Freethought & Rationalism Archive

NialScorva · 04-16-2002, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill the Cat:
So far as I can tell, this question is neither complex nor "loaded with the fallacy of presupposition," and thus, not irresponsible. Rights, just like anything else, come from somewhere. God and natural law are not presupposed in the question; they are excluded in it.

It's a teleological question about a vaguely defined concept: "rights". Most of this thread has involved defining what rights are rather than answering where they came from. The cupola of the question, "given", makes assumptions, strongly implying a seperate agency involved in the creation of rights. That's why it's a loaded question, it excludes the possibility that there is no outside agency.

Quote:

I only see a need for rephrasing the question & defining meanings if fromtheright wanted to have a discussion. I don't think he does. He just seems to want to get some feedback/information. That's fine by me; not every thread has to be a discussion.

Aye, I agree to a point. However, this is a discussion board, and if other people wish to discuss it, even asking fromtheright questions that he does not want to answer, then that's within their rights too.

(Is it just me, or is that last sentence some type of question begging or something?)

jpbrooks · 04-16-2002, 09:30 AM

Sorry about my sporadic contribution to this interesting topic. I'll be back online later with my responses.

Blake · 04-16-2002, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NialScorva:
It's a teleological question about a vaguely defined concept: "rights". Most of this thread has involved defining what rights are rather than answering where they came from. The cupola of the question, "given", makes assumptions, strongly implying a seperate agency involved in the creation of rights. That's why it's a loaded question, it excludes the possibility that there is no outside agency.

I don't see teleology in the question. "Given" is excluded & bracketed along with God & natural law. The actual question, "where do rights come from," could be simply about origin, cause, or logical justification. (Sure, it could be teleological, but it seems to me carefully written so that it isn't necessarily so.)

Quote:

Bill the Cat:
I only see a need for rephrasing the question & defining meanings if fromtheright wanted to have a discussion. I don't think he does. He just seems to want to get some feedback/information. That's fine by me; not every thread has to be a discussion.

NialScorva:
Aye, I agree to a point. However, this is a discussion board, and if other people wish to discuss it, even asking fromtheright questions that he does not want to answer, then that's within their rights too.

(Is it just me, or is that last sentence some type of question begging or something?)

True enough; my view, though, is that it'd be nice if the default position were to respect posters' reasonable intentions and not hijack threads quite so often as I see happening.

(I'm confused by the sentence about question begging: your last sentence, or mine?)

Blake

NialScorva · 04-16-2002, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill the Cat:
(I'm confused by the sentence about question begging: your last sentence, or mine?)

Sorry, refering to my last sentence where I mention a posters rights, which is the point in debate.

Quote:

True enough; my view, though, is that it'd be nice if the default position were to respect posters' reasonable intentions and not hijack threads quite so often as I see happening.

And on this note, this will be the last sidetrack you'll hear from me.

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: NialScorva ]

Ted Hoffman · 04-17-2002, 02:48 AM

originnaly posted by bill the cat

Quote:

The question was:
If our rights aren't given to us by God or through natural law, where do they come from?
bill the cat:
So far as I can tell, this question is neither complex nor "loaded with the fallacy of presupposition," and thus, not irresponsible. Rights, just like anything else, come from somewhere. God and natural law are not presupposed in the question; they are excluded in it.

Posing a complex question is not irresponsible in itself. It is irresponsible to pose one and refuse to elaborate or provide clear definitions of the terms that are to be discussed. Which in this case, are part of the question.

Quote:

Rights, just like anything else, come from somewhere

This is absolute crap. Where did somewhere come from if everything came from somewhere?
Did somewhere come from nowhere?
This is the fallacious reasoning behind the question. That everything came from somewhere.
There is no law (scientific or otherwise) that says everything came from somewhere. Its the standard theistic sloppy reasoning and thats what is behind the question. That implied somewhere is God. You need to tell us why God does not need to come from somewhere yet everything else needs to come from somewhere.
When this illogical reasoning is elimimnated, the question wont arise.

So long as we address fallacious questions like this, we will end up operating under the wrong framework and that may well render even the most well thought out answers as invalid.

Its a waste of time to figure out where the dragon that ate Maria came from when asked:
"Where did the dragon that are Maria come from?"
Its a waste of time because dragons don't exist. The question is fallacious and does not deserve an answer but requires rephrasing.

You are welcome to answer it if you are Ok with the question. Me and Ender think its a wrong question and is fallacious.

Quote:

I only see a need for rephrasing the question & defining meanings if fromtheright wanted to have a discussion. I don't think he does. He just seems to want to get some feedback/information

Well the feedback he is getting is that its a wrong question. We are not doing him any god if he holds wrong propositions. The answer will be built upon false knowledge. Some of us can sanction that, some of us cannot.

