We hold these truths to be self-evident

[Syntax]

Hi from Belize. Have fun with your sin tax. We’re done, and good luck. Call me when you wake up.

That’s fine with me. I prefer not to waste my time with irrational and convoluted discussions anyway.

And call me when you start using the brain God gave you. Then we’ll talk.

 

[Leela]

If you’re referring to the statement in the Declaration of Independence, it means that the authors believe that the enumerated rights are above argument by a reasonable person. What reasonable person would argue that all men are not created equal, or have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? From that would follow that slave owners, pro-“choicers”, tyrants, etc. are not reasonable people. We’ve come a long way in this country, haven’t we.

I found it interesting to learn that Jefferson had originally penned “we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable” but Franklin favored of “self-evident.”

Walter Isaacson, in his Franklin biography, explained how Franklin arrived at “self-evident:”

The idea of “self-evident” truths was one that drew less on John Locke, who was Jefferson’s favored philosopher, than on the scientific determinism espoused by Isaac Newton and on the analytic empiricism of Franklin’s close friend David Hume. In what became known as “Hume’s fork,” the great Scottish philosopher, along with Leibniz and others, had developed a theory that distinguished between synthetic truths that describe matters of fact (such as “London is bigger than Philadephia”) and analytic truths that are self-evident by virtue of reason and definition (“The angles of a triangle equal 180 degrees”; “All bachelors are unmarried”). By using the word “sacred,” Jefferson had asserted, intentionally or not, that the principle in question–the equality of men and their endowment by their creator with inalienable rights–was an assertion of religion. Franklin’s edit turned it instead into an assertion of rationality."

Obviously, Franklin was convincing to the rest of the committee designated to write the Declaration in support of an assertion of rationality over one of religion.

Instead of saying that we hold these things to be true because they are sacred, we hold these things to be sacred because they are true. They are self-evidently true (true by definition) because if one does not have right to life, liberty, and property she is not really human. In other words, to kill, to enslave, or to steal from someone is to treat them as less than human and to also be less than human.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

They are self-evidently true (true by definition) because if one does not have right to life, liberty, and property she is not really human. In other words, to kill, to enslave, or to steal from someone is to treat them as less than human and to also be less than human.

I agree with you but there are many who believe we are animals and/or biological machines which have no intrinsic rights. If this is true it is not self-evident that we have any rights at all. They become human concepts that need not command our respect.

There is also the question of animal rights. To assume they have none is to regard ourselves as unique and the sole beings with any value. This is surely special pleading in our own favour. Why should we be privileged and all other forms of life insignificant? Are we entitled to treat a dog as less than a dog? Surely not! But this raises the issue of the specific nature of a dog - or any other animal for that matter. We cannot divorce the question of rights from the question of identity. What does it mean to be a person? Do we decide? Or is it something that is beyond our control?

 

[Karmartia]

I agree with you but there are many who believe we are animals and/or biological machines which have no intrinsic rights. If this is true it is not self-evident that we have any rights at all. They become human concepts that need not command our respect.

There is also the question of animal rights. To assume they have none is to regard ourselves as unique and the sole beings with any value. This is surely special pleading in our own favour. Why should we be privileged and all other forms of life insignificant? Are we entitled to treat a dog as less than a dog? Surely not! But this raises the issue of the specific nature of a dog - or any other animal for that matter. We cannot divorce the question of rights from the question of identity. What does it mean to be a person? Do we decide? Or is it something that is beyond our control?

Why not ask your dog?

 

[tonyrey]

Why not ask your dog?

I don’t have one. Ask yours!

 

[Leela]

I agree with you but there are many who believe we are animals and/or biological machines which have no intrinsic rights. If this is true it is not self-evident that we have any rights at all. They become human concepts that need not command our respect.

As far as I know, all concepts are human concepts–they are creations of the human intellect. At least I can’t imagine what a non-human concept could be.

You seem to be suggesting that we should only take human rights seriously if there is something non-human about them. Why is that?

…We cannot divorce the question of rights from the question of identity. What does it mean to be a person? Do we decide? Or is it something that is beyond our control?

We are the only animal that gets to ask such questions about ourselves. We continually recreate ourselves by imagining new possibilities for what we can become and by striving to transcend our current limitations. The notion of inalienable human rights was one such innovation. Humans rights as products of the human imagination are as important to ethics as the microchip is to technology, and they need no more metaphysical foundation than microchips do to be taken seriously.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

I agree with you but there are many who believe we are animals and/or biological machines which have no intrinsic rights. If this is true it is not self-evident that we have any rights at all. They become human concepts that need not command our respect.

Can’t you imagine that there are other rational beings apart from us?
My point is that if rights are **created by human beings **they need not command our respect.

You seem to be suggesting that we should only take human rights seriously if there is something non-human about them. Why is that?

If they are not based on fact they become fictions we can choose to ignore…

We cannot divorce the question of rights from the question of identity. What does it mean to be a person? Do we decide? Or is it something that is beyond our control?

We are the only animal that gets to ask such questions about ourselves.

