JERDOG

No you missunderstand my point. They guy that got beheaded did have a right to life. His right was violated.
My question was not. "Who thinks and acts as if men do not have a right to life?" But."What says that the Iraqi mans right to life was any less that anyone elses"?

Everyone has a right to life. That does not mean that everyone has to be immoratal in order to have it.

The document is meaningless because we are talking about all men who have ever existed to all the men that ever will exist.

Now this does not mean that some guy the was born and rasied in zarist Russia and was killed because of his condemnation of the government did not DESERVE his right to life. Just because someone decided to take it away does not mean that he did not have a right that was violated. His right may not have been granted by his government or by any law. It is/was however granted by the fact that men exist, and to say that a man cannot exist is to say that your rights are more than his. You are in fact saying. 'I exist more than you do".And no one exist any more or less than anyone else. You either exist or you don't.

Just like the Russian example it does not matter where or when and under what flag someone is born under, they all have a right based on reality to that life. Just because these rights may not be granted to them does not mean they are not entitled to them.

Obviously you believe that morality is relative. You say that your right to life is backed up by law. But what about before this law came about, or what if this law was overthrown right now? Would you then not have a right to life?

bd-from-kg

DRFseven:

At this point I have to take issue with you. As Dr. Retard has pointed out, JERDOG is clearly talking about moral rights, not legal rights. So the question here is simply whether it makes sense to talk about “moral rights”. And it’s perfectly obvious that statements about moral rights make just as much sense as any other moral statements.

Let’s take, for example, the right to liberty, construed narrowly as the right not to be imprisoned without due process of law (with “due process” suitably defined – roughly, as a process reasonably designed to prevent innocent people from going to prison). Now obviously there are many places where people do not have a legal right to liberty. But it makes perfectly good sense to say that a person in such a country ought to have this legal right – i.e., that his government ought to have a policy (incorporated into its laws) of not imprisoning anyone without due process of law. And this is just what’s generally meant by saying that he has the moral right to liberty. Since this reflects actual, nearly universal usage, there is no justification for disallowing it. The meaning of words is determined by common usage, not by DRFseven’s fiat.

dk

JERDOG: Is it possible ,in your mind, for the claim that all men are created equal to really mean something?
bd-from-kg Yes. It can be taken as a moral injunction, which is just the way theists take it. Of course it can't be taken literally. But then, Christians don't take it literally either.
dk: In Matthew 28:19 Jesus commissions the 11 Disciples… “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit.” Sounds pretty literal to me.

JERDOG: Theists believe that men are created equal and have equal rights because of god.
bd-from-kg: Nonsense. Historically theists have been among the last to accept the idea that all men are created equal. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible, or in Jesus' teachings, to support this idea. According to the Old Testament the Jews are God's "chosen people". He ordered the Israelites to massacre hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people because of their race. He also ordered that those with certain deformities must not be allowed into the Temple. The New Testament orders slaves to obey their masters and women to obey their husbands. Is this your idea of "equal rights"?
dk: hmmm, in the parable of The Workers in the Vineyard, Matthew 20:12 “So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them got the usual wage. And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, “These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat. “ In Mat 19:30 “But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first”. In Mark 9:35 “Then he sat them down, called the twelve, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to be first, he shall be the last of all and the servant of all.”

I find your vision of Christianity, history and slavery perplexing. By the close of the Middle Ages institutional slavery had disappeared from Christian countries. While secular powers conquered nations, territory and enslaved indigenous people, missionaries converted and baptized them. In Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ.” Properly understood Christianity is the opposite of slavery, In fact, “1462, Pius II declared slavery to be "a great crime" (magnum scelus); that, in 1537, Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians; that Urban VIII forbade it in 1639, and Benedict XIV in 1741; that Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the suppression of the slave trade and Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839; that, in the Bull of Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pius IX branded the "supreme villainy" (summum nefas) of the slave traders. Everyone knows of the beautiful letter which Leo XIII, in 1888, addressed to the Brazilian bishops, exhorting them to banish from their country the remnants of slavery -- a letter to which the bishops responded with their most energetic efforts, and some generous slave-owners by freeing their slaves in a body, as in the first ages of the Church.” ---- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm . A discussion of slavery in the US needs to examine more closely the US Experience to discover what was especially destructive to Blacks in the US. I would argue Jim Crow policy (separate but equal) used to end the reconstruction period after the Civil War and Great Society Welfare programs amplified and perpetuated the injustices of slavery African people experienced in America.

bd-from-kg: The plain reality is that theists make up their morality like everyone else, but then have the audacity to attribute their personal preferences to God.
dk: That’s a gross rationalization.