Quote:

That's fine by me; not every thread has to be a discussion.

Rambling and babbling about fallacious ideas and pandering to illogical questions dont happen to be my forte. When you are interested in a rigorous discussion, just let me know.

This is a philosophical forum FYI. We dont tolerate crap. Take it to miscellaneaous discussions or rants and raves.

jpbrooks · 04-17-2002, 04:36 AM

Sorry for the late reply. My family members who work for the public school system here in Chicago have the week off and are pestering me about helping them do their chores. So my time online is extremely limited. (This week won't end too soon for me!) I apologize in advance for any further late replies.

[quote]Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
[qb]

I'm not at all sure that Hobbs would concur with the concept of pre-exiting, specific rights, as opposed to 'the right to anything' as discussed below.

Quote:

Hobbes is well aware that human beings vary in strength and intelligence but he claims that these differences are never so great as to make it manifest that anybody can claim to himself any special treatment (for example, having a natural right to rule over others). On the contrary, he points out that virtually anybody has the capacity to kill anybody else. There is no naturally given hierarchy amongst human beings and therefore everybody sees himself as having a natural right to anything which he desires even when others want it too. So where there is no other power to exercise control over us we would commonly find conflict between human beings all seeking the best that there is for themselves. In short, in Hobbes?s famous words on the state of nature, that is ?where there is no common power, there is no law: where no law, no injustice? (English Works, vol. 3, p. 115) and indeed none of the conveniences of social life.

Understood. But this stance only raises more questions about rights. For example, if all rights come about only by social agreement, how does a "society" get the "right" to rule over people who were born of parents who are members of the "society", but who (themselves) don't agree with the "society's" rules? If no individual can "claim to himself" any special "right" to rule over others, why would this not also apply to groups of individuals? And if not, doesn't this stance simply take for granted that "might makes right"?

Furthermore, the problem of rights existing prior to the formation of "society" is not really avoided in the view you presented above. If everyone "agrees", prior to the formation of a "societal" laws, that they have a "right" to anything they desire, then, on the view in question, they already have that "right" before they form their "society".

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]

jpbrooks · 04-17-2002, 04:51 AM

Hello, Adrian. I only have time for a few brief comments.

Quote:

Originally posted by Adrian Selby:
[QB]

jpbrooks:
"why would the mere fact that different societies arrive at different sets of "rights" automatically rule out the existence of a set of rights that apply universally to human individuals (or societies) as a whole?"

Adrian:
I would argue that its because outside of any given society, in the wild for example, it doesn't seem to make sense to say rights exist there. If there are two savages and one piece of meat, the only way it could be said that one or the other had a right to it, or neither, would be if they themselves decided a system of rights that would 'arbitrate' in this case. People from within societies would look upon the savages in a state of nature and say that they think savage A or savage B should have the meat, or neither or both, but that is from within the system they adhere to, which would be used in this case to find some solution to the dilemma that possibly didn't involve violence, or some other non discursive solution. For that reason I don't think it would make sense to say that there could be a set of rights outside of all societies, I think a society invents its rights, for whatever valuable, useful, prudent reasons, and so perhaps part of the concept of rights for me is that any right must be within a society.

One problem that emerges as a consequence of this view, in our increasingly "global" civilization, is that it renders any critical deliberation about rights among societies nonsensical. If "rights" can only exist within the context of a "society", then it is impossible for any "society" to have a "right" to render a judgment on the set of rights of another "society". Wars, for example, that are fought among "societies" (because of the practices of those "societies" based on their rules) can never be "just" wars. The "right" to engage in wars with other "societies" can only be based ultimately on "might".

Quote:

"social contract theory
Belief that political structures and the legitimacy of the state derive from an (explicit or implicit) agreement by individual human beings to surrender (some or all of) their private rights in order to secure the protection and stability of an effective social organization or government. Distinct versions of social contract theory were proposed by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Rawls,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... (apparently) holds that some rights already exist prior to the formation of a "society"."

Adrian:
I would question only the use of the word 'rights' in the quote. Where it says that people give up private rights, I would say that people rather give up the freedom to do anything, they don't have a right to that freedom, but in a state of nature they are free to do anything to anyone, that is what they are giving up, so I'd hesitate to call that 'private rights'.

(Again) this may be viewed as applying only to the "rights" that arise as a result of the formation of a "society". Rights need not be viewed as exclusively "societal". If the concepts of "rights" and "wrongs" can apply to humankind as a whole (and it seems that there is good reason to assume that they can because there appear to be things, like murder, that are held to be "wrong" in most [if not all] "societies"), then there can be rights that exist prior to the formation of "societies".