It is significant that you regard human beings as animals. Why do we have rights and they have none? Or if they have any is it simply because we decide to confer rights on them? That would suggest we **invent **rights because it suits us to do so. Morality becomes nothing more than expediency.

We continually recreate ourselves by imagining new possibilities for what we can become and by striving to transcend our current limitations.

Again you believe our imagination comes into play but does it correspond to nothing in reality? “what we can become” and “our current limitations” imply that there is more than our imagination involved.

The notion of inalienable human rights was one such innovation.

Is it arbitrary or is it related to our development as rational beings?

Human rights as products of the human imagination are as important to ethics as the microchip is to technology, and they need no more metaphysical foundation than microchips do to be taken seriously.

We invented microchips but they now exist **independently **of us. You seem to believe human rights exist solely in our imagination. That is hardly a substantial foundation for a moral code and legal system…

There is also the question of animal rights. To assume they have none is to regard ourselves as unique and the sole beings with any value. This is surely special pleading in our own favour. Why should **we alone **be privileged and all other forms of life insignificant? Are we entitled to treat a dog as less than a dog? Surely not! This raises the issue of the specific nature of a dog - or any other animal for that matter - and implies that its value does not exist solely in our minds. Do you begrudge them the gift of life?

 

[Leela]

Can’t you imagine that there are other rational beings apart from us?

I don’t see why it is relevant to postulate alien civilizations.

My point is that if rights are **created by human beings **they need not command our respect.

I understand that this is your assertion, but I am unconvinced. Why would we need not respect human rights?

If they are not based on fact they become fictions we can choose to ignore…

We can choose to ignore facts as well, can’t we? Ignoring something doesn’t make it a fiction.

It is significant that you regard human beings as animals.

It is one thing to say that I am a member of the animal kingdom. It is quite another to say that I am merely an animal. Why would a biological description of myself need to trump all the other sorts of descriptions that I could offer?

Why do we have rights and they have none?

Animals don’t have human rights. Maybe they have other rights.

Or if they have any is it simply because we decide to confer rights on them? That would suggest we **invent **rights because it suits us to do so. Morality becomes nothing more than expediency.

The invention of human rights is as much a part of our transcendence–our fruitful use of our imaginative power to transform our future into something richer than our past–as our symphonies, poetry, science, technology, and literature. If you want to reduce all this to “expediency” or “biological nature” or “random jumbles of atoms” or any other one thing you can go ahead and try, but you’ll have a tough time convincing me that your one description (“nothing more than expediency”) is more than an arbitrary choice among a plurality of possible descriptions and ought to trump all other such descriptions. For example, what about our desires and intentions to make the world a better place?

On the other hand, if you would care to back down a bit from your reductionism and just say that I’ve opened the door to expediency by allowing expediency as one useful description of morality among many, then I will happily bite the bullet. I do think expediency comes into play with regard to human rights in the form of something like “human rights are the sorts of thing we need to support if we hope to get the sort of civilization we want.”

One of the ways that human rights have been supported in the past is as “God given,” but I don’t think they need this particular sort of support to be defensible in all contexts.

Again you believe our imagination comes into play but does it correspond to nothing in reality? “what we can become” and “our current limitations” imply that there is more than our imagination involved.

Is it arbitrary or is it related to our development as rational beings?

Human rights are not anymore arbitrary than airplanes, the Grapes of Wrath, or Beethoven’s ninth, but these are all “related to our development as rational beings.” They are historically situated culturally contingent phenomena. We don’t need to look “out there” or appeal to something nonhuman to tell us what an airplane, novel, or symphony ought to be. Instead we just wonder if we can make a better airplane, novel, or symphony. We don’t need to worry about whether any of these things “correspond to Reality.” Human rights and airplanes are already part of reality. Such products of human imagination were ways of transcending the past reality to create a better future reality rather than corresponding to a given reality.

We invented microchips but they now exist **independently **of us. You seem to believe human rights exist solely in our imagination. That is hardly a substantial foundation for a moral code and legal system…

Human rights are no less dependent on the existence of humans than microchips are.

What is the “substantial foundation” that microchips have and human rights lack?

Human rights aren’t real because they are not made of atoms???

There is also the question of animal rights. To assume they have none is to regard ourselves as unique and the sole beings with any value. This is surely special pleading in our own favour. Why should **we alone **be privileged and all other forms of life insignificant? Are we entitled to treat a dog as less than a dog? Surely not! This raises the issue of the specific nature of a dog - or any other animal for that matter - and implies that its value does not exist solely in our minds. Do you begrudge them the gift of life?

Animal rights seems like a whole other issue to me.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t see why it is relevant to postulate alien civilizations.

Other rational beings would have rights, would they not? The same right to life, liberty and happiness.

My point is that if rights are created by human beings they need not command our respect.

Why would we need not respect human rights?

Because they would not be categorical imperatives. Do you believe we are compelled to create rights? Or morally obliged to recognise them? If we create them surely we can also dispense with them.

If they are not based on fact they become fictions we can choose to ignore…

We can choose to ignore facts as well, can’t we?

We can choose to ignore facts but at our peril. If we ignore the laws of personal development our development will be stunted.

Ignoring something doesn’t make it a fiction.

I agree but something which we create and which is unrelated to reality is a fiction.

