You have no rights...?

[tonyrey]

I think it is fairly self explanatory. You come up with a set of rules for society, specifically human rights, and then you get inserted into that society.

What is the foundation of that set of rules?

However, you cannot control where you get inserted, so you have to give the least-well-off people in the society a position that you would find tolerable.

Why do you have to? There is plenty of social injustice throughout the world at this very moment - particularly in the US and the UK.

In that case it assumes that selfishness is not good - which begs the question.
A further example of an unwarranted assumption which implies that zeal inevitably leads to intolerance.
Yet another unwarranted assumption - that homosexuality is undesirable or even evil.

What question? We were talking about human rights. My contention was that human rights are by humans for humans.

What is the rational basis of human rights? What makes some human conventions superior to others?

The veil of ignorance is a way to derive a set of rights without being clouded by your own social status. Without a veil of ignorance, the slave owner only considers his position and thinks that slavery is not a violation of any sort of human rights. However, once he is confronted with the possibility of losing his status as owner and instead finding himself as a slave (i.e. through this exercise) he will quickly realize that slavery is not something a society should recognize, and would create a human right to liberty.

The vast majority of slave owners were and are not faced with the prospect of losing their status and slavery still exists throughout the world even though it is often blatant.

Not necessarily. A state of ignorance need not remind us of anything. It certainly takes far more than ignorance to justify the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. As Lear said, nothing shall come from nothing…

Yes, you keep asserting this. But I have demonstrated otherwise.

I believe I have refuted every statement you have made about the veil of ignorance but I’m not infallible. If you disagree please repeat one for further analysis.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

What is the foundation of that set of rules?Why do you have to? There is plenty of social injustice throughout the world at this very moment - particularly in the US and the UK. What is the rational basis of human rights? What makes some human conventions superior to others?

I’m not sure what you mean by foundation. Since rights are a thing that humans give to other humans, the foundation of the rights are “humans decide to recognize them.” There is no universal force that compels you to recognize one set of rights, in the same way that there is a universal force that attracts you to other material objects (i.e. gravity.) The veil of ignorance is a method to get people to collectively agree on some basic rights so that the society can formally recognize them.

The vast majority of slave owners were and are not faced with the prospect of losing their status and slavery still exists throughout the world even though it is often blatant.

I believe I have refuted every statement you have made about the veil of ignorance but I’m not infallible. If you disagree please repeat one for further analysis.

If the existence of people not putting your ideas into practice is proof that your ideas are wrong, then it is trivially easy to prove Catholicism is wrong because Hindus exist. I will also point out that your basis for human rights (i.e. the Abrahamic God) has likewise failed to universally convince people that slavery is a violation of human rights. Indeed, there are instances in the bible where he specifically allowed it.

 

[ynotzap]

I’m not sure what you mean by foundation. Since rights are a thing that humans give to other humans, the foundation of the rights are “humans decide to recognize them.” There is no universal force that compels you to recognize one set of rights, in the same way that there is a universal force that attracts you to other material objects (i.e. gravity.) The veil of ignorance is a method to get people to collectively agree on some basic rights so that the society can formally recognize them.If the existence of people not putting your ideas into practice is proof that your ideas are wrong, then it is trivially easy to prove Catholicism is wrong because Hindus exist. I will also point out that your basis for human rights (i.e. the Abrahamic God) has likewise failed to universally convince people that slavery is a violation of human rights. Indeed, there are instances in the bible where he specifically allowed it.

There is a universal principle that determines what is right and what is wrong. What ever is objectively conducive to the well-being of society is right, and good, whatever is not objectively conducive to the well-being of society is wrong, and bad. eg. Is homosexuality conducive to the well being of society, especially in marriage? The existence and well-being of society is the existence of the individuals that make up society. And how is that accomplished. By procreation. Can a marriage of the same sex produce this ,following the rational natural law? I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure it out. Even though slavery exists (all kinds) and slaves, is this conducive to the well-being of society. The history of this nation shows clearly, it does not, and why. Is man endowed with this right to freedom. Did he make it up? Society can not just make up rules by itself, with out reference to universal objective principles. If it is left up to men to govern each other, then there will be no harmonious society, for society will be run by the opinions of men which are many and subjective. What may be right for one may not be right for another and rights become subjective to the one who has the gun. And if you don’t believe this, take a good look around the world, one would have to be intellectually blind not to notice the violation of human rights that they were endowed with. The subjective opinion of men is like a ship without a rudder blown about by winds of opinion.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Society can not just make up rules by itself, with out reference to universal objective principles.

They very clearly can. This is not even up for debate. If all societies based all their rules on universal objective principles we would see very little variation between societies.

If it is left up to men to govern each other, then there will be no harmonious society, for society will be run by the opinions of men which are many and subjective. What may be right for one may not be right for another and rights become subjective to the one who has the gun. And if you don’t believe this, take a good look around the world, one would have to be intellectually blind not to notice the violation of human rights that they were endowed with. The subjective opinion of men is like a ship without a rudder blown about by winds of opinion.

And the objective opinions of men look like Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. Where were these objective human rights at Béziers? Did God forget to enforce them?

The fact that people disagree about what things ought to be “human rights” is precisely the problem that the veil of ignorance attacks. By stripping away a person’s social position while considering how to make a society, a great deal more agreement can be found. You might continue to whine that it lacks a basis beyond human consensus, but frankly I’d prefer a society designed by people for people than one run by the Old Testament God. The only entities that have ever recognized human rights are human entities. God did not say: well I’d really like to smite these people with diseases, but I can’t well violate their rights with biological warfare. He just smited innocent people with disease.

 

[ynotzap]

They very clearly can.

And that was the reason given for the lack of righteous and harmonious operation of society, man’s subjective interpretation of human rights, no connection to a universal objective realilty or principles. It not a matter of debate, but facts.

JapaneseKappa:

This is not even up for debate. If all societies based all their rules on universal objective principles we would see very little variation between societies.And the objective opinions of men look like Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. Where were these objective human rights at Béziers? Did God forget to enforce them?

Isn’t that desirable, all men who share in a common humanity, even though they are individually unique, to get along with each other because they hold these objective universal principles of right equally? You make reference to the Albigensian Crusades . The phrase was coined “Kill them. For the Lord knows those that are His own” Even in our time the terrorist muslims use the phrase, “Kill them all, let Allah sort them out” True Christians do not condone the unjust killing of people, they are forced into situations like war to do so in order to protect themselves. Heretics at that time were subject to death. That was the situation at the time, but that doesn’t make it right. Jesus Christ (of course I don’t expect you to believe this) said " that scandal will come, but it would be bad for those who caused it. Where was God, and why did He allow these massacres to happen, because He gave us “free will”, He will not take this away from man. If you are looking for justification for your position, you will find many. But what do you really know about the truths of Christianity? We had 265 Popes in 2000 years, and approximately l0 of them were bad. If you look for dirt, you will find it, try looking up. Christian Catholicism has done humanity very much good the world over if you have eyes to see, and a mind that is open.

JapaneseKappa:

The fact that people disagree about what things ought to be “human rights” is precisely the problem that the veil of ignorance attacks.

How can those who are subjected to the veil of ignorance, ever reach a truthful solution to understanding rights. In other words, how can the blind lead the blind, and we are all blind until we are “enlightened”, and where do we get this “enlightenment”?

JapaneseKappa:

By stripping away a person’s social position while considering how to make a society, a great deal more agreement can be found. You might continue to whine that it lacks a basis beyond human consensus, but frankly I’d prefer a society designed by people for people than one run by the Old Testament God. The only entities that have ever recognized human rights are human entities. God did not say: well I’d really like to smite these people with diseases, but I can’t well violate their rights with biological warfare. He just smited innocent people with disease.

This is what God did when He issued the Ten Commandments, the moral rule of conduct for rational men. God could never violate His own will, which was the union of all men with Him for eternity. I am reminded of a father who disciplines his son in order to lead his son into a good, happy life. But the son with a rebellious spirit, matures into a man with the same spirit. And because he resists his father’s discipline he now suffers from that which the father tried to prevent. Now the rebel son blames the father for his troubles. Then one day the rebel son becomes a father, and tries with his accumulated wisdom of life to impart this wisdom, and he gets the same results as his father did, a rebellious son Humanity, because of a universal veil of ignorance, as the consequence of sin and it’s effects blame the Father for it’s inherited condition, never admitting it’s own faults.

 

[tonyrey]

IWhat is the foundation of that set of rules?Why do you have to? There is plenty of social injustice throughout the world at this very moment - particularly in the US and the UK. What is the rational basis of human rights? What makes some human conventions superior to others?

I’m not sure what you mean by foundation. Since rights are a thing that humans give to other humans, the foundation of the rights are “humans decide to recognize them.”

The whole point is that not everyone does recognise them. You haven’t given a reason why they are categorical imperatives which apply to everyone. It is not self-evident that we are all equal, have a right to be free and should treat everyone as our brothers and sisters.

There is no universal force that compels you to recognize one set of rights, in the same way that there is a universal force that attracts you to other material objects (i.e. gravity.)