Quote:

Al:
"Rights exist regardless of what a society believes those rights to be"

Adrian:
With regard to the savages example, show me where their rights are? Do they have rights like they have arms and legs, i.e. what is the compelling evidence that rights for them must exist. ...

This quote from <a href="http://www.ar-views.org" target="_blank">the AR-Views FAQ</a> pertains to "animal rights", but it makes points that are relevant here.

Quote:

#03 What exactly are rights and what rights can we give animals?

Despite arguably being the foundation of the Western liberal tradition, the concept of "rights" has been a source of controversy and confusion in the debate over AR. A common objection to the notion that animals have rights involves questioning the origin of those rights. One such argument might proceed as follows:
Where do these rights come from? Are you in special communication with God, and he has told you that animals have rights? Have the rights been granted by law? Aren't rights something that humans must grant?
It is true that the concept of "rights" needs to be carefully explicated. It is also true that the concept of "natural rights" is fraught with philosophical difficulties. Complicating things further is the confusion between legal rights and moral rights. One attempt to avoid this objection is to accept it, but argue that if it is not an obstacle for thinking of humans as having rights, then it should not be an obstacle for thinking of animals as having rights.

Henry Salt wrote:
Have the lower animals "rights?" Undoubtedly--if men have. That is the point I wish to make evident in this opening chapter... The fitness of this nomenclature is disputed, but the existence of some real principle of the kind can hardly be called in question; so that the controversy concerning "rights" is little else than an academic battle over words, which leads to no practical conclusion. I shall assume, therefore, that men are possessed of "rights," in the sense of Herbert Spencer's definition; and if any of my readers object to this qualified use of the term, I can only say that I shall be perfectly willing to change the word as soon as a more appropriate one is forthcoming. The immediate question that claims our attention is this--if men have rights, have animals their rights also?

Satisfying though this argument may be, it still leaves us unable to respond to the sceptic who disavows the notion of rights even for humans.
Fortunately, however, there is a straightforward interpretation of "rights" that is plausible and allows us to avoid the controversial rights rhetoric and underpinnings. It is the notion that a "right" is the flip side of a moral imperative. If, ethically, we must refrain from an act performed on a being, then that being can be said to have a "right" that the act not be performed. For example, if our ethics tells us that we must not kill another, then the other has a right not to be killed by us. This interpretation of rights is, in fact, an intuitive one that people both understand and readily endorse. (Of course, rights so interpreted can be codified as legal rights through appropriate legislation.) It is important to realize that, although there is a basis for speaking of animals as having rights, that does not imply or require that they possess all the rights that humans possess, or even that humans possess all the rights that animals possess. Consider the human right to vote. (On the view taken here, this would derive from an ethical imperative to give humans influence over actions that influence their lives.) Since animals lack the capacity to rationally consider actions and their implications, and to understand the concept of democracy and voting, they lack the capacity to vote. There is, therefore, no ethical imperative to allow them to do so, and thus they do not possess the right to vote. Similarly, some fowls have a strong biological need to extend and flap their wings; right-thinking people feel an ethical imperative to make it possible for them to do so. Thus, it can be said that fowl have the right to flap their wings. Obviously, such a right need not be extended to humans. The rights that animals and humans possess, then, are determined by their interests and capacities. Animals have an interest in living, avoiding pain, and even in pursuing happiness (as do humans). As a result of the ethical imperatives, they have rights to these things (as do humans). They can exercise these rights by living their lives free of exploitation and abuse at the hands of humans. DG

The distinction between legal and moral rights seems most important. "Societal" rights, as you have characterized them, appear to fall into the category of legal rights rather than the category of moral rights. Perhaps many of our disagreements about rights can be traced back to a failure to make or recognize such distinctions.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]

Ted Hoffman · 04-17-2002, 07:21 AM

I am going to rephrase the question to "What are the origins of human rights?".
JPBROOKS, nice post:

Quote:

For example, if all rights come about only by social agreement, how does a "society" get the "right" to rule over people who were born of parents who are members of the "society", but who (themselves) don't agree with the "society's" rules? If no individual can "claim to himself" any special "right" to rule over others, why would this not also apply to groups of individuals? And if not, doesn't this stance simply take for granted that "might makes right"?