It is one thing to say that I am a member of the animal kingdom. It is quite another to say that I am merely an animal.
Why would a biological description of myself need to trump all the other sorts of descriptions that I could offer?

Because we generally refer to ourselves as persons or human beings which distinguish us from other forms of life. I asked you “What does it mean to be a person?” To which you replied “We are the only animal that gets to ask such questions about ourselves.” !

Why do we have rights and they have none?

Animals don’t have human rights. Maybe they have other rights.

But you’re not sure?

Or if they have any is it simply because we decide to confer rights on them? That would suggest we invent rights because it suits us to do so. Morality becomes nothing more than expediency.

The invention of human rights is as much a part of our transcendence… For example, what about our desires and intentions to make the world a better place?

]How do you determine what makes the world a better place? Your answer will have a direct bearing on human rights but on the rights of animals as well…

I do think expediency comes into play with regard to human rights in the form of something like “human rights are the sorts of thing we need to support if we hope to get the sort of civilization we want.”

Again you need to specify what sort of civilization we want. For example, is physical comfort at the top of the list of priorities?

One of the ways that human rights have been supported in the past is as “God given,” but I don’t think they need this particular sort of support to be defensible in all contexts.

It depends whether your context exists in a vacuum or not.

Human rights are not any more arbitrary than airplanes, the Grapes of Wrath, or Beethoven’s ninth, but these are all “related to our development as rational beings.”

Human artefacts need to correspond to reality in the sense that they must have an element of truth. A defective airplane certainly could affect our development! The Grapes of Wrath and Beethoven’s ninth are not sheer fantasies but convey important truths about life. We need inspiration as well as physical sustenance. Whether an airplane, novel, or symphony is “better” is not a matter of personal opinion. There are objective criteria which determine whether it assists our development or retards it. A novel which promotes pedophilia is hardly better in the most important sense of the term.

I’m glad you agree that human rights are related to our development as rational beings - which implies that rights have an objective basis because we have not given ourselves the power of reason. Nor (on the whole) do we decide whether we are going to be rational or not. We know it does not pay to be irrational.

Human rights are no less dependent on the existence of humans than microchips are.

Obviously human rights presuppose the existence of humans but that does not mean we determine what human rights are any more than we determine whether we have a capacity for intellectual, moral, aesthetic and personal development. To some extent we become what we choose to become but that too is because we have some choice in the matter.

What is the “substantial foundation” that microchips have and human rights lack?

Microchips exist independently of our thoughts. If human rights exist solely as thoughtsthey do not exist independently. If we are ignorant of human rights or reject them they do not exist as far as we are concerned. If they exist regardless of our beliefs or awareness of them there is a substantial foundation for a moral code and legal system. I believe their existence stems from our nature as rational, sentient and moral beings. It is unreasonable to treat ourselves others as though we are not rational, sentient and moral beings.

Human rights aren’t real because they are not made of atoms???

No. Human rights aren’t real if they exist only in our minds and have no reference to our physical and personal characteristics. The question of animal rights is not another issue because it reveals how their rights differ from ours because their nature differs from ours.
It also reveals the fact that they have rights even if we fail to recognise them. Man is certainly not the measure of all things. To regard ourselves as the authors of morality is to endow ourselves with an importance we do not possess. Cruelty to an animal is evil regardless of what we believe because it causes unnecessary suffering. It is as simple as that. Evil is negative and destructive whereas goodness is positive and creative. To respect the rights of other beings, whether they are humans, aliens or animals is to affirm the objective value of their existence…

 

[Leela]

Other rational beings would have rights, would they not? The same right to life, liberty and happiness.

I assume that you are taking a Kantian view–that rights are implied by our nature as rational beings. I think that the problem with this view is that after Darwin, we no longer think that human beings have a static Nature that our ethics need to conform to. There is also the is-ought problem. Even if we could nail down what the nature of humanity is, we could still deduce nothing from such facts to learn new facts about how humans ought to be treated.

Because they would not be categorical imperatives. Do you believe we are compelled to create rights?

No.

Or morally obliged to recognise them?

Yes.

If we create them surely we can also dispense with them.

We would do so only at our peril.

We can choose to ignore facts but at our peril. If we ignore the laws of personal development our development will be stunted.

It is not only facts that should not be ignored. We should not ignore airplanes, the Grapes of Wrath, Beethoven’s ninth, or human rights.

I agree but something which we create and which is unrelated to reality is a fiction.

Fiction is not unrelated to reality. It is impossible to create something that is unrelated to reality. To create something is to make it a part of reality.

Because we generally refer to ourselves as persons or human beings which distinguish us from other forms of life. I asked you “What does it mean to be a person?” To which you replied “We are the only animal that gets to ask such questions about ourselves.” !

I think anyone who tries to base a definition of humanity on biology will have a difficult time saying what is unique and different about human beings as opposed to other animals.

How do you determine what makes the world a better place?

In the same sorts of ways that everyone else makes such determinations. I don’t claim to have any fool-proof method, and I don’t buy anyone else’s claim to have such a method.

Again you need to specify what sort of civilization we want. For example, is physical comfort at the top of the list of priorities?

