|
| Thread: Morals; Ethics; Philosophy; Religion, Science, Law, Organisms, and Rights |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 22, 2013 07:35 PM |
|
|
master_learn:
I said that a society is nothing more than a collection of individuals, not that any collection of individuals is a society. Obviously, two people are not a society.Quote:
I don't see any criminal that agrees to be put in prison for breaking rights.
No, but he should agree, as he benefits from having rights - and gets a greater benefit from having them than he would from being able to do as he pleases. Therefore, if he fully understood his self-interest, he would agree.
artu:
If it's conditional for cultural and environmental factors, then it is arbitrary, because culture is largely arbitrary. And if moral relativists think that what's internal is subjective, they're right if they're taken in the broadest possible sense, but in the sense that I'm talking about, there are great commonalities between people. Human nature exists, and if relativists deny it, they're simply wrong.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 08:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals.
Society is much more than a collection of individuals. It's a conglomerate of interests which are shared between a group of people and which ultimately result in social organization and (eventually) laws which help for the fulfilment of these interest. It's been like this ever since the pre-historic times (or at least since the neolith, if you're looking for state-like structures). Some interest are common for everyone or nearly everyone - like the interest to stay alive - and they form the society in its broadest form. Others could be narrower and not shared between everyone - like, say, the interest to express any kind of sexual orientation without fear of "counteractions" - they form smaller society within the larger society (because these same people share the interest to stay alive with the people who don't share the interest of the former to freely express "abnormal" sexual orientation). There are also interests which may not be shared by anyone - but they are no longer "social" interests and quite often are anti-social. In the end, it's all about balancing between these interest groups and deciding to what extent the interest of one group is compatible with the interest of another and if they can be recognized on a large scale as effective regulations.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 09:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals.
Zeno said a lot about it in his last post. Society is WAY more than a collection of individuals.
Quote:
Therefore, human rights are a question of how individuals should restrict themselves when dealing with others. So if humans are recognizing rights, it only means that they agree that some authority can bring them to justice if they violate those rights.
No, accepting restrictions and agreeing to some authority that may bring you to justice, are two different things.
Quote:
Quote:
nor is a complete paradise necessarily good for the individual or the society, since a society without any threat may just slacken and degenerate
This sounds a lot like a coping mechanism. As someone else once aptly put it, "If people got hit on the head by a baseball bat every week, pretty soon they would invent reasons why getting hit on the head with a baseball bat was a good thing. But if you took someone who wasn't being hit on the head with a baseball bat, and you asked them if they wanted it, they would say no." If people are happy, there is no problem.
I don't see a point here, just a bit of stirring in the pot. Biology works that way that everything not used will vanish. If you do not use a muscle it will shrink. If you don't use your brain, it gets slower. If there are no threats, people forget how to deal with them. Threats - stimuli to keep sharp and alert - are necessary for development.
Quote:
Quote:
who knows what is "best"? Depends on what you actually want and expect from the society you live in, right?
You yourself said that rights exist to prevent conflict,
Not that I know of. I said, that human rights are the axioms of society that regulate the conflict in interest between the desires and needs of the individual and the necessities of a functioning society (which should be, in the end, beneficial for all).
Quote:
so if someone wants something that would increase conflict in the course of its enforcement, then that's bad.
Not for someone who's good at conflicts.
Quote:
For example, if people establish a government to prevent each other from aggressing against each other, then that reduces conflict - it's in everybody's self-interest to agree to this. But if someone goes beyond conflict prevention, they risk creating a rule that would undermine conflict prevention.
Not necessarily so. There will always be "aggressions" when people live close to each other - the question is how they are resolved. That is, what kind of rules there are. You could resolve these kinds of things with duels, games, fights - or at court, and doubtlessly with a plethora of other methods.
Quote:
I think part of the problem is that you define freedom as "being able to do whatever you want", and I'm using it as "being able to do whatever you want as long as you don't harm others".
That's educational heritage. If you think about it, there is no reason why you should generally NOT harm others, if they are in your way. There is no obligation or anything, except to the people that brought you up. Considering how small societies were in the beginning and how hard survival, you'd rather fight for a good hunting ground, instead of leave it to others or share it. There is no absolute rule that says violence is no option, and because of that, trust may be able to gain a lot, but also to lose everything, while hitting first will at least secure survival.