Might does not make right. The society is made up of members and it has no individuality. These members have common features and interests. So long as these people identify their common needs, then they come together and appoint someone or a body to see to it that their needs (security etc) are met.
They set down "laws" stating what should be done in case their "needs" are violated. These laws set aside the kind of actions that may be against its(the societys) interest and they decide on actions to take when those laws are violated.
When these laws touch on individuals, they are called human rights.
Human beings, being of the same species, have relatively the same needs (the needs Abraham Maslow pointed out) and largely anything that impedes a person from satisfying a particular need is considered to be violating his human rights.
Human needs are dynamic and have been changing over the years. As civilization took different forms, human needs(and hence rights) evolved.
For example, before the Rennaissance, there was nothing like "The right to education". Going further back into human history, before Agrarian Revolution, there was probably No notion of human rights existing. Our ancestors were largely concerned with hunter-gatherer activities and had no time or inclination to discuss abstract concepts like "justice" or human rights. Human contact, I believe, with "strangers" was very rare and I believe they operated in territories. They had limited social capabilities because of lack of common languages etc. Survival relied on keeping others off an acquired territory and brute force and viciousness were the order of the day. Rights (especially within ones territory was irrelevant). They relied on maternal instincts and mating instincts (protecting ones mate from others etc) thus "families" existed. Of course since food was the main resource that was to be competed for, (besides mates) major conflicts were rare.
Then populations increased. Organised farming started, languages developed, writing developed, larger societies developed. Wars were fought. Battles were lost. The scociety arose and with it came civilization.
Laws were needed to keep the societies living in peace. The individual decided he had some common needs and called them his rights.

These rights have been evolving and they developed the way "technology" developed. Human rights are an artifact of civilization. Laws dont create rights ( as the Social contractors like Hobbes asserted) rights arise out of civilization or human advancement. They are only enshrined in laws, not created by laws.

The society is the superstructure of an individual. It can create a government. That government of course can screw the society, but that is not by design. The Government should help the individual enjoy his rights.

Quote:

Furthermore, the problem of rights existing prior to the formation of "society" is not really avoided in the view you presented above. If everyone "agrees", prior to the formation of a "societal" laws, that they have a "right" to anything they desire, then, on the view in question, they already have that "right" before they form their "society".

I beg to disagree. The more "primitive" one is, the fewer the rights he would be able to claim for himself. Therefore Civilization (culture, education, technology etc) is what "gives" an individual the capacity to identify what is a right and what is not.
If a society is not civilized or advanced, then even the individual would not be able to claim "modern" rights (like the right to education). Other individuals would of course come, watch the kids herding livestoch and feel "Hey, that kid should be in school. This is child labour. They are violating his human rights!!!".
In such cases, one is imposing a right on another human being. And if that particular right was to be arrogated on that individual expediently, it would result in violation of his other rights. Maybe there would be no one to take care of the livestock if he went to school, they lose the stock and he ends up starving etc. So human rights arise from the level of civilization a society is operating at.

Human beings decide what their rights are. Based on the living conditions or civilization level. Without civilized societies, they would be inexistent for example killing someone to get a piece of meat would be practical in order to stay alive. Raw survival would take precedence over comfortable living. The existence of the civilized societies creates a need to have individual needs protected by law. These needs (eg freedom of tyhought and expression) are what we call human rights.

Blake · 04-17-2002, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IntenSity:
Posing a complex question is not irresponsible in itself. It is irresponsible to pose one and refuse to elaborate or provide clear definitions of the terms that are to be discussed. Which in this case, are part of the question.

It would only be irresponsible if, in fact, the question poser wanted to participate in a discussion. fromtheright has made it abundantly clear that he's just interested in other people's views, and there's nothing irresponsible about simply asking what someone else's opinion is.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill the Cat:
Rights, just like anything else, come from somewhere.

to which IntenSity replied:
This is absolute crap. Where did somewhere come from if everything came from somewhere?
Did somewhere come from nowhere?

"Somewhere," to the best of my knowledge, comes from Middle English, the first written instance dating from 1200.

Quote:

This is the fallacious reasoning behind the question. That everything came from somewhere.
There is no law (scientific or otherwise) that says everything came from somewhere. Its the standard theistic sloppy reasoning and thats what is behind the question.

It seems to me basic common sense that everything within the universe has a history, & thus that the question "where did such-and-such come from?" is always a legitimate question. I suppose it's even legitimate to ask where the universe as a whole came from, though for some time I've found it much less interesting than most other topics.

Quote:

That implied somewhere is God.

Again, God was *specifically* and *explicitly* excluded from the question. That it is very likely fromtheright's opinion that rights do derive somehow from God is irrelevant to this thread as he has structured it: he wants to know what *we* think.

Quote:

You need to tell us why God does not need to come from somewhere yet everything else needs to come from somewhere.

"You"? Are you under the impression that I'm a theist?