I in particular don’t need to specify it. Everyone needs to figure that out.

I would assume that comfort would be an important part of almost everyone’s idea of a good civilization. Few of us prefer to be cold, wet, and hungry.

It depends whether your context exists in a vacuum or not.

What do you mean? How could a context exist in a vaccuum? The point of raising the issue of historical contingency is to reject the idea of such a “vaccuum” or perspectiveless perspective.

 

[Leela]

Human artefacts need to correspond to reality in the sense that they must have an element of truth. A defective airplane certainly could affect our development! The Grapes of Wrath and Beethoven’s ninth are not sheer fantasies but convey important truths about life. We need inspiration as well as physical sustenance. Whether an airplane, novel, or symphony is “better” is not a matter of personal opinion. There are objective criteria which determine whether it assists our development or retards it. A novel which promotes pedophilia is hardly better in the most important sense of the term.

I don’t use the word “true” to describe good symphonies or well-functioning airplanes or human rights, but agree that the above are not matters of personal taste.

 

[Leela]

I’m glad you agree that human rights are related to our development as rational beings - which implies that rights have an objective basis because we have not given ourselves the power of reason. Nor (on the whole) do we decide whether we are going to be rational or not. We know it does not pay to be irrational.

Human rights are objective in some sense, but I don’t think that they have a metaphysical basis any more than the objectivity of symphonies and airplanes depends on a metaphysical foundation.

Obviously human rights presuppose the existence of humans but that does not mean we determine what human rights are any more than we determine whether we have a capacity for intellectual, moral, aesthetic and personal development. To some extent we become what we choose to become but that too is because we have some choice in the matter.

What human rights are is an ongoing conversation.

 

[Leela]

Microchips exist independently of our thoughts
If human rights exist solely as thoughts they do not exist independently.

You seem to be trying to create a dichotomy between things that are really real because they are physical entities and things that are not really real because they are not physical entities as a result of your independent/dependent notion. I don’t think that notion works at all. I think ideas are as real as rocks and trees because they are as much a part of experience as rocks and trees. I think it is reasonable to think of the existence of rocks and trees as independent of humanity in the sense that they existed prior to humanity but unreasonable to think of airplanes, symphonies, microchips, and human rights as independent of humanity since theese are all products of human imagination.

 

[Leela]

If we are ignorant of human rights or reject them they do not exist as far as we are concerned.

Disagreeing with an assertion or being ignorant of an assertion has nothing to do with whether or not the assertion is actually true or whether it actually exists.

If they exist regardless of our beliefs or awareness of them there is a substantial foundation for a moral code and legal system.

I believe their existence stems from our nature as rational, sentient and moral beings. It is unreasonable to treat ourselves others as though we are not rational, sentient and moral beings.

I think this is what Kant asserted, but as I said earlier, it doesn’t hold up after Darwin’s assault on the notion of intrinsic biological natures and Hume’s gulf between is and ought.

No. Human rights aren’t real if they exist only in our minds and have no reference to our physical and personal characteristics.

Of course they have reference to our characteristics. And they don’t exist “only in our minds.” If we live by them we make them real in a new not merely mental way. Ignoring their positive effects is then no different between ignoring the positive effects of microchips. There still remains the possibility for debate about whether or not these things really are good and have positive effects and the possibility of creating something still better. We don’t have to pretend that human rights some existence that stands appart from time and space rather than a place in our culturally constructed historical context to be able to argue that we ought to abide by these rights. We just need to convince others that life would be better if we all lived by them. Thankfully, we are in a position where we pretty much all agree that we ought to live by human rights, so we don’t need to make ratioinalo arguments for them.

But where we do need to make arguments, pointing to a metaphysical foundation is unlikely to help win any debates with those who can’t already see that life would be better if we lived by human rights. We can humanely detain those who would not extent such considerations to those of us who do support human rights and act in violation of our rights.

The difference in our positions is this: you think rights are determined by our intrinsic natures wereas I think rights are a progressive innovation. In light of Darwin, homo sapiens themselves are a biological innovation with no static intrinsic nature. Human rights are part of our self-creation. They are part of our on-going project to communicate what it means to be human. Instead of rights being a function of human nature they are a function of the defiintion of “human.”

As I said in my first post in this thread, the human rights articulated by the Founding Fathers are “self-evidently true (true by definition) because if one does not have right to life, liberty, and property she is not really human. In other words, to kill, to enslave, or to steal from someone is to treat them as less than human and to also be less than human.”

Many of the Founding Fathers (including apparently Jefferson) surely thought as you do in terms of rights as “endowed by their Creator” and part of our intrinsic Nature. I think Darwin later made it difficult to sustain such a view outside of theism, so a Deist like Jefferson would have likely changed his view on Human Nature had he lived long enough.

