Rights are not self-evident

[Oreoracle]

I think it’s called a bullet.

For fun! Geez, do you understand nothing?

I don’t see what’s so embarrassing about my asking why an intruder would wish to kill me. But since you both think my response was such a faux pas, perhaps you could explain? Even the most maniacal of criminals don’t typically kill “just because they can” or “just for fun.” It usually has something to do with pent-up hatred or a brief passing of rage. It takes quite a lot to alter one’s priorities to the extent that they would even consider killing another human. Either a) they were born without the disinclination toward killing others that’s inherent in our psyches or b) some emotional imbalance is occurring.

Do you think Muslim terrorists begin their lives without the genetic information inclining them to protect their species? No, it takes years of cultural programming to convince them that you are not valuable and that they will be rewarded for your death. It isn’t because they don’t believe in Yahweh. Come on, you can both do better than this.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Either a) they were born without the disinclination toward killing others that’s inherent in our psyches or b) some emotional imbalance is occurring.

Do you think Muslim terrorists begin their lives without the genetic information inclining them to protect their species? No, it takes years of cultural programming to convince them that you are not valuable and that they will be rewarded for your death. It isn’t because they don’t believe in Yahweh. Come on, you can both do better than this.

No. The reason he might wish to kill you is to silence you.

And you do NOT have any genetic programming to “protect the species” (give me a break).

 

[Kamalayka]

This thread is largely a response on my part to the general impression I have developed of the way people, particularly those raised in the what might be called the Western, humanist tradition, tend to think about morality. It seems that everywhere I go (though it may just be around the campus here) people have such a blatant naïveté, that I can’t help but feel like I’ve stumbled into a Dostoevsky novel (“The Idiot”) and all the caricatured progressives are constantly demanding their rights. What rights? Well, people speak of rights as though the mere assertion of a right creates a right. In fact, I’ve come to realize (after a reaquaintance with Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes and all those characters) that this idea of the “right” is a cornerstone of contemporary western, humanist morality. This bothers me.

Why does it bother me? I’ll be frank. People do not have rights. Rights simply do not exist in the sense of the word which most people invoke when they speak of them. As an idea, they were invented by Thomas Hobbes and Hugo Grotius (though mostly Hobbes). In fact, they were invented my Muslim jurists during what Westerners call the Middle ages, but as fat the West is concerned, they sprung from the mind of Hobbes. My question the, is why is it that westerners (especially those of them who are ardent secularists) quote Thomas Hobbes like scripture? What Council confirmed the inerrancy of “Leviathan”? Most of them, of course, have never read a page of Hobbes. And I have a feeling that if they did, they would be dismayed at this crassly totalitarian thinker, the man who conceived “the right.”

Ironically, Hobbes did not think that men “had” rights, but were merely given them by the government, and they could be taken away at any time for any reason. With Hobbes’s view, one cannot say that the genocide in Sudan is a rights violation. He who giveth (Government) hath taken away again, the right to life of the people to be deprived of it.

Ultimately, I don’t really have a thesis. What I have is a question. How can anyone postulate that another human being can or can’t do something on the basis that it violates someone’s “rights”, and honestly believe that they’re making a claim that is theologically neutral, that it is somehow in a different category from the claim of the Muslim that an act is immoral because it offends Allah, or that of a Christian who calls an act immoral because it is written so in scripture? Why am I forced by my citizenship to *believe *in human rights? Because they are consented to be true by the people? What then of religious toleration in a country that is 90% Christian, or better yet, almost 100% Muslim? Does a government really have “the right” to assert that their rights-based systems are more reasonable than the theocratic systems of Islam? I am quite willing to argue that the Islamic juristic system is much more consistent and sound than the deontological western one.

If not consent, then what? Power. We are in fact living in a theocracy. The fact that the rights system doesn’t assert the existence of a god is, I am convinced, why many westerners, especially liberals and secularists, think it to be superior to other juristic systems. This is simply moronic, for one could just as easily assert the truth of the entirety of the Shari ‘a without asserting the existence of a god, but simply holding that the laws are “just there.” Doing this would make just as much sense as what westerners do when they assert the existence of rights out of thin air.