JERDOG: Objectivists believe that men have equal rights due to reality.
bd-from-kg: Nonsense. Some objectivists have believed this; lot of others haven't. Moslems believe that it's OK to kill people for refusing to convert to Islam. Nazis (who certainly were objectivists whatever else they were) believed that Jews and Gypsies were vermin to be exterminated and that no non-Aryan had any rights that any Aryan was bound to respect.
dk: Civilizations and nations prosper and grow by resolving the problems that arise in time. There are no nations based on NAZI fascism or Arian Superiority because each according to the “order” they imposed found themselves ill suited to overcome the obstacles time presented. Gypsies are vagabonds that live off the good will their hosts. Jews inexplicably have transcended the ages to prosper around the world, a blessing to all the nations of the world. JEROG said, I paraphrase…”Objectivists believe in reality”, which begs the question, “How do they know their belief is real”. The rise of the Empire of Islam laid siege to Western Europe, and in a sense pushed them into the Atlantic to begin the Age of Discovery and the Renaissance. In a sense Islam’s military prowess isolated them, then time made them obsolete.

JERDOG: Is it possible for someone who believes reality is relative to believe that all men have equal rights?
bd-from-kg: Non-objectivists do not believe that "reality is relative". They do not believe that moral principles have a "real" existence in the sense of existing regardless of what anyone thinks, believes or feels.
dk: I have no idea what a non-objectivist might be, perhaps a moral relativist. To me the term non-objectivist implies a false dilemma typical of a two tailed linear inquiry.

bd-from-kg: In any case, saying that men "have" equal rights is really just a way of saying that people should treat other people in a certain way. (The details are complicated, of course.) There's no reason why a non-objectivist can't believe this just as well as an objectivist. Of course, what he means will be somewhat different from what an objectivist mean, as will be true of all moral statements.
dk: Apart from intrinsic human dignity equal rights have no meaning.

DRFseven

Well, this is just it, bd. I say that we are wrong if we say that everyone has moral rights because where did they come from? Rights are entitlements; how do people become morally entitled? We become entitled if people entitle us; if they don't, we're not entitled. The most we can say toward such a thing is, "All people ought to be granted the right", "I wish all people were granted the right", "It seems things would be better if people were all granted the right", etc.

Lots of people say the sun sets. I'm arguing that it is meaningless to assert a "moral right" independent of that which is granted, and obviously, people all over the world do NOT think everyone should have that right and do not grant it.

bd-from-kg

JERDOG:

1. You need to be more careful to explain what you’re talking about. After talking about whether morality is “relative and not objective”, you then speak of “objectivists” without the slightest hint that you’re talking about Randians. (IMHO Randian Objectivism is too silly to be worth discussing.) Also, you say that “theists believe”... but then later explain that you meant only that theists claim to believe (Meaning what exactly? That theists today claim that theists have always believed this? If so, this alleged claim is false, but so is the assertion that theists make any such claim.)

2. It’s pretty apparent that you think of “rights” as real things – things that have an actual existence “in themselves” in a kind of Platonic realm of Ideals. This is just confusion. Even in most objective moral theories, “rights” talk is just shorthand for a certain kind of “right” talk – i.e., talk about what it would be “morally right” or “morally wrong” for someone (or some group of people) to do. You would be able to think more clearly about this if you tried the experiment of translating all of your statements about “rights” into statements about what some people ought or ought not to do.

Thus the question of whether “all men are created equal” is really the question of whether governments (and to a lesser extent people in general) ought to treat all men, everywhere and at all times, the “same” in certain ways. (By the way, statements such as “everyone has a right to be alive” are meaningless. Such a statement only becomes meaningful if we revise it to say that governments, or people in general, should not take a person’s life - perhaps with certain exceptions, since a “right” doesn’t have to be absolute to qualify as a “right”.

A question about whether everyone has a certain “right” is really a question about whether a certain (alleged) moral principle with a “free variable” (say x) has universal application - i.e., whether it is valid if one prefixes it with “for all x” where x ranges over all men (or all humans, or all sentient beings, or whatever).

Once again, objective, subjective, and noncognitive moral theories will give quite different accounts of what it means for a moral principle to be “valid”. But this is not unique to “rights” statements; it will be true of all moral statements.

bd-from-kg

DRFseven:

I don’t think we’re disagreeing substantively. It seems to me that you’re just proposing (for no discernable reason) to restrict the use of the term “right” to “legal right” and using a needlessly complex formulation in contexts where people now talk about “moral rights”. What purpose would be served by this?