Isaacson related Franklin’s view to Hume’s Fork between analytic and synthetic truths. It looks like Franklin got rid of “sacred and undeniable” in favor of “self-evident” as part of a similar debate to what we are having right now:

“The idea of “self-evident” truths was one that drew less on John Locke, who was Jefferson’s favored philosopher, than on the scientific determinism espoused by Isaac Newton and on the analytic empiricism of Franklin’s close friend David Hume. In what became known as “Hume’s fork,” the great Scottish philosopher, along with Leibniz and others, had developed a theory that distinguished between synthetic truths that describe matters of fact (such as “London is bigger than Philadephia”) and analytic truths that are self-evident by virtue of reason and definition (“The angles of a triangle equal 180 degrees”; “All bachelors are unmarried”). By using the word “sacred,” Jefferson had asserted, intentionally or not, that the principle in question–the equality of men and their endowment by their creator with inalienable rights–was an assertion of religion. Franklin’s edit turned it instead into an assertion of rationality.”

Human rights in Franklin’s Humean position are analytic truths–true by definition. This is my view as well.

Human rights in Jefferson’s Lockean position are synthetic truths–facts grounded in our intrinsic nature. This is your view as I understand it.

The good news is that human rights can be supported in either the religious or secular approach, so not only do we not have to worry about our agreement on rights, we don’t have to worry about what happens to the support for human rights when one drops religion.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

Other rational beings would have rights, would they not? The same right to life, liberty and happiness.

Darwinism is a speculative theory with which many biologists disagree. It is more reasonable to believe the evolution of human beings did not occur solely as the result of natural selection and random mutations but as the result of evolution by Design .Even if you disagree to be rational does not entail having a static nature.

There is also the is-ought problem. Even if we could nail down what the nature of humanity is, we could still deduce nothing from such facts to learn new facts about how humans ought to be treated.

The is-ought “problem” has been refuted more than once. The very process of reasoning presupposes that our power of reasoning is being and **ought **to be used! Otherwise you contradict yourself! Similarly it is absurd not to believe we ought to use our talents and skills to make ourselves and others happy. What is the point of being alive if we don’t make use of our opportunities?

Do you believe we are compelled to create rights?

No.

In that case we choose to create them in our minds for a specific reason, i.e. that they are the only means** in physical reality** by which we can live in harmony.

Or morally obliged to recognise them?

Yes.

And that is because we know that without them our lives will be nasty, brutish and short! Moral obligations are based on existential needs. You can believe that we invent values but you cannot maintain that belief when it comes to day to day living…

If we create them surely we can also dispense with them.

We would do so only at our peril.

Indeed - which demonstrates that they are not **arbitrary **concepts but based on necessity.

We can choose to ignore facts but at our peril. If we ignore the laws of personal development our development will be stunted.

It is not only facts that should not be ignored. We should not ignore airplanes, the Grapes of Wrath, Beethoven’s ninth, or human rights.

That does not affect the truth of my statement.

Fiction is not unrelated to reality. It is impossible to create something that is unrelated to reality. To create something is to make it a part of reality.

Even so it need not be a significant part of reality. If a work of fiction has no intellectual or aesthetic merit or entertainment value it can and should be totally disregarded.

Because we generally refer to ourselves as persons or human beings which distinguish us from other forms of life. I asked you “What does it mean to be a person?” To which you replied “We are the only animal that gets to ask such questions about ourselves.” !

I think anyone who tries to base a definition of humanity on biology will have a difficult time saying what is unique and different about human beings as opposed to other animals.

Which is precisely where Darwinism is defective!

How do you determine what makes the world a better place?

In the same sorts of ways that everyone else makes such determinations. I don’t claim to have any fool-proof method, and I don’t buy anyone else’s claim to have such a method.

But you would agree that the promotion and observance of human rights are essential conditions of making the world better place…

Again you need to specify what sort of civilization we want. For example, is physical comfort at the top of the list of priorities?

I in particular don’t need to specify it. Everyone needs to figure that out.
I would assume that comfort would be an important part of almost everyone’s idea of a good civilization. Few of us prefer to be cold, wet, and hungry.

But surely comfort is not the supreme priority. If you lived in an grossly unjust society you would endure hardship to fight for your rights.

It depends whether your context exists in a vacuum or not.

What do you mean? How could a context exist in a vacuum? The point of raising the issue of historical contingency is to reject the idea of such a “vacuum” or perspectiveless perspective.

The Darwinist context of human existence is a vacuum as far as rights as concerned because it implies that there is no reason why we exist apart from the inexplicable urge to survive…

 

[tonyrey]

Microchips exist independently of our thoughts.
If human rights exist solely as thoughts they do not exist independently.

The difference is that ideas exist only in the mind whereas rocks and trees don’t. You don’t even regard the mind as an independent entity but as dependent on, and produced by, the brain. So you cannot possibly regard ideas as independently real whereas rocks and trees are.

To put it another way. You believe that if a person dies the mind disappears - whereas physical objects don’t. So ideas and rights for you don’t have the same enduring reality as physical objects. They are created, in your view, by human beings and are entirely subjective. My view is that ideas and rights are like facts, numbers, ratios, proportions, constants, shapes, sizes and quantities. They exist regardless of whether anyone is aware of them.

Rights exist regardless of what we think because they stem from the capacities of individuals. If a being has a capacity for development and enjoyment it has a right to develop and enjoy life. Otherwise that capacity is wasted. What is the point of possessing a capacity if it is not used? The very existence of a capacity implies that it has a purpose. So it is unreasonable to believe life is purposeless and valueless.

