Why do rights exist?

[tonyrey]

Kant’s categorical imperative seems to me (and John Dewey) to be no more than a commending of our practice of considering generalizability in our moral deliberation. Such is a good practice, but the desire for ready-made formulae for solving every moral conundrum isn’t a very mature view of ethics.

A categorical imperative is not intended to be a ready-made formula for solving every moral conundrum. It simply means there is nothing hypothetical about moral laws. We should always and everywhere treat persons as ends and never as means to attain our own ends.

Dewey say this is the desire of the timid and the lovers of authoritative prestige, and more, it demonstrates a tendency toward sadomasochism. It is for people who want to be punished by something powerful and not ourselves for their misdeeds.

This is sheer nonsense motivated by a desire to evade the inconvenient objectivity of moral laws.

It is a view that sees the self as a cold, calculating, and self-interested psychopath where moral obligation can only come from something external to this self.

More nonsense! The self is viewed by Kant as a rational being who recognises the fact that man is not the author of morality. Good and evil exist whether we recognise their existence or not. Thinking something is right does not make it right. There is far more to morality than human opinion.

It is this very pessimistic view of humanity that makes the question “why be moral?” impossible to answer without appeal to a Supreme Punisher to keep these psychopaths in line.

It is the physicalist whose view of humanity is pessimistic because “why be moral” is impossible to answer coherently if there is no reason why we exist. Values imply purpose. The theist’s view is undeniably optimistic with a future instead of a final curtain at the end of this life. We believe we shall all get what we deserve whereas you believe injustice will prevail and the victims will never be compensated for their suffering. Abandon hope all ye who reject God!

In this view we are to think of serving our own needs as “natural” while taking care of others as “unnatural.” This is the consequence of your treasured “metaphysical foundation.”

On the contrary, that is an excellent summary of the “naturalist’s” position - in which our basic need is individual survival rather than unselfish love and the common good! Taking care of others is seen as unnatural. Remember the selfish gene?

The answer to the question “why be moral?” is simple once we deny the view of humanity as a bunch of psychopaths needing to be restrained. Unlike psychopaths, we do feel connected to others and love at least some others as we love ourselves.

“at least some others” is the significant phrase. Your love is a matter of individual choice not universal concern. Your morality amounts to cherry-picking the ones you favour…

Serving others is no more “unnatural” than looking after our own interests once we deny the notion of a static essence called Human Nature in favor of a view of humanity as an ongoing project that has shown a lot of progress and can be even more than it ever was and much more that it is even now.

Your belief in progress implies that there are objective criteria that determine why one form of conduct is better than another. In other words morality has a rational basis rather than being merely an opinion held by the majority. Moreover a project implies an author not an impersonal process.

Our moral progress so far has been the process of self-enlargement as we have become more and more sensitive to the needs and suffering of others and continue to expand our circles of moral concern.

You are taking for granted the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity for which you have offered no explanation. It is also morally simplistic to divide humanity into psychopaths and normal people. Most of the suffering in the world is caused not by those who are deranged but by negligence on the part of those who are sane. This is a logical consequence of a secular attitude to life in which spiritual reality is rejected or ignored. The only solid foundation for love is the deep conviction that we are all members of the same family with one Father in heaven - instead of a vast multitude of individuals who happen to co-exist for no reason on the same planet.

We should continue to expand the community of those deserving of our moral consideration and recreate ourselves to become better able to empathize with and serve the needs of others. It is such self-enlargement in an on-going process of self-creation rather than the adherence of beings with fixed Human Natures to a static pre-ordained Moral Law that the pragmatist understands moral progress.

Your notion of Christianity is a travesty of the truth. The adherence of beings with fixed human natures to a static pre-ordained system is the monopoly of pragmatists who regard human beings as products of natural events whose activity is predetermined by physical laws they cannot transcend because free will conflicts with the law of the conservation of energy. Their kingdom is entirely of this world with no scope for self-creation or self-enlargement for the simple reason that the self is an illusion as far as they are concerned.
You are not entitled to use the term unless you accept the reality of an intangible entity that is not bound by physical limitations…

 

[Shredderbeam]

On the contrary, that is an excellent summary of the “naturalist’s” position - in which our basic need is individual survival rather than unselfish love and the common good! Taking care of others is seen as unnatural. Remember the selfish gene?

On a side note, naturalism can allow for altruism. Individuals that live in relatively small groups and can grasp the concept of reputation can develop a sort of “kin altruism”. It is a successful strategy that has been adapted by many groups, from bats to insects to mice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection#Examples

 

[BonumTeEsse]

Saying that rights do not exist because they are invented to solve human problems is like saying that motorcycles don’t exist.

I can dream up a whole host of things that are not real, whereas the reality of the motorcycle is proved simply because it is material.

Rights ought to be better considered “absolute goods,” which society has deemed to be worth pursuing even over other very valuable goods. Yet, rights take a special precedence in our modern society.

That does not mean that rights, per se, are real. They are a human construct, a way to solve problems. They are inventions, however. And a comprehensive and coherent political philosophy can certainly be constructed without reference to them.

 

[tonyrey]

If I were an atheist, I could find the human person so unique, so wonderful, and so on for pages and pages, that I could honestly say that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

“could” is the most significant word in your sentence! Unfortunately many do not share your view - as is evident from the appalling amount of violence, bloodshed and suffering in the world. Even those who claim to be theists do not necessarily find other persons as worthy of profound respect…

 

[grannymh]

“could” is the most significant word in your sentence! Unfortunately many do not share your view - as is evident from the appalling amount of violence, bloodshed and suffering in the world. Even those who claim to be theists do not necessarily find other persons as worthy of profound respect…

Actually, the word “could” is what makes “The human person is worthy of profound respect” an univesal truth.

