What Rights Are and Are Not

[GracieRuth]

This is a subject where I am far more interested in the forest than the trees, so get ready for some sweeping statements.

I'm of the opinion that morality is largely biologically based -- it comes from our empathy. When I see someone suffering, it makes me suffer too, and so I am wanting what is best for that person in part because it makes MY LIFE better. From empathy we know that "Hey this would hurt me, which means it would hurt this other person, and I don't want the other person to hurt." We have reached the Golden Rule from which all morality is derived. Of course, it does help to study the wisdom of the ages where people have tried applying the Golden Rule to various instances -- in that respect we can see farther because we stand on the shoulders of giants.

New ideas take a while to perculate before we really see where they are headed. To understand the concept of human rights, one must study the history of the ideas behind it. The whole idea of human rights is that they are NOT rights "granted" by government, but our intrinic to our dignity as individuals. The idea that human beings have intrinsic worth has probably been around as long as humans ourselves. But to have such a believe ENCODED into a primary value for a culture happened with ancient Israel, and got picked up and taken to the ends of the earth by Christians. It has been slow brewing for several thousand years now; that might seem at first a long time, but consider humans have been around for 200,000 years. What you see over time is the irradication of things like slavery.

The most recent application of the "Dignity of the individual" is the idea of Freedom of Conscience -- that except for where actions directly harm another or threaten to, people must be allowed to believe as they are inclined, no matter how obnoxious that belief is to others. This has been worked out primarily by trial and error (mostly error). We have been through times of Inquisitions and Macccibean forced conversion and Communist purges -- AND WE DON'T LIKE IT. We have found that the world is a better place when we allow diversity of thought, even though it means allowing (insert your most hated group X) to voice their opinion.

It kind of goes with LIFE that sometimes what is best for a small group of individuals conflicts with the need for many individuals. That creates ethical dillemas. Is Spock right: do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)? Or is Kirk correct, that the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many? Most of the moral arguments of our time are inside this framework. We would like for minoritiews to enjoy all the same priveleges as the community at large, but what do we do when the needs of the minority cause problems for society as a whole? Tricky stuff.

 

[Feelings]

I'm of the opinion that morality is largely biologically based -- it comes from our empathy. When I see someone suffering, it makes me suffer too, and so I am wanting what is best for that person in part because it makes MY LIFE better. From empathy we know that "Hey this would hurt me, which means it would hurt this other person, and I don't want the other person to hurt." We have reached the Golden Rule from which all morality is derived. Of course, it does help to study the wisdom of the ages where people have tried applying the Golden Rule to various instances -- in that respect we can see farther because we stand on the shoulders of giants.

This Gracie is pretty win. What you're saying is pretty much exactly what I'm saying with regard to exactly what a right is and where it comes from.

New ideas take a while to perculate before we really see where they are headed. To understand the concept of human rights, one must study the history of the ideas behind it. The whole idea of human rights is that they are NOT rights "granted" by government, but our intrinic to our dignity as individuals. The idea that human beings have intrinsic worth has probably been around as long as humans ourselves. But to have such a believe ENCODED into a primary value for a culture happened with ancient Israel, and got picked up and taken to the ends of the earth by Christians. It has been slow brewing for several thousand years now; that might seem at first a long time, but consider humans have been around for 200,000 years. What you see over time is the irradication of things like slavery.

The most recent application of the "Dignity of the individual" is the idea of Freedom of Conscience -- that except for where actions directly harm another or threaten to, people must be allowed to believe as they are inclined, no matter how obnoxious that belief is to others. This has been worked out primarily by trial and error (mostly error). We have been through times of Inquisitions and Macccibean forced conversion and Communist purges -- AND WE DON'T LIKE IT. We have found that the world is a better place when we allow diversity of thought, even though it means allowing (insert your most hated group X) to voice their opinion.

I am of the opinion that laws are an expression and enforcement of the values of society. The notion of a 'right' is not based upon how things 'are', but how they 'ought' to be, whether or not that is expressed in law (aka the "government").

It kind of goes with LIFE that sometimes what is best for a small group of individuals conflicts with the need for many individuals. That creates ethical dillemas. Is Spock right: do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)? Or is Kirk correct, that the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many? Most of the moral arguments of our time are inside this framework. We would like for minoritiews to enjoy all the same priveleges as the community at large, but what do we do when the needs of the minority cause problems for society as a whole? Tricky stuff.

Majority rules, except in the case where the majority is unduly oppressive towards a minority. The idea of 'majority rules' is based on the notion that the most people are pleased in this way. The idea of protection of minority interests is to prevent a majority from "bullying" a minority, which is based upon a notion of fairness.

 

[Rasmus]

[MENTION=1798]Out To Lunch[/MENTION]

First, let me commend your investigation into what many would call a worthy topic. Second, I appreciate your patience regarding my response. Lets take a look at what you have uncovered and considerate in the light of history, reality, and potential social applications. I want to apologize in advance if I offend you. That is not my objective.


To me, the gravity of entitlement and immutability implied by the characterization of something as a 'right' presumes too far. Could you be so kind as to please explain to the forum why any right presumes too far.


Statement - I think that a more fitting word for 'right' is 'preference'. If rights are preferences than why don

 

[arbygil]

Yes, there is. The answer is in how our brains are wired.

That's more of a result than a reason, though. It doesn't explain the passion behind it - if it was just garbage in/garbage out then there wouldn't be such an emotional change, IMO. But then, I also believe there's such a thing as spiritual side of man which (in my opinion) plays in to the passion and emotional makeup. There are things humans do that animals do not, so I do not believe we are simply motivated by chemicals and instinct.

 

[GracieRuth]

Awwww, thanks, Out To Lunch. You are a sweetheart!

Now, in the spirit of an interesting discourse, Let me reply to your last statement. You are avoiding the dilemma! What do you do when the wants of a minority are at odds with what is best for the majority?

Majority rules, except in the case where the majority is unduly oppressive towards a minority. The idea of 'majority rules' is based on the notion that the most people are pleased in this way. The idea of protection of minority interests is to prevent a majority from "bullying" a minority, which is based upon a notion of fairness.

Let me give you a "for instance."

It is part of Jewish law that a Jewish man procreate children -- trying for at least one of each sex. Why is this law? Because our existence as a an extended kinship group has dependant upon it. In addition to disease and warfare (we did manage to illiminate hunger), there are other factors that can threaten our existence as a group. There will always be some who consciously decide to leave. The biggest threat today is assimilation, where Jews intermarry and blend into surrounding socities to the extent that their offspring no longer self-identify as Jews--the number of Jews lost to the People of Israel is a serious problem. Seen in this light, the law mandating procreation is not only sensible, it is necessary.

So what about individuals who don't want to marry? What if someone is gay? What if someone just doesn't want kids?

It's so easy to say live and let live, and we really should say it--AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE. But no man is an island. Everything we do impacts other people. Sometimes it is necessary to require individuals to forgo their own desires for the sake of the group. The REAL question is not IF, but WHEN?

ADDED LATER: After posting this, I started reflecting on a Standford lecture about behavioral evolution, and one of the points the Professor made is that it is specifically kindship groups that have this kind of cooperation. Maybe humans just aren't inclined to cooperate on this level unless we are related? Maybe that is one piece of the puzzle.

 

[Feelings]

Could you be so kind as to please explain to the forum why any right presumes too far.

Sure thing.

Who made these rules (not these rules specifically, but where do notions such as equality, fairness, humane treatment and dignity get their status as an 'entitlement'), and why? Why it came from humans!! We made this shit right up. We don't like being treated as less than anyone else. We don't like doing twice the work for half the pay. We don't like being arrested just because the cop didn't like our face. We don't like getting shot in the head. And it bothers us when such things happen to others as well. Also, there is a 'social contract' aspect to this as well. If nobody is allowed to hurt anybody else, then we are all better off.

My hypothesis is that rights are only rights because we say that they are. There is no further preponderance to rights than this.

If rights are preferences than why don

 

[Feelings]

That's more of a result than a reason, though. It doesn't explain the passion behind it - if it was just garbage in/garbage out then there wouldn't be such an emotional change, IMO. But then, I also believe there's such a thing as spiritual side of man which (in my opinion) plays in to the passion and emotional makeup. There are things humans do that animals do not, so I do not believe we are simply motivated by chemicals and instinct.

I won't contest that perhaps there is a spiritual realm. However, we should save this discussion for another thread

 

[Feelings]

Awwww, thanks, Out To Lunch. You are a sweetheart!

Yes. Yes I am.

Now, in the spirit of an interesting discourse, Let me reply to your last statement. You are avoiding the dilemma! What do you do when the wants of a minority are at odds with what is best for the majority?



Let me give you a "for instance."

It is part of Jewish law that a Jewish man procreate children -- trying for at least one of each sex. Why is this law? Because our existence as a an extended kinship group has dependant upon it. In addition to disease and warfare (we did manage to illiminate hunger), there are other factors that can threaten our existence as a group. There will always be some who consciously decide to leave. The biggest threat today is assimilation, where Jews intermarry and blend into surrounding socities to the extent that their offspring no longer self-identify as Jews--the number of Jews lost to the People of Israel is a serious problem. Seen in this light, the law mandating procreation is not only sensible, it is necessary.

So what about individuals who don't want to marry? What if someone is gay? What if someone just doesn't want kids?

It's so easy to say live and let live, and we really should say it--AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE. But no man is an island. Everything we do impacts other people. Sometimes it is necessary to require individuals to forgo their own desires for the sake of the group. The REAL question is not IF, but WHEN?

ADDED LATER: After posting this, I started reflecting on a Standford lecture about behavioral evolution, and one of the points the Professor made is that it is specifically kindship groups that have this kind of cooperation. Maybe humans just aren't inclined to cooperate on this level unless we are related? Maybe that is one piece of the puzzle.

In the event of a conflict in interests, whose interests should prevail? It depends on what school of thought is followed, or what people believe in. It's subjective, and the answer is based on very personal beliefs. Some believe that the continuance of our species is more important than an individual's right to choice on procreation. Some believe the opposite. Some aren't sure.

 

[Rasmus]

Nonetheless, if you have arguments to explain why you feel as though I am mistaken, I am interested to hear them.

No, I'm pretty sure you are only interested in pontificating about your despondent beliefs. I should have known better than to get suckered into this discussion. My first

 

[barbad0s]

looooooooooooool

 

[InvisibleJim]

My solipolism dictates that all your rights are belong to my godhood!

 

[Feelings]

No, I'm pretty sure you are only interested in pontificating about your despondent beliefs. I should have known better than to get suckered into this discussion. My first

 

[Feelings]

Wiki is win

Quotes:

According to cognitive versions of ethical subjectivism, the truth of moral statements depends upon people's values, attitudes, feelings, or beliefs.

On a standard interpretation of his theory, a trait of character counts as a moral virtue when it evokes a sentiment of approbation in a sympathetic, informed, and rational human observer.

According to non-cognitive versions of ethical subjectivism, such as emotivism, prescriptivism, and expressivism, ethical statements cannot be true or false, at all: rather, they are expressions of personal feelings or commands. For example, on A. J. Ayer's emotivism, the statement, "Murder is wrong" is equivalent in meaning to the emotive, "Murder, Boo!"

 

[Rasmus]

Awww, thanks man. I can feel the love.

I don't think you are capable of separating your emotions on this issue from the logic. Your emotions are valid and justified, but your logical arguments are not. And honestly I don't care how you feel about this topic, because that information is not useful to me. I care about valid arguments, because that information is useful to me.

How does your pancreas taste O wise one? You're not interested in logic. You're interested in opinions that line up with your view. I haven't offered my logical arguments (I'm not very smart, I thought you would have figured that out by now after I admitted to believing in God and human rights). I offered answers to your questions which you completely avoided.