Even before we existed animals had those rights. That is why we refer to natural evils. If an animal was crippled by an accident or disease and unable to live a normal life it could not achieve the purposes for which it existed. It was a victim of unfortunate coincidences for which no one was responsible. If however it is crippled deliberately or due to negligence the infringement of its rights is morally evil. Its disability and suffering do not exist in our minds but in external reality. Even if we deny that its disability and suffering are evil they are morally evil because they are unnecessary.

Life is valuable because it is a source of opportunities. Life is good because it is positive whereas death is evil because it negates life. To recognise rights is simply to recognise truths that are not created by us. Truths are not merely concepts in our minds. We don’t invent them but discover them. Just as we have discovered physical laws so we have discovered moral laws. If we ignore either we shall come to grief and harm ourselves. That is unmistakable evidence that they exist independently. We use words to refer to them but the words refer to objective realities - intangible but nevertheless independent. Moral laws presuppose free will and responsibility but they do not presuppose the existence of human beings because we cannot reasonably suppose we are the only responsible beings. Since we live in a moral universe we cannot be unique…

 

[Leela]

The difference is that ideas exist only in the mind whereas rocks and trees don’t.

I don’t think the question of location is important, but nevertheless, ideas do not only exist in the mind. An idea can be maintained through structures of the brain, variations in voltages on a computer, or words written on paper, radio frequencies, etc. Humans keep fimding new ways to store their ideas.

You don’t even regard the mind as an independent entity but as dependent on, and produced by, the brain. So you cannot possibly regard ideas as independently real whereas rocks and trees are.

I wouldn’t say that a mind is “produced by the brain” but rather produced by the same sort of natural proceses that produce brains. And I do regard ideas as real whether you think I possibly can or not.

To put it another way. You believe that if a person dies the mind disappears - whereas physical objects don’t.

So ideas and rights for you don’t have the same enduring reality as physical objects.

The idea of human rights has already endured longer than lots of physical objects.

They are created, in your view, by human beings and are entirely subjective.

Airplanes are created by human beings, does that make them subjective?

I never said that rights are subjective. What is your definition of subjective?

My view is that ideas and rights are like facts, numbers, ratios, proportions, constants, shapes, sizes and quantities. They exist regardless of whether anyone is aware of them.

I agree that rights are like these other things, but I don’t think of numbers and the like as existing before humans came along to create them as tools.

Rights exist regardless of what we think

I agree so far as to say that rights are not merely a matter of personal taste. They are not in that sense subjective.

…because they stem from the capacities of individuals. If a being has a capacity for development and enjoyment it has a right to develop and enjoy life. Otherwise that capacity is wasted. What is the point of possessing a capacity if it is not used? The very existence of a capacity implies that it has a purpose. So it is unreasonable to believe life is purposeless and valueless.

Here you come up against the is-ought distinction. Saying that someone or something CAN do something does not logically result in the conclusion that they should do that thing let alone have a right to do that thing.

By this reasoning, saying that a person can fornicate implies that they should do so.

Even before we existed animals had those rights. That is why we refer to natural evils. If an animal was crippled by an accident or disease and unable to live a normal life it could not achieve the purposes for which it existed.

Between the carnivore and its prey, which one has the right to life?

Life is valuable because it is a source of opportunities. Life is good because it is positive whereas death is evil because it negates life. To recognise rights is simply to recognise truths that are not created by us. Truths are not merely concepts in our minds. We don’t invent them but discover them. Just as we have discovered physical laws so we have discovered moral laws.

I don’t think of physical laws as having existed somewhere “out there” waiting for human being to come along and discover them.

But we at least agree that ethical truths don’t suffer by comparison to scoientific truths.

If we ignore either we shall come to grief and harm ourselves. That is unmistakable evidence that they exist independently.

Again with teh “exist independently” business. I think this is a false and unhelpful distinction for deciding whether or not rights need to be taken seriously.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

The difference is that ideas exist only in the mind whereas rocks and trees don’t.

The storage of ideas is quite different from their conception.

You don’t even regard the mind as an independent entity but as dependent on, and produced by, the brain. So you cannot possibly regard ideas as independently real whereas rocks and trees are.

I wouldn’t say that a mind is “produced by the brain” but rather produced by the same sort of natural processes that produce brains. And I do regard ideas as real whether you think I possibly can or not.

But you believe they are not real in the same sense as material things and cannot exist without brains!

To put it another way. You believe that if a person dies the mind disappears - whereas physical objects don’t. So ideas and rights for you don’t have the same enduring reality as physical objects.

The idea of human rights has already endured longer than lots of physical objects.

That is true but they won’t, in your view, survive the demise of humanity.

They are created, in your view, by human beings and are entirely subjective.

Airplanes are created by human beings, does that make them subjective?

Not everything created by us is necessarily subjective. It can be created physically or mentally.

I never said that rights are subjective. What is your definition of subjective?

Related to a subject, i.e. an individual’s mind.

My view is that ideas and rights are like facts, numbers, ratios, proportions, constants, shapes, sizes and quantities. They exist regardless of whether anyone is aware of them.