The word “could”, viewed as an ability, is also why the human person is so worthy.

I agree. Could is very significant.

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, the word “could” is what makes “The human person is worthy of profound respect” an universal truth.

The word “could”, viewed as an ability, is also why the human person is so worthy.

I agree. Could is very significant.

The problem is explaining that ability if you were not a theist…

 

[grannymh]

The problem is explaining that ability if you were not a theist…

Many moons ago, an atheist and I were discussing free will in relationship to the concept that the human person is only matter, no immaterial soul. It might have been on a mind/body type thread or one where I discussed research during awake brain surgery. No matter. What I recall is that he commented that one could experience free will without attributing it to a spiritual soul. I think that is possible. Do you see any possibility to it?

I don’t think one has to be a theist to recognize that he or she has the ability to make choices etc. which is basically the “could” idea. I believe that currently “emergence of consciousness” (or similar) is what explains human decisions when the soul is denied. Sometimes we tend to sell atheists short or underestimate their humanness. Atheism does not essentially change human nature.

The difficulty when isms like utilitarianism, etc., ignore God is that they shift to subjective thinking and relativism. At the moment, I am not sure how to explain what happens. I need to do some more walking in an atheist’s shoes.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[tonyrey]

Many moons ago, an atheist and I were discussing free will in relationship to the concept that the human person is only matter, no immaterial soul. It might have been on a mind/body type thread or one where I discussed research during awake brain surgery. No matter. What I recall is that he commented that one could experience free will without attributing it to a spiritual soul. I think that is possible. Do you see any possibility to it?

No! If spiritual reality does not exist then everything has a physical basis (assuming, of course, there is no other reality which is exempt from physical laws). Free will presupposes a source of non-physical energy because otherwise it conflicts with the law of the conservation of energy.

I don’t think one has to be a theist to recognize that he or she has the ability to make choices etc. which is basically the “could” idea. I believe that currently “emergence of consciousness” (or similar) is what explains human decisions when the soul is denied.

The nature of those who reject God is not affected by their rejection of God but their attitude to reality is less cogent because they put particles before persons in their scheme of things. The emergence of consciousness does not entail the acquisition of free will. Even if we accept the astonishing feat of awareness arising out of inanimate objects the insurmountable problem of autonomy remains. How could the power of decision-making appear in a mechanistic system? Independence requires a deus ex machina!

Human life is sacred.

Nothing is intrinsically sacred for a person who rejects the idea of the Holy…

 

[grannymh]

No! If spiritual reality does not exist then everything has a physical basis (assuming, of course, there is no other reality which is exempt from physical laws). Free will presupposes a source of non-physical energy because otherwise it conflicts with the law of the conservation of energy.

This will be my last stand out of respect for the current ban. What I have been posting is that an objective truth exists independently of a human being. For example, God exists.

There was a day in Catholic high school when I stamped my foot and said – God, I want to know right now if You exist. Nothing happened. I really wanted God to tell me that He existed so I searched my brain for proof of God’s existence.
What I came up with was the worst irrational, full of holes, nonsensical, absurd proof imaginable. It worked. While I have been angry at God, wondered about God, etc., I do not deny His existence.

Did God need me to prove He existed? That is my point. There is no “if” about spiritual reality. In the real world, the world outside the ivory tower of philosophy, free will does not have to presuppose any source of non-physical energy. Free will comes with the package of human nature. Does a child need to understand the law of the conservation of energy to eat cookies before dinner?

The nature of those who reject God is not affected by their rejection of God but their attitude to reality is less cogent because they put particles before persons in their scheme of things.

Of course attitude, which is subjective because it comes from within the person’s mind or from one’s emotional state, does affect how one looks at reality. But attitude does not change God’s existence nor does it sustain God’s existence. Attitude does not change the worth of the human person.

The emergence of consciousness does not entail the acquisition of free will.

From the view point of human nature, nothing is needed to entail the acquisition of free will. It comes with human nature at the moment of conception. The theory of “emergence” is a human construction.

Even if we accept the astonishing feat of awareness arising out of inanimate objects the insurmountable problem of autonomy remains. How could the power of decision-making appear in a mechanistic system? Independence requires a deus ex machina!

All I have been saying is that the objective fact is – “The human person is worthy of profound respect.” Proof from a natural science aspect is off topic. Once the objective fact is understood, then the discussion can continue as to what rights belong to the person because he is worthy of respect.

Pardon me. But I would like to point out that we are approaching the issue of – the human person’s right to profound respect because he or she is worthy of it – from two entirely different perspectives. It appears to me that you are working from a defensive position in that you are focusing on all the possible opposition to an objective truth. Your perspective is needed. I do realize that your reference to a “mechanistic system” is based on philosophical concepts opposing objective truth.

My perspective is that an objective truth for example – the human person is worthy of respect --, exists independently of any opposition.

Nothing is intrinsically sacred for a person who rejects the idea of the Holy…

This is true but it actually omits the real truth. The person who rejects ideas about a spiritual God and by extension a spiritual soul in human beings is, in fact, intrinsically sacred himself.

Thank you for a good discussion.

Blessings,
granny

paragraph 355 “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.” Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm