What is the true source of rights?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by pjohns, Sep 14, 2017.

  1. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Please. If there is an omniscient being(god), then one only has an illusion of free will.

    But I'm interested in what you have done, or will do, that god didn't or wouldn't know about. How you tricked an omniscient being.
     
  2. upside222

    upside222 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    1,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why wouldn't it be in your self-interest? It would lessen competition for resources wouldn't it?
     
    ESTT likes this.
  3. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What about people who have never heard of Christianity?
     
  4. ESTT

    ESTT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,150
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Technically yes, but the consequences of prison, and the fact that I am satisfied with the amount of resources I have, make it something I don't want to do.
     
  5. upside222

    upside222 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    1,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you have a *right* to kill others then why would you be in prison?

    What would you do if you *didn't* have the resources? If you were one of the participants in "Naked and Afraid" would you kill the other participant in order to have something to eat?
     
    ESTT likes this.
  6. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I gave what you asked for...
     
  7. ESTT

    ESTT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,150
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I'm not allowed to kill others under normal circumstances. The mental pluralist, standard-human normative "regime" that runs society makes it unfavorable to kill another person that is not a physical threat to yourself or others. As a participant in a television show, I would go to prison. Though I'm sure you meant the scenario presented in "Naked and Afraid" itself. I wouldn't kill the other person with me if I found them decent enough. It would be better to try and work together in order to survive. We would have to find a way to share what little resources there were. Perhaps with two people, there might even be a chance of gathering resources more efficiently. Especially if it came to hunting animals. Now if the other person was someone I view as an undesirable, then I would have no issue putting them down in order to have what little food there was to myself.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2017
  8. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you have any intention of providing evidence that objective morality exists? Or do you just want to play games?
     
  9. upside222

    upside222 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    1,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why are you not allowed? Is it some kind of internal restriction, i.e. a conscience, or is it because the other person has a right to life as well as you?

    Several times N&P participants have to "tap out" because they simply don't have enough food resources to survive. Exactly what makes someone "undesirable"?

    We are arguing whether might makes right. Forget the rest of society. If might makes right then why would killing someone "decent" be off the table?
     
    ESTT likes this.
  10. ESTT

    ESTT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,150
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I wouldn't kill another person due to the potential consequences imposed by society. I suppose that could be considered a form of internal restriction. It might even be conscience-based in terms of specific individuals. As for the other person having a right to life, I couldn't exactly say. I'm don't even think I have that right myself.

    I didn't know the show's participants ever quit. I've never watched any episodes myself. Is it an interesting series to see?
    As for what makes someone undesirable, it really depends on the individual. For me, it tends to be rapists, pedophiles, and most types of murderers. Or any person that causes me emotional distress, often in the form of their political opinions or religious beliefs (though I can more easily tolerate the political opinions). There are also plenty of other types, for example, those that certain groups on the internet would refer to as "haters" or "trolls".

    Excluding rest of society, I wouldn't kill someone I consider decent simply because of that fact. They don't have a hostile temperament, severe difference of opinion, or, to my knowledge, haven't commited an act I am against. This might be where conscience comes in. Where it might feel wrong to cause harm to someone that my mind doesn't consider "a negative".

    I'll try my best to explain this. I believe might makes right simply in the sense that those who are victorious decide what will be acceptable to a society.
     
  11. upside222

    upside222 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    1,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you don't have a right to life then where does the urge for self-defense against an attacker come from?

    Watching the start of the episodes to see how they build shelters and start fires is interesting. After that it's pretty boring to me.

    In other words those who believe in the meme of "might makes right"! Since you apparently believe in the same meme then why aren't *you* an undesirable?

    In other words you don't feel people are entitled to their own opinions? Interesting.

    You are obviously trying to rationalize to yourself a meme you really don't believe in yourself. When "society" determines a person's rights then all kinds of bad results inevitably happen - slavery, the Holocaust, Pol Pot's killing fields, etc. These are *really* hard to rationalize away!
     
  12. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you have any evidence that morality is just subjective? (That seems to me like the core belief of moral relativism; which is a view of morality that I find highly suspect--to say the least,)
     
  13. ESTT

    ESTT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,150
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I wanted to let you know, I don't know how to make seperate quotes on these forums, so I will try my best to separate each answer:

    Even if I don't feel I have a right to life, my urge for self-defense comes simply from my desire to live.

    I will find out when the show is on and see it. Those parts do sound interesting. I used to watch another called "Dual Survival."

    I am obviously an undesirable to others just as they are to me. Similar to how the term "enemy", for example, is used.

    Personally, opposing opinions have never done me any good. In fact, they are at least half of the reason for my current state in life if nothing else. I suppose this is why I don't care whether others are entitled to their own opinions or not. If I see them as negative and not positive or neutral, then those individuals are considered mental opposition.