I agree that rights are like these other things, but I don’t think of numbers and the like as existing before humans came along to create them as tools.

Do you think the size of the earth or the speed of light depends on our measurements?
Didn’t animals have the same number of eyes before we emerged on the scene?

I agree so far as to say that rights are not merely a matter of personal taste. They are not in that sense subjective.

If they are not merely a matter of personal taste surely they must have an objective basis.
There must be a reason for accepting them as truths about human relations.

.

…because they stem from the capacities of individuals. If a being has a capacity for development and enjoyment it has a right to develop and enjoy life. Otherwise that capacity is wasted. What is the point of possessing a capacity if it is not used? The very existence of a capacity implies that it has a purpose. So it is unreasonable to believe life is purposeless and valueless.

Here you come up against the is-ought distinction. Saying that someone or something CAN do something does not logically result in the conclusion that they should do that thing let alone have a right to do that thing.

I have already disposed of that argument with regard to reasoning. If you deny that we should reason and be reasonable you are contradicting yourself!

By this reasoning, saying that a person can fornicate implies that they should do so.

Not so. There is a proper time, place and situation for every normal activity. Other factors have to be taken into account but it does not follow that there is never an appropriate or necessary occasion for performing a function. For example, to neglect one’s health or that of another person is morally wrong because it amounts to rejecting the value of health and life itself.

Even before we existed animals had those rights. That is why we refer to natural evils. If an animal was crippled by an accident or disease and unable to live a normal life it could not achieve the purposes for which it existed.

Between the carnivore and its prey, which one has the right to life?

Both! One does not exclude the other. Animals do not generally kill unnecessarily. In any case they do not recognise rights but that doesn’t mean rights don’t exist - as far as we are concerned. Moral obligation exists only when one recognises the existence of rights.

Life is valuable because it is a source of opportunities. Life is good because it is positive whereas death is evil because it negates life. To recognise rights is simply to recognise truths that are not created by us. Truths are not merely concepts in our minds. We don’t invent them but discover them. Just as we have discovered physical laws so we have discovered moral laws.

I don’t think of physical laws as having existed somewhere “out there” waiting for human being to come along and discover them.

If we don’t discover them there must at the very least be a reason why we refer to them. They are regularities which do not depend on us for their existence. The speed of light is not affected by our opinion!

But we at least agree that ethical truths don’t suffer by comparison to scientific truths.

Certainly!

If we ignore either we shall come to grief and harm ourselves. That is unmistakable evidence that they exist independently.

Again with the “exist independently” business. I think this is a false and unhelpful distinction for deciding whether or not rights need to be taken seriously.

If we suffer both mentally and physically as the result of ignoring ethical truths they cannot be arbitrary but must be based on facts about our mental and physical makeup. These facts are common to all rational, sentient beings.

 

[Leela]

The storage of ideas is quite different from their conception.

This was never the issue. The fact that ideas are the product of human imagination doesn’t make them unreal. Airplanes are products of human imagination.

But you believe they are not real in the same sense as material things and cannot exist without brains!

Saying that minds cannot exist without brains is not to say that they are not real. Airplanes also cannot exist without brains.

That is true but they won’t, in your view, survive the demise of humanity.

Human rights won’t survive the demise of humanity? That just sounds like an absurd question. How could there be human rights without humans? How could the answer to this question ever matter?

Not everything created by us is necessarily subjective. It can be created physically or mentally.

Related to a subject, i.e. an individual’s mind.

Human rights are not dependent on any particular human mind. They are not subjective.

Do you think the size of the earth or the speed of light depends on our measurements?
Didn’t animals have the same number of eyes before we emerged on the scene?

Animals had the same number of eyes before humans invented such notions as “twoness” which didn’t happen until someone related one animal to another by noting a sort of “sameness” about the eyes and other tokens of “twoness.” In short, twoness is a concept, an idea. There are no ideas without thinkers.

If they are not merely a matter of personal taste surely they must have an objective basis.
There must be a reason for accepting them as truths about human relations.

We’ve learned to want the sort of world where people respect human rights. It is the same
“objective basis” that airplanes have–they satisfy human purposes and desires.

I have already disposed of that argument with regard to reasoning. If you deny that we should reason and be reasonable you are contradicting yourself!

If only it were that easy for you to “dispose of” the is-ought problem. If you can do it, there is a Phd and probably a Nobel Prize in it for you.

Yes, facts and values are entangled, but no one has found a way to reason from an assertion that something is true to an assertion that something ought to be done without smuggling in a bunch of other oughts.

Not so. There is a proper time, place and situation for every normal activity. Other factors have to be taken into account but it does not follow that there is never an appropriate or necessary occasion for performing a function. For example, to neglect one’s health or that of another person is morally wrong because it amounts to rejecting the value of health and life itself.

Just the normal ones? How do you decide which those are? Here is your is-ought problem again.

“This is normal, therefore it ought to be done” is an ought-ought not an is-ought.

You need to be able to say “this is what humans are, therefore, this is what they ought to do.”

