective valuations that bring about this phenomoneon) it would seem 'clever' for a morality denier to keep their 'truth' a silent secret, neh? (I am probably missing something)
For the same reason that atheists deny the existence of God, even though God is a comforting notion and possibly helpful for social cooperation in some cases. Namely, the desire for truth.
nirgrahamUK:if everyone in society wanted me dead because i was jewish and they were nazi's, i would not have a right to my life? because there was no 'consensus' that i have a right to my life presumably.....
If EVERYONE else was a Nazi, then you would have no de facto right and no legal right to life. You would have a normative right as long as you stayed alive and believed that you had the right to do so. Likely as not, in that situation it would not be enough.
but god is not a comforting notion. have you read the bible? that god is angry. or are we talking of a different god.?
furthermore god is not a notion that can comfort people who dont believe in him. so its dis-analogous to the morality question i asked. consider, if other people believe in morality it would lead the disbeliever to receive benefits. (it would seem)
scyg:You would have a normative right as long as you stayed alive and believed that you had the right to do so.
this is vacuous, i would have a right to stay alive just as long as i thought that i did and actually stayed alive?
aside:
whilst i disagree with you on your anti-moral realism stance, you are at least intellectually brave for coming out and declaring unpalatable truths. (.e. you find them true, and others find them unpalatable)
still i have to say. i have rights. individuals have rights. criminals and 'the society at large' can go fuck themselves.
Anarchist Cain: scyg: That's because I deny the existence of a priori moral rights, at least until someone can set me straight. :-P And I don't see what's boring about political rights in any case. Isn't this the political theory section of the forum? http://libertariannation.org/a/f42l1.html#4.3 I think you should read the section: Objection One. You may find it a good read.
From the link: "• Normative rights: the claims that ought to be respected and protected."
Aaaaaaand we're back to the extremely ambiguous word "ought." Why would a scholar interested in elaborating an argument that purports to make fine distinctions use a word like "ought" in a vital sense in a crucial part of the text and just leave it hanging there, completely undefined? I searched the whole article, and Long never once attempts to define - or even refine - the term ought. I find his lack of semantic disambiguation totally unacceptable, given how semantically detailed he gets elsewhere when he picks apart objections with a fine-tooth comb.
Why anarchy fails
ought is atomic, irreducible, you cant define it, any more than you can define 'is'
can you define 'is' ?
Anarchist Cain:So you concede that there are individuals who can establish rights? Thereby contradicting that rights come from a social contract.
Well, if we're going to get into semantic arguments, then fine. It's a contract made with a group of people wielding power over you. As I've mentioned a number of times already, "society" is a shortcut for talking about groups of people. If we're talking about decision-making, that means "the group of people who have the power to make and enforce decisions". They're the ones who decided that you should not be stolen from or murdered without facing consequences. And since you want exactitude, they weren't thinking about you when they did it, but themselves and their ability to retain the power that they hold in the current social structure. That doesn't change the outcome, however - you have rights ONLY because others have decided that you should have them. Lucky for you they also had the power to enforce them, so they're not only normative, but de-facto and probably legal, too. But I still don't see how they would be "natural".
AJ:Why would a scholar interested in elaborating an argument that purports to make fine distinctions use a word like "ought" in a vital sense in a crucial part of the text and just leave it hanging there, completely undefined?
Ask him.
scyg:It's a contract made with a group of people wielding power over you.
Why do they have the power and not I?
nirgrahamUK: but god is not a comforting notion. have you read the bible? that god is angry. or are we talking of a different god.? furthermore god is not a notion that can comfort people who dont believe in him. so its dis-analogous to the morality question i asked. consider, if other people believe in morality it would lead the disbeliever to receive benefits. (it would seem)
It is clearly true that believers find God to be comforting, regardless of the angry God in the bible.
It seems the morality question is analogous to me. Other people believing in God may lead the non-believer to receive benefits if they are for example non-violent (obviously not guaranteed, any more than it would be true for the case of objective morality). That is what we're talking about right -- objective morality -- not just any morality? Otherwise I misunderstood.
nirgrahamUK: whilst i disagree with you on your anti-moral realism stance, you are at least intellectually brave for coming out and declaring unpalatable truths. (.e. you find them true, and others find them unpalatable)
Well, I don't think you can change things reasonably if you don't recognize the actual state of things. Just because I find something true, doesn't mean I think it's palatable. I have my ideas of what should be, but that doesn't mean I'm going to kid myself about what is. However, I'm not trying to take away your ability to believe in whatever you want - that's entirely up to you, AFAIK.
Anarchist Cain: AJ:Why would a scholar interested in elaborating an argument that purports to make fine distinctions use a word like "ought" in a vital sense in a crucial part of the text and just leave it hanging there, completely undefined? longrob@auburn.edu Ask him.
I may well do that, but as long as we're talking here, how do you (and anyone else who agree with Long) define it?
the ranks of libertarian moral nihilists seem to be on a rising trend, anyone else notice this and find it curious?
AJ: Anarchist Cain: AJ:Why would a scholar interested in elaborating an argument that purports to make fine distinctions use a word like "ought" in a vital sense in a crucial part of the text and just leave it hanging there, completely undefined? longrob@auburn.edu Ask him. I may well do that, but as long as we're talking here, how do you (and anyone else who agree with Long) define it?
How do I define ought?
nirgrahamUK: the ranks of libertarian moral nihilists seem to be on a rising trend, anyone else notice this and find it curious?
All that I notice is the incredibly ridiculous amount of strawmans that you and Anarchist Cain and Juan have created.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Does moral nihilism = denying objective morality? That doesn't follow.
Anarchist Cain:Why do they have the power and not I?
Because life's not fair, and because total equality is not achievable from a practical point of view. Doesn't mean you can't try to change things for the better, though. (Just thought I'd add that, seeing as I must be coming across as a complete downer).