So while these air-headed college kids who belong to STAND (an anti-Sudanese genocide group) shun to claim that what the genocidaires are doing is immoral, they eagerly and self-righteously claim that they are violating their victims rights. What I contest is that such a claim is meaningless, because either Sudan decides what rights the Sudanese have, or we’re going to have to scrap Hobbes. And then t whom will we turn? Hugo Grotius practically invented international law, how about him? Oops, his theory was based the universality of Christian morality, I guess not. How then do we justify our pretentions? Where can one find one’s rights? In the pineal gland? And what exactly is so bad about genocide?

I have a question:

Do you feel that you are above most people?

 

[Oreoracle]

No. The reason he might wish to kill you is to silence you.

Silence me so that I won’t say what? I’m not an outspoken person, though I am what some would call “opinionated.” But that really doesn’t matter because he wouldn’t know that I’m opinionated.

Or would he wish to kill me so that I won’t report his intrusion to the authorities? That doesn’t make much sense. Why would he step into my house for no reason other than to kill me because I would then be obliged to report him? Is this burglary? Tony didn’t mention theft.

And you do NOT have any genetic programming to “protect the species” (give me a break).

Sure we do. For example, you are biologically programmed to find small, soft things with big eyes (human infants) cute, so that you won’t smash their heads with a mallet when they begin crying. This “cuteness” factor carries on to puppies and so on. Those sexual desires are programmed too, but we won’t go there…

 

[Dionysus]

I don’t see what’s so embarrassing about my asking why an intruder would wish to kill me. But since you both think my response was such a faux pas, perhaps you could explain? Even the most maniacal of criminals don’t typically kill “just because they can” or “just for fun.” It usually has something to do with pent-up hatred or a brief passing of rage. It takes quite a lot to alter one’s priorities to the extent that they would even consider killing another human. Either a) they were born without the disinclination toward killing others that’s inherent in our psyches or b) some emotional imbalance is occurring.

Do you think Muslim terrorists begin their lives without the genetic information inclining them to protect their species? No, it takes years of cultural programming to convince them that you are not valuable and that they will be rewarded for your death. It isn’t because they don’t believe in Yahweh. Come on, you can both do better than this.

My post was half sarcastic (but only half).

Also, do you think it wise to exclude the possibility that someone could “educate one’s conscience”, that is, once one comes to “know” that morality is nothing but habit, and that there is no logical reason to obey it, that one could commit “immoral” actions wholly logically and simply learn to ignore his conscience? I know of many infamous murderers who were not psychopaths at all (the Mafia has been full of these types). many murderers tend to adopt some variation of moral nihilism. You might argue that they do this to justify their actions, but it is not outside the realm of possibility that more people that we generally think have the required ‘morbidity’ to kill, but their consciences simply suppress this morbidity. Do you honestly think that if the entirety of the population were suddenly convinced that morality is nonexistent, that it is simply a habit, residue from the fetal stage or some Freudian thing like that, that more people wouldn’t be immoral?

All this of course assumes that it is the murderers that are morbid. Couldn’t one just as easily say that they are liberated, and that we who are revolted by killing are simply closed-minded, perhaps even suffering from an irrational, neurotic fear the act of murder? And that the ‘morbid’ behavior of the murderer is just the result of our alienating of him?

But I’m no psychologist. Just an idea

Also, some sociologist wrote a renowned book about how religious fanaticism was not sufficient to motivate someone to become a suiicide bomber. I forget his name, but I’ll look for him.

I have work to do. I’m done with this for tonight.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Silence me so that I won’t say what? I’m not an outspoken person, though I am what some would call “opinionated.” But that really doesn’t matter because he wouldn’t know that I’m opinionated.

Or would he wish to kill me so that I won’t report his intrusion to the authorities? That doesn’t make much sense. Why would he step into my house for no reason other than to kill me because I would then be obliged to report him? Is this burglary? Tony didn’t mention theft.

You are speculating that a person is going to be holding a gun to your head for no reason at all in the first place??

Sure we do. For example, you are biologically programmed to find small, soft things with big eyes (human infants) cute, so that you won’t smash their heads with a mallet when they begin crying. This “cuteness” factor carries on to puppies and so on. Those sexual desires are programmed too, but we won’t go there…

I assure you, you have totally been misled by those presumptuous deductions. You might as well accept the great cosmic muffin story. You have accepted a “plausible” story as fact. The story happens to be wrong, entirely and insidiously wrong.

 

[Dionysus]

I have a question:

Do you feel that you are above most people?