In that sense every human is "free" to do everything they want. "As long as you don't harm others", is a voluntary restriction that needs already a lot of civilization and philosophy to be implemented.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 09:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If it's conditional for cultural and environmental factors, then it is arbitrary, because culture is largely arbitrary. And if moral relativists think that what's internal is subjective, they're right if they're taken in the broadest possible sense, but in the sense that I'm talking about, there are great commonalities between people. Human nature exists, and if relativists deny it, they're simply wrong.
First of all, culture is hardly arbitrary, culture is not so different than laws yet less analytical and it's passed on orally or by behavioral example instead of written texts. Cultures are simply the sum of methods, habits, cautions, technics societies found out through out the years to survive and prosper. Cultures don't evolve for fun.
There are of course commonalities between people but at such a general level, you can't base a sufficient normative system on that. Let me give you an extreme example,(Muslims I debate with love to bring this one up, because it's one of the things Islam outlawed). Back in medieval nomadic societies of Arabia, they used to bury their babies if it was a girl too many times in a row. Men constantly dying in wars was already unbalancing the population, so this was their answer. See, even if we come up with something as common and sensible as "not killing your own child" as a moral imperative, we find a society that's moral norms contradict with it. I know this is an extreme example but its purpose is to poke you into thinking the not so extreme ones. Humans evolved from sociable animals, they lived as packs, even hordes since the beginning, so it's not wrong to say that trying to maintain a group is somewhat a common thing in them. You can also say that things like murder or harm of other members of your own group WITHOUT A REASON is almost always forbidden, both by law and culturally. The reasons that cancel or by-pass those restrictions are quite variable though.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 09:45 PM |
|
|
Argh, quote wars.
JJ:
Quote:
Society is WAY more than a collection of individuals.
In the same sense that a company is more than a collection of people - which is to say, it isn't. There is no agent in society that is not an individual.
Quote:
No, accepting restrictions and agreeing to some authority that may bring you to justice, are two different things.
If you accept restrictions, you also accept that violations of those restrictions are dealt with by some entity. This entity is an authority. Otherwise, the restrictions don't mean anything.
Quote:
Threats - stimuli to keep sharp and alert - are necessary for development.
If you define "threat" that broadly (which is, by the way, a non-standard use of the word), that's obviously true, but not incompatible with living in a peaceful and prosperous society. As long as people want something (and they always will), there will always be some kind of stimulus.
Quote:
Not for someone who's good at conflicts.
Even if you're good at conflicts, it is still bad for you to initiate them.
Quote:
If you think about it, there is no reason why you should generally NOT harm others, if they are in your way.
You have a very limited understanding of human nature, then.
artu:
A lot of culture is arbitrary. Why do more Americans wear shoes indoors than people from other cultures? Why are many people in the West Christian and not pagan or Muslim? (I'm not looking for historical reasons, but for reasons as to why one is better than another.) Culture is quite arbitrary.
And I said that there are commonalities between people - human nature. Certainly cultures can be very different, but I'm not comparing them, I'm comparing the actual people.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 09:47 PM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 09:53 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:55, 22 May 2013.
|
Quote:
A lot of culture is arbitrary. Why do more Americans wear shoes indoors than people from other cultures? Why are many people in the West Christian and not pagan or Muslim? (I'm not looking for historical reasons, but for reasons as to why one is better than another.) Culture is quite arbitrary.
And I said that there are commonalities between people - human nature. Certainly cultures can be very different, but I'm not comparing them, I'm comparing the actual people.
Dude, what you said didn't add up, now you're just being stubborn and while trying to save your stance, this time, making VERY wrong statements.
How can you even begin to evaluate or analyze culture without looking at its historical background? And how can you isolate ACTUAL people from the culture they are raised in? What you're trying to build upon is as metaphysical as God granting us innate rights. Once again, you have build a phantasmagorical set of rules that don't depend on anything substantial.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 10:05 PM |
|
|
artu:
Quote:
How can you even begin to evaluate or analyze culture without looking at its historical background?