    An odd coincidence that you mentioned Pol Pot. I've just watched a film about a Cambodian family trying to survive the Khmer Rouge. Anyway, society deciding a person's rights does not always result in something bad. In a way, even for you. For example, it was once deeply believed as the right of a husband to "descipline" his wife. But the ruling society has taken that right away. It has also taken away the right to own slaves. Most of human society believes we are entitled to certain rights, and that is enforced. In a way, society still decides rights, it's just that now the society believes those rights don't come from themselves. The idea of natural rights becomes enforced after it defeats opposing ideologies. Also those results being bad can vary. The Holocaust was ideal for the Nazis, and had they succeeded, they would be living in their preferred version of the world. But for you and I, the fact that their regime was eliminated, is ideal for us. For the United State's Alt-Right, this is not ideal. Those historical events you mentioned are hard to dismiss. However from my perspective (while not as severe a comparison) I view, for example, the right of a person on the internet to insult an entire group of people and their interest, and be immune from any punishment as something "bad" allowed by the dominant society. The dominant society does not care what I think or how I feel. They make the rules that are right by them. They have the numbers and strength to enforce their will. I may not find it "right", but that doesn't change the fact of how things are.
     
    dairyair likes this.
  14. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Look at the world all all the differing rights, laws, morals. Entirely subjective to societies and the era.
     
  15. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't believe they are subjective. I just see no evidence that they are objective so I don't see any reason for anybody to believe in it. Look, if you don't have a good reason to believe in objective morality, just say so. I can sympathize if you believe because of your religious faith or emotional reasons.
     
  16. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, quite the opposite: I do believe in the objectivity of morality. (Did I do a poor job of making that apparent?)
     
  17. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know that you believe. But it seems like you don't have a logical reason for believing. Its all faith and emotion. If this is really how you think then just admit it instead of playing games.
     
  18. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Evidently, you are suggesting that it is "merely playing games" to not believe in moral relativism.

    Is this an accurate summary of your view?
     
  19. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope, you are playing games because I have asked for evidence up and down this God forsaken thread and I still don't have jack squat.
     
  20. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Evidence of what, exactly?

    Evidence that the whole world--except for you, of course, is playing by the wrong set of rules?

    Is that the evidence you seek?
     
  21. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the whole world can't give a logical explanation for their belief then yes it is totally reasonable to not believe in the whole world. The whole world once believed the world was flat and in was wrong. The whole world has been wrong many many times. And actually non-religious people tend to not believe in objective morality and we see them in more educated and advanced countries so you can't say the whole world agrees with you. And people who believe in objective morality can often have wildly different ideas on what is moral or not so even they can't even agree. And lastly, what you are bringing forward is an ad populum fallacy. So no, this isn't evidence.

    I really don't think you have any evidence. But its totally fine to have beliefs you don't have evidence for. None of us are perfect and can be quite irrational and hold on to beliefs even when we know they don't have any logical basis. But lets not criticize people who have logical beliefs that conflict with our irrational ones because they are actually more likely to be right than we are on those topics.
     
  22. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So, you are saying, then, that those in other countries, on average, are "more educated and advanced" than those in the US?

    I suppose that it is typical liberal hogwash to associate liberalism--or even democratic socialism--with "being more educated and advanced"...

    Close, but no cigar.

    I am not arguing merely that most people believe something; therefore, it must be correct.

    I am pointing out that you appear to be the only person who believes differently; so it seems quite likely that you are incorrect.

    Please do not patronize me.

    And let me be clear: I absolutely ABHOR the belief in anything that is irrational. No exceptions.

    I hope that is clear enough.

    Now, if you wish to claim that I am nonetheless being irrational, we can have that discussion.

    But no condescension, please.
     
  23. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The US is actually a lot less religious than average. A quarter of Americans aren't religious. And active church attendance and the amount who are very serious about their religion isn't that large. And the US is an outlier because it is more religious than one would expect for a nation of its advancement. But there is a clear correlation between the advancement of a nation and its non-religiosity.



    It doesn't really matter if the whole world beliefs something. If they don't have a scrap of evidence for it, then me being the only person to doubt is not a problem at all. If the whole world was justified in their belief they would be able to come up with a better reason than just "everyone believes it."

    And you have no evidence that I am the only person who does not believe in objective morality. In fact most non-religious people you will meet don't believe in objective morality.

    But the only reason you have given seems to be some version of "well everyone believes it." Maybe the reason you believe in objective morality is that your religion claims it exists and you have faith in your religion. That all you need to say and I will at least understand where you are coming from.
     
  24. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, which is it: Is the US "a lot less religious than average," or is it "an outlier because it is more religious than one would expect for a nation of its advancement"?

    You really cannot have it both ways.

    Oh, I see: It is reasonable enough (ex hypothesi) to believe that the entire world is wrong, except for you.

    I really am unaware of anyone else, whether religious or non-religious--except for relativists--who believes that there is simply no objective basis for morality.

    In fact, it seems to me that this is the very definition of moral relativism.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2017

Share This Page