There is no coercive force but there is an objective reason why we all have an equal right to life, liberty and happiness. It is the only possible one: that we are all created by God who loves all His children.

The veil of ignorance is a method to get people to collectively agree on some basic rights so that the society can formally recognize them.

It is an arbitrary method that fails to convince people with a criminal mentality. The vast majority of slave owners were and are not faced with the prospect of losing their status and slavery still exists throughout the world even though it is often blatant.

I believe I have refuted every statement you have made about the veil of ignorance but I’m not infallible. If you disagree please repeat one for further analysis.

If the existence of people not putting your ideas into practice is proof that your ideas are wrong, then it is trivially easy to prove Catholicism is wrong because Hindus exist.

I will also point out that your basis for human rights (i.e. the Abrahamic God) has likewise failed to universally convince people that slavery is a violation of human rights.

The fact that people disagree proves nothing. What counts is whether the explanation is rational and the only possible reason we are all brothers and sisters with equal rights is that we have a Father who created us. Otherwise we are related solely by an accident of birth with no obligations to one another.

Indeed, there are instances in the bible where he specifically allowed it.

The Old Testament has been superseded by the example and teaching of Christ.

 

[tonyrey]

And that was the reason given for the lack of righteous and harmonious operation of society, man’s subjective interpretation of human rights, no connection to a universal objective realilty or principles. It not a matter of debate, but facts.

Isn’t that desirable, all men who share in a common humanity, even though they are individually unique, to get along with each other because they hold these objective universal principles of right equally? You make reference to the Albigensian Crusades . The phrase was coined “Kill them. For the Lord knows those that are His own” Even in our time the terrorist muslims use the phrase, “Kill them all, let Allah sort them out” True Christians do not condone the unjust killing of people, they are forced into situations like war to do so in order to protect themselves. Heretics at that time were subject to death. That was the situation at the time, but that doesn’t make it right. Jesus Christ (of course I don’t expect you to believe this) said " that scandal will come, but it would be bad for those who caused it. Where was God, and why did He allow these massacres to happen, because He gave us “free will”, He will not take this away from man. If you are looking for justification for your position, you will find many. But what do you really know about the truths of Christianity? We had 265 Popes in 2000 years, and approximately l0 of them were bad. If you look for dirt, you will find it, try looking up. Christian Catholicism has done humanity very much good the world over if you have eyes to see, and a mind that is open.

How can those who are subjected to the veil of ignorance, ever reach a truthful solution to understanding rights. In other words, how can the blind lead the blind, and we are all blind until we are “enlightened”, and where do we get this “enlightenment”?

This is what God did when He issued the Ten Commandments, the moral rule of conduct for rational men. God could never violate His own will, which was the union of all men with Him for eternity. I am reminded of a father who disciplines his son in order to lead his son into a good, happy life. But the son with a rebellious spirit, matures into a man with the same spirit. And because he resists his father’s discipline he now suffers from that which the father tried to prevent. Now the rebel son blames the father for his troubles. Then one day the rebel son becomes a father, and tries with his accumulated wisdom of life to impart this wisdom, and he gets the same results as his father did, a rebellious son Humanity, because of a universal veil of ignorance, as the consequence of sin and it’s effects blame the Father for it’s inherited condition, never admitting it’s own faults.

:clapping: “enlightenment” is the key word. Otherwise we are lost in the impenetrable darkness of eternity - which tells us nothing whatsoever.

 

[DCNBILL]

Given that we are created with free will, we have the right to chose the will of God for ourselves or not.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The whole point is that not everyone does recognise them. You haven’t given a reason why they are categorical imperatives which apply to everyone. It is not self-evident that we are all equal, have a right to be free and should treat everyone as our brothers and sisters.

Because I’m saying that they are not that. I am saying they are part of a social contract, not something ordained by God.

There is no coercive force but there is an objective reason why we all have an equal right to life, liberty and happiness. It is the only possible one: that we are all created by God who loves all His children.

And I’m saying it doesn’t matter if your underlying reasons are objective or not, it is still humans and human societies that ultimately decide (for themselves) what human rights are. That is why there are examples of religious societies violating human rights, and examples of secular societies defending them. I’m pointing out that the lack of coercive force is evidence that the rights themselves are not objective: you cannot stick a rights-o-meter in someones ear and determine objectively what rights they have. It is always, and has always been, a judgement call on the part of society what rights its members have.

It is an arbitrary method that fails to convince people with a criminal mentality. The vast majority of slave owners were and are not faced with the prospect of losing their status and slavery still exists throughout the world even though it is often blatant.
The fact that people disagree proves nothing. What counts is whether the explanation is rational and the only possible reason we are all brothers and sisters with equal rights is that we have a Father who created us. Otherwise we are related solely by an accident of birth with no obligations to one another.

The fact is that simply asserting things as facts also fails to convince people with a “criminal mentality.” Of course it is possible for someone to refuse to go through the veil of ignorance exercise. It is just as possible for someone to refuse to believe in your God. It is also possible for someone to reject their society’s rules altogether and do whatever they want.

 

[ynotzap]

The fact is that simply asserting things as facts also fails to convince people with a “criminal mentality.” Of course it is possible for someone to refuse to go through the veil of ignorance exercise. It is just as possible for someone to refuse to believe in your God. It is also possible for someone to reject their society’s rules altogether and do whatever they want.

Agreed, it is not only possible, but very probable as life experiences prove. Free will.

 

[tonyrey]

The whole point is that not everyone does recognise them. You haven’t given a reason why they are categorical imperatives which apply to everyone. It is not self-evident that we are all equal, have a right to be free and should treat everyone as our brothers and sisters.

Don’t you believe rights apply to everyone, that we are all equal, have a right to be free and should treat everyone as our brothers and sisters even if others disagree? What makes your view superior to others? And if it isn’t superior why do you believe it is true?

There is no coercive force but there is an objective reason why we all have an equal right to life, liberty and happiness. It is the only possible one: that we are all created by God who loves all His children.

And I’m saying it doesn’t matter if your underlying reasons are objective or not, it is still humans and human societies that ultimately decide (for themselves) what human rights are. That is why there are examples of religious societies violating human rights, and examples of secular societies defending them. I’m pointing out that the lack of coercive force is evidence that the rights themselves are not objective: you cannot stick a rights-o-meter in someones ear and determine objectively what rights they have. It is always, and has always been, a judgement call on the part of society what rights its members have.

Then you believe all views are equally tenable? None is superior to another?

It is an arbitrary method that fails to convince people with a criminal mentality. The vast majority of slave owners were and are not faced with the prospect of losing their status and slavery still exists throughout the world even though it is often blatant.
The fact that people disagree proves nothing. What counts is whether the explanation is rational and the only possible reason we are all brothers and sisters with equal rights is that we have a Father who created us. Otherwise we are related solely by an accident of birth with no obligations to one another.

The fact is that simply asserting things as facts also fails to convince people with a “criminal mentality.” Of course it is possible for someone to refuse to go through the veil of ignorance exercise. It is just as possible for someone to refuse to believe in your God. It is also possible for someone to reject their society’s rules altogether and do whatever they want.

So again you believe all views are equally tenable and it makes no difference what people believe? Criminals are just as entitled to their view as anyone else and should do what they like?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Don’t you believe rights apply to everyone, that we are all equal, have a right to be free and should treat everyone as our brothers and sisters even if others disagree?

Human rights apply to all humans by definition.

What makes your view superior to others? And if it isn’t superior why do you believe it is true?

It is superior because it is both reasonable and requires a minimum of metaphysical baggage. That is to say, in order to be convinced does not require conversion to a religion. The rights are completely available to and compatible with most religious conceptions of human rights.

Then you believe all views are equally tenable? None is superior to another? So again you believe all views are equally tenable and it makes no difference what people believe?

No. They are ranked according to rationality.

Criminals are just as entitled to their view as anyone else and should do what they like?

Of course they are entitled to their views. But we are entitled to disagree. And if society as a whole disagrees with their actions, society is entitled to punish them.

 

[francisca]

Oops, that should be 2 Samuel 24:15

God is a just God. No one is as just as Him. So, your reading above and the other examples you mentioned, all of them has long reasoning and explanation which basically related to what God and/ or men has said in “oath” towards each other, and also about God as the only true god as opposed to other gods who are not true. Worshiping other gods offends the True God.

In order to explain what happened in 2Samuel, we shall comeback to the time of Noah.

Noah get drunk and he did something that was shameful as a father of three sons. When he get sober, Noah realized that one of his son, Ham, have seen what he shouldn’t have. Noah was ashamed and angry, so he cursed Ham. Ham is the ancestor of Canaan. Please Read Genesis 9:18-27.

Long story short, by the time of Moses and the Kings, the Land of Canaan was a place of horrible practice of abominations (sorcery, witchcraft, idols worships) in which horrible sacrifices being paid to other gods (including human sacrifices and other horrible rituals that include eating human bowels and other horrible things).

So God said to Moses to enter this land and possess it.

Exodus 23
20.* "Behold, I am going to send an angel before you to guard you along the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared.

And the way God help Moses and the people to possess the land was:

Exodus 23
28.* "I will send hornets ahead of you so that they will drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites before you.
30.* "I will drive them out before you little by little, until you become fruitful and take possession of the land.
31.* "I will fix your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the River Euphrates; for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out before you.

One thing that God asked them to be cautious about:

Exodus 23
32. "You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods.*
33.* “They shall not live in your land, because they will make you sin against Me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you.”

Long story short, Moses never enter the Canaan land because he was fearful so he wanders in the dessert for 40 years. After Moses died, then Joshua son of nun begin to conquer the land little by little as God asked hum to. Please read Joshua 24:12-14.

By the era of the Judges, Israel has settled in the land, but they never really drive the other nations out, as asked by God, instead they tax them. Because of this tax, God says, from then on, He will not drive the other nations. Instead, Israel has to live side by side with them.

Judges 1
28 But when the Israelites grew stronger, they exacted taxes from the Canaanites who stayed in their place.
29 Neither the tribe of Ephraim expel the Canaanites who lived in Gezer
30 nor did the tribe of Zebulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron and Nahalol. These Canaanites lived among them, but had to pay taxes to them.

Judges 2
2 but You shall not make covenant with with the Canaanites and shall destroy their altars. But you have not obeyed…
3 Now, I will not drive out these nations before you. They shall be your oppressors and their gods shall be a trap for you

Please read Wisdom12 in which the above passages being explained in detail with regard why God did what He did.

Wisdom 12 (“You” in this passage addresses God, please read the whole chapter12)
15 You are just and you rule all with justice, and **had you condemed those who should not be punished, you would have misused your power.
19 In this way, you have taught your people that a righteous person must love his human fellows; you also have given your people cause for hope by prompitng them to repent of their sin.

After the above long explanation: I recommed you to read the bible in contextual manner. Use the bible search to find out what happened. It’s actually not an easy thing to do if you’re not familiar with the teaching yet.

I recommend that you read the book of Genesis first, and then jump to Gospel of Luke and John first (becasue these two gospels covers almost all the content of the 4 gospels). After this, you may read The book of Job (since you seem to have so many questions similar to Job’s questions), and find out how Jesus birth, life and ressurection answers Job’s (and his friends) questions. Job is not an easy book to understand on its own, but it is much easier to read (not necessarily to understand ) compared to other old testament books, in the light of the Gospels.**

 

[francisca]

This doesn’t need to be interpreted literally. In fact, I don’t believe the entire Exodus story actually happened. The question I’ve always asked while reading bible stories is “what is the take home message or overarching theme here?” There are numerous instances in the old testament where the message seems to me to be: God doesn’t recognize any human rights.

Smiting the firstborn of Egypt? Smiting Amalec? Smiting Onan? Smiting David’s son? The overarching theme to me seems pretty clear: whenever there is a conflict between God’s whims and human rights, God’s whims win.

Among all the books in the Old Testaments, The Torah books (The first 5 books) are the hardest to understand. Genesis is easier to read, compared to the 4 Torah books, but understanding it is a different matter too. Exodus is one of these 5 books.

Old Testament books requires a general understanding of Christianity to understand them.

 

[francisca]

About our right to life, it comes from God.

Should our right to life comes from our humanity, then why can’t one commit suicide?

God’s command “Thou shall not commit murder” is one of the 10 commandments God gave to Mosses.

However since life belongs to God, God has the right to take it back too. But God doesn’t do spurious reasoning for murders as you showed in your examples.

God give this command to Noah:

Genesis 9
6*Man was made in God’s image, and whoever sheds a man’s blood must shed his own blood in return. And now, increase and multiply; occupy and fill the earth.

God killed nations who practice abomination, because these nations killed, and the abomination they practice would kill more and more humans if God allowed them to continue practicing what they believed.

 

[tonyrey]

Don’t you believe rights apply to everyone, that we are all equal, have a right to be free and should treat everyone as our brothers and sisters even if others disagree?

A definition is not an explanation!

What makes your view superior to others? And if it isn’t superior why do you believe it is true?

It is superior because it is both reasonable and requires a minimum of metaphysical baggage. That is to say, in order to be convinced does not require conversion to a religion. The rights are completely available to and compatible with most religious conceptions of human rights.

The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity require belief that we are all brothers and sisters with one Father, not animals related solely by an accident of birth.

Then you believe all views are equally tenable? None is superior to another? So again you believe all views are equally tenable and it makes no difference what people believe?

No. They are ranked according to rationality.

How did rationality originate?

Criminals are just as entitled to their view as anyone else and should do what they like?

Of course they are entitled to their views. But we are entitled to disagree. And if society as a whole disagrees with their actions, society is entitled to punish them.

Might is not right! The majority are often wrong!.