There's a difference between "historical background" in the sense of "historically, we didn't have much water, so we learned to save what we have" and "historical background" in the sense of "these people conquered our ancestors and now we have adopted our conquerors' religion". The former may still be a current issue, but the latter is no more than "this is what happened in the past, and we're arbitrarily continuing to do that".Quote:
And how can you isolate ACTUAL people from the culture they are raised in?
Very easily. You look at people and notice the commonalities in what is good for them. A lot of it is independent of culture. This is so foundationally obvious that I don't even know how to explain it to someone who doesn't understand.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 10:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Quote:
Society is WAY more than a collection of individuals.
In the same sense that a company is more than a collection of people - which is to say, it isn't. There is no agent in society that is not an individual.
I suppose you've heard this thing that this and that is more than the sum of their parts. Division of labor is a fairly obvious example...
Quote:
Quote:
No, accepting restrictions and agreeing to some authority that may bring you to justice, are two different things.
If you accept restrictions, you also accept that violations of those restrictions are dealt with by some entity. This entity is an authority. Otherwise, the restrictions don't mean anything.
No, that's not true. There are other concepts like "honor" and religion (later justice). People used to make their deals "per handshake". So while there will come the point in all societies when there will be worldly authorities that decide in cases of disagreement agreeing to restrictions may well be a completely voluntary thing without any judging or enforcing "agency", if the society in question is small enough.
Quote:
Quote:
Threats - stimuli to keep sharp and alert - are necessary for development.
If you define "threat" that broadly (which is, by the way, a non-standard use of the word), that's obviously true, but not incompatible with living in a peaceful and prosperous society. As long as people want something (and they always will), there will always be some kind of stimulus.
Societies can be too peaceful and too prosperous. Overpopulation may be a consequence. Falling victim to an outside attacker. And so on. You have to see this evolutionary: humans MUST have a certain aggressive potential, otherwise they couldn't have survided.
Quote:
Quote:
Not for someone who's good at conflicts.
Even if you're good at conflicts, it is still bad for you to initiate them.
Why would that be? One main point in aggression is to make it appear like the other party threw the first stone. You know, the famous "DRAW!", in those Western movies, and then the "HE DREW FIRST ON ME!"
Quote:
Quote:
If you think about it, there is no reason why you should generally NOT harm others, if they are in your way.
You have a very limited understanding of human nature, then.
That is of course a brillant and convincing last word, especially when we look at the world and the state it is in. It's strange that so many people seem to act against their nature.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 10:18 PM |
|
|
Indoctrination is not something arbitrary. People, in theory can, but usually don't choose their religion, something you're born into is not arbitrary. Maybe, we use the word differently, arbitrary to me is "which movie shall I watch today?"
Quote:
Very easily. You look at people and notice the commonalities in what is good for them. A lot of it is independent of culture. This is so foundationally obvious that I don't even know how to explain it to someone who doesn't understand.
And I guess you will be the one deciding those commonalities that are good for us? Just produce one basic rule to me that you think will work in every culture and in every possible condition in the future. I'm not asking for a constitution, one rule, one law, one right.
Also, people's choices or tastes can of course be independent from their culture but culture is never something as light as you took and it's effects are deeper than taking your shoes off inside or outside the building. You're just looking at the surface. That level of culture has nothing to with basic rights anyway.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 10:35 PM |
|
|
JJ:
It troubles me that you think a society can be too peaceful and too prosperous, but that's a topic for a different day.
artu:
Being born into a religion is arbitrary, just like being born in any particular place. Of course, picking a movie to watch is also arbitrary.
both:
Non-aggression is good for people, regardless of culture. There are two reasons for this. First, people value (and should value) self-preservation very highly, because no matter what they can get from plunder, someone could kill them, and that's much worse. Second, it is bad to be aggressive - not just for the victim, but for the aggressor as well. While in matters of life and death, when the choice is "aggress or die", it may be better to aggress, that's an individual decision, not a rule that should be enforced. It is objectively bad for human happiness to initiate force or fraud. So the non-aggression principle is a rule that is good regardless of culture.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 10:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Non-aggression is good for people, regardless of culture. There are two reasons for this. First, people value (and should value) self-preservation very highly, because no matter what they can get from plunder, someone could kill them, and that's much worse. Second, it is bad to be aggressive - not just for the victim, but for the aggressor as well. While in matters of life and death, when the choice is "aggress or die", it may be better to aggress, that's an individual decision, not a rule that should be enforced. It is objectively bad for human happiness to initiate force or fraud. So the non-aggression principle is a rule that is good regardless of culture.
