09 Feb 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageVery well said! 🙂
If you're a non cognitivist, you'll see the problem with a statement like 'murder is wrong'.
Why make claims that natural rights have some sort of independent existence when they clearly don't? You produce the red herring and then propose that I should discuss it with John Locke ... Natural rights theory is simply wrong -- human rights are a contes ...[text shortened]... cussion is out of place in a science forum; I'll set Popper's ghost on you if you do.
12 Feb 10
8 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI did not say 'murder is objectively wrong'. I said it's my opinion that murder is wrong. I did not claim natural rights have some sort of independent existence. I told you this was all subjective a long time ago. I thought that cleared up this point of confusion before.
If you're a non cognitivist, you'll see the problem with a statement like 'murder is wrong'.
Why make claims that natural rights have some sort of independent existence when they clearly don't? You produce the red herring and then propose that I should discuss it with John Locke ... Natural rights theory is simply wrong -- human rights are a contes cussion is out of place in a science forum; I'll set Popper's ghost on you if you do.
"Granting rights" puts the moral authority on the granter, and makes the person who has the rights morally subordinate to the granter. It leads toward "divine right", top down morality sort of thinking, where what is moral is what the government decides is moral. With this notion of "granting" rights, one could end up with some sort of absurd situation such as a country where torturing innocent Christians is considered perfectly moral because the Muslim government didn't "grant" the Christians rights. It doesn't make sense.
The point of rights is that the rulers are NOT morally superordinate to the people; rights trump government when they come into conflict; not the other way around - government doesn't grant rights. Government cannot grant or ungrant them. If they try the people are justified in violent rebellion against the evil government that refuses to protect their rights.
All of this is of course the subjective opinion which my nation and the international community officially use to inform their legal systems, and all of this is implied when we refer to entities having "human style" rights.
12 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThanks for acknowledging the subjectivity of the whole business.
"Granting rights" puts the moral authority on the granter, and makes the person who has the rights morally subordinate to the granter. It leads toward "divine right", top down morality sort of thinking, where what is moral is what the government decides is moral. With this notion of "granting" rights, one could end up with some sort of absurd situ , and all of this is implied when we refer to entities having "human style" rights.
Regimes resort to fiction when they seek to justify their oppression. The divine right of kings was one such fiction; the fiction of natural rights was invented to eliminate it (a frame for the grand narrative of Revolution). Now we have all sorts of other fictions invoked to justify practices like 'extraordinary rendition', torture and devastating war -- although some still use the the 'natural right to rebel' as an excuse to justify murder, such as occurred in the RIRA attack last year.
What if you wanted to extend some sort of legal protection to dolphins? How would you go about it?
12 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThanks for acknowledging the subjectivity of the whole business.
Thanks for acknowledging the subjectivity of the whole business.
Regimes resort to fiction when they seek to justify their oppression. The divine right of kings was one such fiction; the fiction of natural rights was invented to eliminate it (a frame for the grand narrative of Revolution). Now we have all sorts of other fictions invoked to justify f you wanted to extend some sort of legal protection to dolphins? How would you go about it?
I did that on page 3 😕 That's why I have been so confused by the last four pages.
I'll think about your question.