Do you have a particular reason for asking me this question? Or just an aversion to six paragraph essays written on online forums?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Do you have a particular reason for asking me this question? Or just an aversion to six paragraph essays written on online forums?

Quite a few here do that. They are involved in too many struggles to maintain non-presumptive politeness. Might as well get used to it popping up occasionally.

 

[Kamalayka]

Do you have a particular reason for asking me this question? Or just an aversion to six paragraph essays written on online forums?

Reading your first paragraph gave the impression.
Who are you to judge an entire society of people, especially in such harsh tones?

I have to admit that I only skimmed through your post, but it seems you believe in moral relativism. Is that correct?

The majority decided what is right or wrong?

How did that work in Nazi Germany?​

I am sure that you do not live in a socialism or under a dictator. You most likely have lived your entire life in a democracy.

If you expressed your views to someone who has lived in such circumstances, it would be a reality check.​

Here is the answer to your question:

To those of us who do believe in God, we see rights as God-given, that every human being has dignity and is worthy of respect.

To the atheists and materialists, I suppose rights are just vague ideas which are created to allow civilization to function.​

Personally, I think philosophy is the biggest pile of nonsense on earth. Go out and live life. Our views on what rights are have no significant value to reality.

You come up with a new way of looking at the same old reality. Big Whoop.

 

[tonyrey]

                                                                  Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5750740#post5750740)                 
             *What would you say if a man entered your house, pointed a gun at you and said:

“Give me one good reason why I shouldn’t kill you”?*

Assuming that I’m not in a state of panic, I would reply, “Do you have one good reason why you should?”

Man: “Don’t beat about the bush. I am waiting for your answer…”?

 

[James_S_Saint]

You come up with a new way of looking at the same old reality. Big Whoop.

Haha… I love the pragmatist.

It’s also called, “Get a life,”

 

[Oreoracle]

Man: “Don’t beat about the bush. I am waiting for your answer…”?

Me: “And I’m waiting for yours. You don’t have any reason to kill me, do you? Did you come here just to hear my response? Were you hoping I’d persuade you to believe that life is valuable? But why would you question such a thing? Does the gravity of our current situation not speak for itself? Are you sweating?” D)

Out of curiosity, how would you respond? Do you really think hearing the same ol’ rhetoric about God and rights would dissuade a murderer? I think it would be far more effective to make the murderer realize that they don’t even have a reason to kill you. Would it offer any satisfaction to them? Perhaps, but then only briefly.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

.

By my understanding of Kant’s morality (I’ve only read of it through other writers), his argument boils down to something like, that humans are only capable of living as though there were an absolute moral system, therefore it is absurd to postulate otherwise. The irony of this argument is that, while it doesn’t require the existence of a deity, the very same logic behind it could easily be used to prove the existence of a deity. I a person can’t conceive the idea of living in a world without a deity (I think of Mitya from “The Brothers Karamazov”: if Christ were outside of the truth, then I would choose Christ instead of the truth", or something like that) then there must be one.

I’m going, by the way, on the summary of Kant’s thought by Will Durant, a historian of philosophy, so my understanding of Kantian morality may be inaccurate.

I like to phrase my summary of the fundamental moral choice poetically (because I’ve probably read too much Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, and not enough of those systematic thinkers like Kant). One has to choose between the Nietzschean quasi-nihilistic Übermensch, and Dostoevsky’s Fr. Zossima (or Alyosha or Tikhon from Demons, all good characters for this). There is no middle ground, no secular humanism or marxist eschatology, just Nietzsche’s path (probably one of the only men who ever understood what atheism meant) and its polar opposite, Dostoevsky’s morality.

I’ve seen Nietsche called ‘the most thoroughgoing atheist ever.’ I find this descrition revoltingly misleading, because it implies that the Russell/Dawkins humanist crowd are just ‘nice atheists’ and that Nietzsche was just taking their point of view too far. This is idiocy of the highest degree and, honestly, it enrages me. Nietzsche was more the opposite of the humanists than the Christians were. I once knew an atheist (humanist as well) who liked to read Nietzsche’s antichrist. He never realized that nietzsche detested Christianity for the exact opposite reasons secular humanists have for their disdain for it. And NIetzsche abhorred the humanists even more than the Christians; he considered them simply another decadent religion, a tumor grown out of Christianity, composed of people who failed to see that morality and theology stand and fall together. He was probably the only atheist ever who would agree with Dostoevsky that “If there is no God, everything is permissable.” He also declared that “God is dead” not as a celebration but as a lamentation, for it meant the death of culture, and the Übermensch ideal was his hope for a way out of nihilism (by contemporary standards it is nihilism; to Nietzsche, the overwhelming majority of humanity is merely fodder for a few great men, i.e. Napoleon, Friedrich the Great.