I don't think you are capable of separating your emotions on this issue from the logic.

O wow, why didn't I think of that!?!? Tell ya what, you unplug your heart from your brain first and then tell me how it went then I'll be happy to give it a try.


How goes the fight to abolish things that are self-evident? :thumb: You're such a bold revolutionary! I've got one for you: "Freedom" <-- self-evident. Let's see if all your logic can destroy that word. (Hint) The only way for you to destroy it is to utilize it thus perpetuating it's existence...it's self-evident immutable existence.


Hey brother, just forget this response. I wouldn't want to hinder you on your brave journey to total enlightenment. Some of us are rooting for you...well, not me, but I bet someone out there is. After all, who wouldn't love to rewrite history and redefine the words humans have used for hundreds of years; to reduce absolutes to mere preferences. Let me know when you succeed so we can watch the world burn. Wooo Whooo! BYOB baby!

 

[Feelings]

[MENTION=4664]Rasmus1981[/MENTION]
If I wasn't clear enough before, let me re-iterate: You've made your emotional reaction clear to me, and I am not interested in further hearing about that, or your personal opinion on me. If you feel troubled by what I've said, I suggest you write about your feelings in a blog. If you continue to make personal remarks towards me here, I would suggest that you be removed from the discussion.

I offered answers to your questions which you completely avoided.

Specifically, what 'answer' do you feel that I have avoided?

 

[Rasmus]

Whoa, ok ok

 

[Feelings]

[MENTION=4664]Rasmus1981[/MENTION]
You've gotta be kidding me. I never spoke to you before, nor you to me. I never read that thread entitled Fairness. I never posted anything in that thread entitled Fairness, which should indicate that perhaps I haven't read it. 10 DAYS LATER, I write a post IN ANOTHER THREAD that refers to something related. And, somehow you're assuming that my post was in direct response to YOU?? I don't even remember what -I- wrote 10 days ago... How am I going to wait 10 days, to unleash a passive aggressive attack, in another thread, that you might not even read, towards someone, who I don't know and never had any interaction with...

 

[Rasmus]

Hmmm, "Never" spoke to you before...never is an awfully final word isn't it? Wait, I get it, you're testing my forum research abilities ok. Here goes:



06-09-2011 10:34 am

you're making me miss my druid. Been sober now since cataclysm. Is that an interface add on that made your character speak aloud what she was casting or couldn't cast or is that a normal part of the game? I remember a toon saying that they couldn't do certain things sometimes but i never remember them announcing when a trinket was used for example. That was a long battle. Back in the old days the fights were over in 15-20 seconds. Adrenalin rush. Damn it, i'm not gonna play again! I'm not, i'm not...what server are you on? No, don't tell me! I was horde anyways, we'd never get along.

i wish you success in all your future conquests.

<-- inside wow joke. Undead dance is the best! For the horde!

06-09-2011 09:48 pm

it is an add-on that provides voice notification for key abilities that other people are using.

It's not a long battle; that battle was relatively short. It's why i uploaded it. The long ones are boring for audiences.

Wooo, I hope I passed. Hey, I just want to apologize man. It totally looks like it was all a terrible misunderstanding! I'm kinda embarrassed now. To think this whole time I thought you were taking a passive aggressive poke at me (ten days after my post!) LOL. Gosh man, I'm such an ass! I hope we can still be friends someday...if you can forgive me of course. I'm sorry for being rude and disrespectfully too. Thanks for not stooping to my level. You've got nerves of steal :thumb: Good luck out there.

 

[Rasmus]

Sorry for the interruption folks! Please continue with (Thread: What Rights Are and Are Not) without further delay. Thanks.

 

[barbad0s]

@Rasmus you seem to be oddly fixated on the usage of the word "shit".

A lot of people use it as a unit, to replace the word "stuff", not as a means of defacing something. It just rolls off the tongue a little easier. OTL is not showing disdain for human rights; that is not the focus of this discussion. I believe you've misinterpreted.