Quote:

When this illogical reasoning is elimimnated, the question wont arise.
So long as we address fallacious questions like this, we will end up operating under the wrong framework and that may well render even the most well thought out answers as invalid.

Its a waste of time to figure out where the dragon that ate Maria came from when asked:
"Where did the dragon that are Maria come from?"
Its a waste of time because dragons don't exist.

And that would be relevant if fromtheright had declared or implied that the dragon God existed--but he didn't.

Quote:

The question is fallacious and does not deserve an answer but requires rephrasing.

Because the question isn't fallacious, your contempt for it is misplaced.

Quote:

Rambling and babbling about fallacious ideas and pandering to illogical questions dont happen to be my forte. When you are interested in a rigorous discussion, just let me know.
This is a philosophical forum FYI. We dont tolerate crap. Take it to miscellaneaous discussions or rants and raves.

Rigorous interpretation and discussion requires separating what someone believes (but hasn't said) from what they actually did say. Determining what someone has said, and then deciding what an appropriate response is, is legitimate philosophy. On the other hand, not only is your apprehension faulty, but your tone and language have fallen below the level acceptable in the philosophical forums.

Blake

Ted Hoffman · 04-17-2002, 09:17 AM

Bill, Bill, Bill...

Quote:

It would only be irresponsible if, in fact, the question poser wanted to participate in a discussion.

If the poser did wasnt interested in participating in the discussion, it would be even worse. It would mean asking "Which dragons exist in hell?". Then saying you dont care to explain whether dragons exist or not. You just want an answer.
It may be not irresponsible but mischiveous. If that were the case.
Even if that were the case (that he is not interested in participating), we dont have to entertain him. We have standards and we dont have to compromise them just to make him happy. He needs to know philosophical discussions have no room for sloppy thinking. He simply has to pull his socks up.
Maybe the moderators should tell him next time he wants to take a poll, he should take it to miscellaneous discussions.
In any case, he said :

Quote:

my intent was simply as I stated, just curious, since I disagree so strongly with so many of you, what y'all think on this question.

Well, fromtheright, I think the question is wrong.

Quote:

"Somewhere," to the best of my knowledge, comes from Middle English, the first written instance dating from 1200.

Indeed. Your flair of Middle English is astounding.

Quote:

It seems to me basic common sense that everything within the universe has a history, & thus that the question "where did such-and-such come from?" is always a legitimate question.

Its not always a legitimate question. It is legitimate in ordinary life - like in a pub or at a football stadium. Not in a philosophical forum (especially after phrasing the question to imply that things either come from God or are bestowed by natural law). Bifurcation and falacies of presuppositions are not entertained in philosophical discussions.

Quote:

I suppose it's even legitimate to ask where the universe as a whole came from, though for some time I've found it much less interesting than most other topics.

Its legitimate alright. So long as you dont ask "If the Universe did not come from God - then where did it come from?" Its telling someone "if you don't provide an alternative answer, then It came from God". This kind of questioning is used by people planning to argue from ignorance. ie Since there is no other known source of the universe, it must be God.

Quote:

Again, God was *specifically* and *explicitly* excluded from the question

He wasn't excluded. He was implied as the only other possible source(besides nature) of human rights.

Human rights don't have to have a source. For example the foodchain did not come from somewhere and this reasoning that everything must come from somewhere is wrong. Human rights are not a phenomena. We might as well start asking "If pornography did not come from God, then where did it come from?".

Quote:

And that would be relevant if fromtheright had declared or implied that the dragon God existed--but he didn't

Oh yes he did imply that God existed. God is not the source of ANYTHING, leave alone human rights.
Because he does not exist.
He should have steered clear off the "If..

Quote:

Rigorous interpretation and discussion requires separating what someone believes (but hasn't said) from what they actually did say. Determining what someone has said, and then deciding what an appropriate response is, is legitimate philosophy.

We are not simpleminded. He implied it. If he did not, he should have no problem rephrasing the question and leaving God and "come from" out of the question.
Its like someone finding his money stolen and asking "If you did not steal my money then who did it?"
Of course you would not appreciate the "insinuation" that you are a thief. The person, if he did ask a honest question would quickly rephrase the question and apologise.
Which is not the case here.

Quote:

On the other hand, not only is your apprehension faulty, but your tone and language have fallen below the level acceptable in the philosophical forums.

I am glad you are now interested in a discussion. Sometimes we in the philosophical forums have to use strong language to remind people this is not smalltalk we are engaging in. This is a serious discussion.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-16-2002, 09:30 AM	#52
jpbrooks Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Chicago Posts: 774	Sorry about my sporadic contribution to this interesting topic. I'll be back online later with my responses.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.