If one interprets “moral rights” statements as “ought” statements as I suggested in my reply to JERDOG, this problem disappears. Rights aren’t “things” that actually “exist”, so the question where they “came from” is meaningless. It doesn’t follow that the concept of “moral rights” is meaningless.

If we can say things like this, we can talk meaningfully about moral rights. E.g., “All people ought to be granted the (legal) right” means exactly the same thing as “All people have the moral right”.

DRFseven

How do you know that?

Quote:

My question was not. "Who thinks and acts as if men do not have a right to life?" But."What says that the Iraqi mans right to life was any less that anyone elses"?

Well, what says it was the SAME as anyone else's? What says mine is the same as yours?

Quote:

Everyone has a right to life.

How do you know that is true? Is there any evidence for it, or is it just your opinion?



Why doesn't it mean that?



Yes, and?



How does the existence of people grant the right to life? Do you think the existence of anything grants its right to exist?

Quote:

Obviously you believe that morality is relative. You say that your right to life is backed up by law. But what about before this law came about, or what if this law was overthrown right now? Would you then not have a right to life?

I only actually have the right by common belief/agreement/practice. If even one person does NOT grant it, I don't have it.

bd-from-kg

dk:

The transition form Matthew 28:19 to “All men are created equal” is unclear, to put it mildly.

Once again, I’m mystified as to how this story is supposed to entail “All men are created equal”.

Let’s see. The first anti-slavery statement from a prominent Christian that you can find was made in 1462. And you think the fact that some Christians (after a very long time) came to oppose slavery shows that Christianity is inherently anti-slavery? Get real.

Seriously, the subject of Christianity’s relationship to slavery is an interesting one, but very tangential to this thread. If you wish to pursue it, start a new thread on the subject. I’m sure it will get lots of responses.

Is your point that the true principles of morality assert themselves over the fullness of time because they “work”? If so: (1) How do you know that the principles that “work” are the true principles? (2) Hasn’t Christianity, in many cases, simply incorporated moral principles that seemed to work best regardless of what Jesus and the Bible had to say? If so, in what meaningful sense can such principles be called “Christian”? (3) What evidence do you have that “true” moral principles are becoming more widely accepted in the long run? It sure doesn’t look that way to me. (4) If this is true, what need have we for Divine guidance? We can just discern the true principles of morality by observing what “works” over time. (But then, isn’t that pretty much what we humans have always done?)

Oh, please. What distinguishes the Jews is that they have resisted assimilation with the surrounding populations for a long time. Whether this is a good or bad trait is unclear. And how have they been a “blessing for the world”? How is the astonishing survival of the group who, of all ethnic groups, should know whether the Christian story is true, and assert adamantly that it is false, a “blessing for the world” from a Christian point of view?

A non-objectivist is any one who does not believe in objective morality – i.e., someone who does not believe that moral statements have a truth value which is the same for everyone, and is independent of what anyone (except God perhaps) thinks, believes, or feels.

I’ve pointed out in several earlier posts how talk of “moral rights” can be interpreted meaningfully without referring to any hypothetical “intrinsic human dignity”. And the term “intrinsic human dignity” can itself be interpreted as referring to aspects of intrinsic human nature that make it universally desirable to follow moral principles such as “all men are created equal”. Otherwise you’re forced to reify “human dignity” into yet another “real” thing that actually “exists”. I guess this is a natural tendency in theistic thinking. IMHO, it reflects an inability to distinguish between things that “exist” only in the sense of being concepts in human minds and things that exist in reality.

JERDOG

Because he was alive.

Well if your right is more than mine, then explain to me how it is.

I already exist. That is why I have a right to life. For someone to kill me they would in fact be saying to me. " My right to life is greater than yours".
The question is not," do you have a right to live". Realy it is. "Who gave anyone the right to take that life?"

Who says that you can take away that which already exist?

Who told the guy that killed the Iraqi in our discussion that he had the right to take a life?

If you believe that some magical god told him to then that may be your answer. But that is not an answer based in reality, but in mysticism.

Because they already exist. Who are you to say that they can't exist? Who granted you that special power? A god? A politician?

Who gave you the right to take away that which already exist?

No not necessarily. To get into animal rights (if such a thing exist) would be another thread.

Well if that is the case then no one has the right to life because there exist a phyco somewheres in this would that says you don't have that right.

JERDOG

Every theists that I ever encountered has made the claim that rights come from god. Now they may not have always lived up to this in action, but the general consensus amoung most theists seems to be that we have god given rights that apply to everyone. That is their objective view or morality.

Well in a way they do. Man exist. To take away that which already exist is claiming power or rights higher than everyone else. Who gave that person this special power or right? They have no such power and they have no such right.