Both! One does not exclude the other. Animals do not generally kill unnecessarily. In any case they do not recognise rights but that doesn’t mean rights don’t exist - as far as we are concerned. Moral obligation exists only when one recognises the existence of rights.

I don’t follow. The lion has a right to live and needs to kill the lamb to do so, but the lamb has a right to live too. How does this conflict of rights get resolved?

If we don’t discover them there must at the very least be a reason why we refer to them. They are regularities which do not depend on us for their existence. The speed of light is not affected by our opinion!

We refer to them because it helps us satisfy our purposes and desires.

If we suffer both mentally and physically as the result of ignoring ethical truths they cannot be arbitrary but must be based on facts about our mental and physical makeup. These facts are common to all rational, sentient beings.

I agree that rights are not arbitrary. What I think you will fail to demonstrate is that any universal facts about humans can be used to deduce rules of conduct for humans. I’m skeptical about what these universal facts will turn out to be, and I doubt you will find a way to reason from assertions of facts alone about humans to assertions about what people ought to do.

Here is a simple one to try:
Demonstrate how to reason from “Sally is hungry” to " Sally ought to eat"

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

The fact that ideas are the product of human imagination doesn’t make them unreal. Airplanes are products of human imagination.

Forgive me for pointing it out but to be precise, ideas are the product of human intellect - which can operate without using images. Let us agree that ideas are real but not in precisely the same way as airplanes.

Saying that minds cannot exist without brains is not to say that they are not real. Airplanes also cannot exist without brains.

They can survive without brains but you believe minds cannot…

Human rights won’t survive the demise of humanity? That just sounds like an absurd question. How could there be human rights without humans? How could the answer to this question ever matter?

It would matter if another species of rational beings appeared. Wouldn’t they have the same rights to life, freedom and happiness even if they were not aware of them? You have also ignored the fact that animals would not cease to have rights if we disappeared from the scene.

Human rights are not dependent on any particular human mind. They are not subjective.

Good for you! We agree on that…

Animals had the same number of eyes before humans invented such notions as “twoness” which didn’t happen until someone related one animal to another by noting a sort of “sameness” about the eyes and other tokens of “twoness.” In short, twoness is a concept, an idea. There are no ideas without thinkers.

“the same number before humans…” says it all! Numbers are not human inventions. Nor is the speed of light…

We’ve learned to want the sort of world where people respect human rights. It is the same
“objective basis” that airplanes have–they satisfy human purposes and desires.

Basic human purposes and desires are not produced by us. You cannot compare the nature of an airplane to the nature of a person.

I

f only it were that easy for you to “dispose of” the is-ought problem. If you can do it, there is a Phd and probably a Nobel Prize in it for you.

I am not the first, unfortunately!

Yes, facts and values are entangled, but no one has found a way to reason from an assertion that something is true to an assertion that something ought to be done without smuggling in a bunch of other oughts.

Then tell me why being reasonable is exempt from “ought”.

Not so. There is a proper time, place and situation for every normal activity. Other factors have to be taken into account but it does not follow that there is never an appropriate or necessary occasion for performing a function. For example, to neglect one’s health or that of another person is morally wrong because it amounts to rejecting the value of health and life itself.

Just the normal ones? How do you decide which those are? Here is your is-ought problem again.

Not at all. I specified “normal” to cover exceptional cases but it is reasonable to go by the norm. Do think you ought to neglect your health or that of your children?

“This is normal, therefore it ought to be done” is an ought-ought not an is-ought.

How can you think “This is normal” is an "ought? It is a medical fact, a neutral statistic based on human needs.

You need to be able to say “this is what humans are, therefore, this is what they ought to do.”

Certainly. Humans have the power of reason. Therefore they ought to reason.
You are a living being with the ability to survive. Don’t you believe you ought to live and survive?

I don’t follow. The lion has a right to live and needs to kill the lamb to do so, but the lamb has a right to live too. How does this conflict of rights get resolved?

There is no conflict. I pointed out that moral obligation exists only when one recognises the existence of rights. The failure to recognise them does not make them disappear. Life is valuable even when no one is aware of its value… The opportunities it offers do not cease to exist.

If we don’t discover them there must at the very least be a reason why we refer to them. They are regularities which do not depend on us for their existence. The speed of light is not affected by our opinion!

We refer to them because it helps us satisfy our purposes and desires.

That is true but it remains true that they are not affected by what we think. The speed of light is a **physical **constant.
If we suffer both mentally and physically as the result of ignoring ethical truths they cannot be arbitrary but must be based on facts about our mental and physical makeup. These facts are common to all rational, sentient beings.

I agree that rights are not arbitrary.

That is a very important point. The question is why…

What I think you will fail to demonstrate is that any universal facts about humans can be used to deduce rules of conduct for humans. I’m skeptical about what these universal facts will turn out to be, and I doubt you will find a way to reason from assertions of facts alone about humans to assertions about what people ought to do.

Even when you are confronted with all the unnecessary bloodshed and suffering in the world?

Demonstrate how to reason from “Sally is hungry” to " Sally ought to eat"

If Sally were your daughter you could (and would) answer that question! Because it is unreasonable not to eat - unless she needs to slim in order to be healthy and beautiful!