No, you are DEAD wrong. While people value self-preservation, you can ALWAYS be killed, plundering or not, and it's always the question what you have to lose and what you might gain. Non-aggression is a great principle for those who have MUCH to lose, while it is disadvantageous for those who have not much or even nothing. Which means, it is in no way necessarily bad for happiness to initiate force or fraud - and if that WAS bad for happiness, we wouldn't have so much.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 10:47 PM |
|
|
arbitrary: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion.
Where you're born isn't arbitrary because you don't choose it.
Non-agression is a general situation not a specific right. I agree, we will be better off without being hostile towards each other. If it's a matter of staying alert and "in shape" we have enough ***t in this world for that anyway, natural disasters, disease, famine... I don't have a problem with supporting basic human rights, but the foundation of it is not hey, just look inside, universal morals are internal as you put it. It's just not something, or not the only thing you'll find when you look inside. There's also aggression and selfishness inside everybody. What you're supporting is an establishment that has been theorized. And there will be times when the theory and the practice contradict.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 10:57 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Even if you don't have much to lose, what you have to lose is your life, and if you lose your life, you lose everything - both everything you have and the potential to get anything in the future. Non-aggression is a great principle for any mentally healthy human.
artu:
Perhaps "arbitrary" is not the right word, then. I can't think of the right word right now, but the meaning that I am using is "not determined by reason, random".
And if the non-aggression principle is good, then it follows that one has the right to not be aggressed against.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 10:58 PM |
|
|
|
The foundation for non-aggression is a certain level of social equality. Decent living conditions for everyone, and a real chance to improve your situation by non-aggressive means.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 11:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Even if you don't have much to lose, what you have to lose is your life, and if you lose your life, you lose everything - both everything you have and the potential to get anything in the future. Non-aggression is a great principle for any mentally healthy human.
artu:
Perhaps "arbitrary" is not the right word, then. I can't think of the right word right now, but the meaning that I am using is "not determined by reason, random".
And if the non-aggression principle is good, then it follows that one has the right to not be aggressed against.
You are willfully ignoring history. You also make preposterous conclusions.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 11:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And if the non-aggression principle is good, then it follows that one has the right to not be aggressed against.
Not to be aggressed against is too general, it's at the level of being vague as a right. Let's say I have a kid and I think that the government is evil and public schools teach non-sense. I decide not to send him to school. I decide to home-school him with my conspiracy theories. The state says every child has a right to a proper education, gives me a warning first, I don't back off and they decide to take him away from me. Am I being agressed against?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 11:12 PM |
|
|
artu:
No, you are not, because you are raising your child poorly and your child has the right to be raised well. Therefore, you are violating your child's rights, and it is not aggression to use corrective force against rights violators.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 11:18 PM |
|
|
|
And did you come to that conclusion by simply looking inside your heart? Or is it a set of ideas and principles that are not at all universal or beyond culture that made you say that. To some people the right to teach your kid whatever you want is a much more universal thing than your principle of proper education and when they take their "internal" morals, they reach a totally different conclusion.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 11:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
To some people the right to teach your kid whatever you want is a much more universal thing
I'm sure they believe that, just like I'm sure that some hunter-gatherers believe that the sun revolves around the Earth. Both are wrong. As far as knowledge goes, it's not just from introspection but also from observation of other people. I think the word "internal" may be causing some confusion. I don't mean that morality is something that can be derived by sitting alone in a dark room, never interacting with anyone. I mean that some things are good for humans in general (and any one person in specific) because of universal human nature. "Internal" contrasts with "external", where "external" is "This is what's morally good, regardless of whether it's good for you."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
