Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kyle Smyth · 05-14-2002, 10:27 AM

I don?t see how one could be concerned about the quantity of humanity, unless I am mistaken in thinking that the quantity of humanity is merely a number denoting how many of us there happen to be, nor do I see how my arguments might be construed to give the impression that I am. If I am misreading your intended meaning behind the quantity of humanity then please excuse me and be so kind as to furnish a definition for me, thanks.

To answer your question, no, I am not concerned about the quantity of humanity since it seems that the greater the standard of living the less of a problem population becomes, I am concerned with the quality of humanity. Of course I believe that the greatest quality of humanity can only be achieved when all are given equal opportunity to exploit their innate and or environmentally derived strengths to their life. Like I said, the only way to cater to a diverse group is to maintain an equally applied base of rights.

jpbrooks · 05-17-2002, 10:34 AM

I'm extremely sorry about this late reply, but I did suggest that I would try to respond when I could. Learning how to write Javascript programs is a lot more difficult and time consuming than I thought it would be a few weeks ago. Fortran and Basic are much easier to learn than Javascript.

Since my response is so late (and my time is limited), I won't provide long detailed replies.

Quote:

Originally posted by IntenSity:
[QB]

Mentally retarded people and kids cannot meaningfully participate in law-making because they lack the capacity to even comprehend what law making is. To involve them in the process would either make them sicker(by subjecting them to stress) or make the process a charade.

So since these people cannot participate in the law-making process, on what basis, other than the will of the dominant group in the "society", do the laws apply to those people?

Quote:

I disagree. Society developed pornography. We cannot say that pornography existed before societies developed. I would use the same argument on human rights.
When the hunter-gatherer man dwelt on earth, human-rights did not exist because HR is an artifact of civilization. A primitive person has no capacity to know he is "human" he only identifies himself as another animal on the planet and focuses on how to survive. Killing the "wife" of a stone age man would create either fear in him or agression - purely primal survival instincts. He would not dwell on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the act or the injustice.
Later, as the society developed, things that make us feel fear, pain, agression etc were outlawed as survival for the fittest is diminished.

As one who values individuality, it is difficult for me to admit this, but humans are social beings. So, I'm not sure that our species could have even survived (long) living strictly as individuals. So, it is not clear that there could have been a period of time where some "societal" group did not exist.

Quote:

In the absence of an arbitrating neutral body (presumably like the UN), its a plain "clash" (Of civilizations?) and people simply have to fight for their survival. Similar societies could become allies of either sides and it would make some interesting war of some sort.

I agree but making a decision to go to war against another "society" involves making judgments and decisions about the behavior of "societies", which, in the present view, cannot be evaluated as "right" or "wrong" until the war is over and the strongest side has won.

Quote:

Are your pursuits academic or personal?

They are personal now, but my interest in them grew out of things that I was/am exposed to in my classes at school. (I'm only a part time undergraduate student now since I started working for the university.)

Quote:

If there were no civilization (enlightenement and renaissance) there would be no rationalizations or personal evaluations of behaviour. People would operate based on selfish (and usually fleeting) interests NOT common good, or social obligations or sense of justice.

If this were the case, then it is not clear how civilization could have arisen. "Civility" seems to require personal evaluations of behavior.

Quote:

When its up to the individual, then they dont really exist. Might would reign supreme. Not right.

Again, it is difficult to see how making all rights relative only to "societies" avoids basing "right" on might.

(Well, back to "script" writing.)

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Gurdur · 05-18-2002, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IntenSity:

I disagree. Society developed pornography. We cannot say that pornography existed before societies developed.

Wrong.
Unless you banalise the concept of "society" into meaninglessness, then there's a fair chance that erotica and even porno have existed as long as Homo sapiens sapiens has; I direct your attention to the prehistoric "Venus di Milo" clay figurines.

Quote:

I would use the same argument on human rights.
When the hunter-gatherer man dwelt on earth, human-rights did not exist because HR is an artifact of civilization.

Nonsense.
All hunter/gatherer societies existing till today which are/were relatively stable and not in immediate disintergration have often extremely complex systems of laws, traditions, tabus and morals.
There is no reason to believe that prehistoric groups would have been any different.

Quote:

A primitive person has no capacity to know he is "human" he only identifies himself as another animal on the planet and focuses on how to survive.

Nonsense.
See the extremely rich body of anthropological studies on art, song, dance and the like in so-called "primitive" societies, as well as of course prehistoric cave and bone art.

Quote:

Killing the "wife" of a stone age man would create either fear in him or agression - purely primal survival instincts. He would not dwell on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the act or the injustice.

Nonsense.
I amazed at such omniscience flying in the face of all anthropological and evolutionary psychological evidence.

Quote:

Later, as the society developed, things that make us feel fear, pain, agression etc were outlawed as survival for the fittest is diminished.

Ah, that explains the illegality of earthquakes and landslides.

____________________

WHERE DO RIGHTS COME FROM ?

Short answer (and I'll develop on this theme at length a little later):

They come from the conceptual building-up upon already inherent cognitive/emotional tendencies built in by evolutionary psychology.

[ May 18, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

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

05-14-2002, 10:27 AM	#121
Kyle Smyth Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: St.Paul MN Posts: 11	I don?t see how one could be concerned about the quantity of humanity, unless I am mistaken in thinking that the quantity of humanity is merely a number denoting how many of us there happen to be, nor do I see how my arguments might be construed to give the impression that I am. If I am misreading your intended meaning behind the quantity of humanity then please excuse me and be so kind as to furnish a definition for me, thanks. To answer your question, no, I am not concerned about the quantity of humanity since it seems that the greater the standard of living the less of a problem population becomes, I am concerned with the quality of humanity. Of course I believe that the greatest quality of humanity can only be achieved when all are given equal opportunity to exploit their innate and or environmentally derived strengths to their life. Like I said, the only way to cater to a diverse group is to maintain an equally applied base of rights.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.