Those two choices are the only internally consistent moralities; everything in between is just an attempt to have one’s cake and eat it too. That’s just the way I see it at least.

The man knows Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard! Very refreshing…

I could not agree more that morality is an all-or-nothing proposition. Those people who are simply not naturally inclined to do anything wrong are, I repeat, just boring. (Love your signature line, by the way).

There’s a character named Thrasymachus, in Plato, who tells the story of a ring that made a fellow named Gyges invisible. He claims that anyone given such power would become completely morally corrupt. If this claim is not entirely true (which it may be), it is precisely because people believe in God.

As far as Kant goes, I think your sources are off. Kant says that any rational being, insofar as he is rational, cannot do anything other than treat himself as an end-in-itself. From there, it becomes clear that, subjectively, every rational being is an end. But if every rational being is subjectively an end, and every rational being experiences its own subjectivity, then every rational being is objectively an end. Therefore, we must treat each other as ends, not merely means.

The gaping hole in this theory is: why be rational? Kant was trying to set up morality on a solid foundation that could endure atheism (though Kant was not an atheist). Ironically, his own assumption that God might not be necessary to morality gave intellectuals more reason to abandon God, which further weakened the foundation of morality.

Without God, everything is indeed permissible.

 

[Oreoracle]

My post was half sarcastic (but only half).

Actually, your post was half insulting (but only half).

Also, do you think it wise to exclude the possibility that someone could “educate one’s conscience”, that is, once one comes to “know” that morality is nothing but habit, and that there is no logical reason to obey it, that one could commit “immoral” actions wholly logically and simply learn to ignore his conscience?

That’s certainly a possibility. I was only saying that this process doesn’t just happen; it would take a good deal of time and effort. One would have to go to great lengths to adjust their minds to kill with no feeling (and even greater lengths to kill and only find it funny). It’s perfectly plausible to ask, “How did you get this way?”

Do you honestly think that if the entirety of the population were suddenly convinced that morality is nonexistent, that it is simply a habit, residue from the fetal stage or some Freudian thing like that, that more people wouldn’t be immoral?

I don’t know. That would be like asking, as one of my teachers has done, how much higher the water level would be if all the sea sponges released their water. The question is useless because the sponges wouldn’t release their water. Similarly, people would not let go of ethics being held as facts. But I do think that many people realize that ethics are derived from emotions (and those emotions from instincts), they often don’t wish to admit it, however. Most of the people who realize this seem to get along just fine, so I guess we should let people come to this conclusion themselves.

To be honest, I wouldn’t be surprised if all these “absolute, objective rights” advocates start commiting atrocities when this public realization occurs, just so they can “prove” the “objectivity” of rights.

All this of course assumes that it is the murderers that are morbid. Couldn’t one just as easily say that they are liberated, and that we who are revolted by killing are simply closed-minded, perhaps even suffering from an irrational, neurotic fear the act of murder? And that the ‘morbid’ behavior of the murderer is just the result of our alienating of him?

I don’t know how far the human psyche can bend, but since ethics aren’t facts, these assertions (that murder is acceptable) wouldn’t be false, if that’s what you mean. We would just dislike them.

 

[Oreoracle]

There’s a character named Thrasymachus, in Plato, who tells the story of a ring that made a fellow named Gyges invisible. He claims that anyone given such power would become completely morally corrupt. If this claim is not entirely true (which it may be), it is precisely because people believe in God.

I see that, around certain company, all you can offer are bare assertions like these. But go ahead and have your moment. We all need to have some time not to think.

Kant says that any rational being, insofar as he is rational, cannot do anything other than treat himself as an end-in-itself.

Partially true–I don’t think rationality alone causes selfishness. You must also be sentient; that is, you must have desires to treat yourself as an end. Some people have had their emotional capacities damaged (via brain damage) and still maintain rationality. Heck, a computer could satisfy most definitions of “rational being.”

From there, it becomes clear that, subjectively, every rational being is an end.

Every rational being is an end…to whom? To themselves, respectively.

But if every rational being is subjectively an end, and every rational being experiences its own subjectivity, then every rational being is objectively an end.

I don’t follow. Let’s rephrase, for fun:

1. Midnight blue is subjectively the best color for every rational being.
2. Every rational being is a subject.
   C. Therefore, midnight blue is objectively the best color.

So in a world where everyone likes midnight blue the most, it is objectively the best color. :extrahappy:

…

:yawn:

What you’re arguing for here is intersubjectivity, not objectivity.

 

[Spock]

why should i care about others “rights”? only my belief in G-d prevents me from doing as i please.

Oreoracle:

your belief in God is the only thing preventing you from killing, stealing, and lying?

It is in my case.

Oreoracle:

your belief in God is the only thing preventing you from killing, stealing, and lying?

I will second James in saying that my belief in God is the only thing that keeps me from doing those things. Well, in some cases the law might, but that would just mean I need to be more discreet about my crimes.

My goodness, what a crowd did I get into! And these people consider themselves the “salt of the Earth”? The “crown of Creation”?? I never thought that there are humans who would be happy to kill, maime, torture - if they were not concerned with God’s opinion on these matters. The lowest level of “morality” is to be afraid of the punishment and the hope for a reward. This is how dogs are trained to behave. Sheesh… Beam me up Scotty…

 

[James_S_Saint]

My goodness, what a crowd did I get into! And these people consider themselves the “salt of the Earth”? The “crown of Creation”?? I never thought that there are humans who would be happy to kill, maime, torture - if they were not concerned with God’s opinion on these matters. The lowest level of “morality” is to be afraid of the punishment and the hope for a reward. This is how dogs are trained to behave. Sheesh… Beam me up Scotty…

On the contrary, as I stated, you just have to know our God.

Until then, you arrogantly think that you have a higher standard. The problem is that we can see where you are coming form very easily. But you can’t see where we are. You have to guess that we must be blindly delusional, because you can’t see what we see.

To us, you seriously appear as a child merely presumptuously assuming he is the light of the world and all of those billions before him were just unevolved simpletons.

We can see both your side **AND **our side. You can only see yours. That alone should tell you something.

 

[tonyrey]

Man: “Don’t beat about the bush. I am waiting for your answer…”

Me: “And I’m waiting for yours. You don’t have any reason to kill me, do you? Did you come here just to hear my response? Were you hoping I’d persuade you to believe that life is valuable? But why would you question such a thing? Does the gravity of our current situation not speak for itself? Are you sweating?”

Out of curiosity, how would you respond? Do you really think hearing the same ol’ rhetoric about God and rights would dissuade a murderer? I think it would be far more effective to make the murderer realize that they don’t even have a reason to kill you. Would it offer any satisfaction to them? Perhaps, but then only briefly.

Me: “I’ll be worth far less value to you dead than alive. If you kill me you’ll be left with a dead body on your hands. If you don’t we can work out the best way to get what you want. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. How about a drink while we discuss it?”

 

[Spock]

On the contrary, as I stated, you just have to know our God.

Until then, you arrogantly think that you have a higher standard. The problem is that we can see where you are coming form very easily. But you can’t see where we are. You have to guess that we must be blindly delusional, because you can’t see what we see.

To us, you seriously appear as a child merely presumptuously assuming he is the light of the world and all of those billions before him were just unevolved simpletons.

We can see both your side **AND **our side. You can only see yours. That alone should tell you something.

Your God? Well, he never shows up for a meeting, when I ask him. He never responds to my questions. Obviously, it is my fault, because I did not ask him “honestly” enough, or did not ask him “long” enough. So, guess what, I am left to read the testimonials of self-proclaimed would-be-murderers, rapists, torturers - like you! - and evaluate the evidence they provide. Thanks, but no thanks. The only thing that keeps you from being a monster - what you would like to be, accoring to your own words - the fear from divine repercussions.

Absolutely, I represent a higher standard. I do not wish to kill others at all. And not just because I fear punishment, but because I genuinely respect others. Your side? You made it crystal clear what your side is. Never would have I thought that such beings can exist, who are not only would-be-monsters, but who are actually proud of their lack of compassion, decency and morals. And this is not an ad-hominem attack at all. I am merely repeating your own unambiguous declaration of your inner motives and desires.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Naahh… nothing ad hominem about YOUR reply… haha …Geeez.