Prove to me objective "rights" exist. - page 2.

Explodicle

hero member

Activity: 950

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Hawker on April 01, 2012, 01:50:16 AM

Quote from: Explodicle on April 01, 2012, 01:09:20 AM

Quote from: Hawker on March 31, 2012, 07:07:54 AM

Quote from: JoelKatz on March 31, 2012, 04:41:57 AM

Quote from: Hawker on March 31, 2012, 04:16:48 AM

As I said, 1000 years ago slavery was morally OK in the eyes of everyone and abortion was a heinous offence. Now most people are OK with abortion and slavery is a heinous offence.

Morality changed. Saying the bible was morally wrong is only saying that you want to apply today's morality to people that lived in a different age.

Slavery was *always* a moral abomination, whether people realized it or not. The Bible clearly condones what we now know is a moral abomination.

In any event, if you accept that morality can change and the Bible can be incorrect as a source of modern moral values, then it's hard to see what good it is as a guide. If we disagree with it, we have to substitute our own judgment, since "morality changed". So if you accept this view, then that condemns the Bible to be useless a source of moral guidance.

Again what you are doing is saying that today's morality is absolutely correct and that all preceding version and all the future versions are wrong. But at least we agree on the Bible

It could be that in 1000 years time, factory farming, or mass abortion, or something else we take for granted is seen as a heinous offence.

I'm not arguing that we should not enforce our moral standards - OP asked for proof objective rights exist. I genuinely don't think they do - our morals and our rights are part of our culture.

Where did anyone say that? How did you draw this conclusion?

This is a strawman argument. It even adopts your moral relativist/populist notion of "today's" morality!

Statement 1 by JoelKatz : Slavery was *always* a moral abomination, whether people realized it or not.
Statement 2 by me: What you are doing is saying that today's morality is absolutely correct and that all preceding version and all the future versions are wrong

That's where. Until 500 years ago, slavery was not a moral abomination. Morality changed and now it is. JoelKatz statement that it was always a moral abomination is applying today's morality to an age where it doesn't apply.

All you're doing now is repeating yourself, while offering no explanation as to how you bridge this epic gap whatsoever. WTF is "today's morality" if not an extension of YOUR relativist argument, not Joel's?

To break down just a couple of these holes:
* Where do these claims about "future versions" come from?
* How could just being right about slavery make "today's morality" absolutely correct?

This is just like that "immovable object" argument a couple pages back. You're defining everything in your own terms but because your terms are nonsensical, the concept you translate sounds nonsensical.

To adhere solely to "today's morality" is simply amoral - even if you don't believe in a God, there are at least some absolutes within humanity that haven't changed during our history or across cultures.

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: Hawker on April 01, 2012, 01:50:16 AM

Statement 1 by JoelKatz : Slavery was *always* a moral abomination, whether people realized it or not.
Statement 2 by me: What you are doing is saying that today's morality is absolutely correct and that all preceding version and all the future versions are wrong

That's where. Until 500 years ago, slavery was not a moral abomination. Morality changed and now it is. JoelKatz statement that it was always a moral abomination is applying today's morality to an age where it doesn't apply.

Joel Katz has never believed that morals are different in different societies at different times, but that whatever morals we think of as being 'good' right now have always been 'good' even if everyone at the time got it wrong. There'll be a Joel Katz of the distant future that says the same thing about how we treat farm produce, or some other moral judgement that simply doesn't apply right now.

Here's an example of previous arguments on a different topic but that are similar to the ones he provides here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.475003

There's not much point continuing the discussion. A mere mortal has no chance of changing his ideas on morality.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Explodicle on April 01, 2012, 01:09:20 AM

Quote from: Hawker on March 31, 2012, 07:07:54 AM

Quote from: JoelKatz on March 31, 2012, 04:41:57 AM

Quote from: Hawker on March 31, 2012, 04:16:48 AM

As I said, 1000 years ago slavery was morally OK in the eyes of everyone and abortion was a heinous offence. Now most people are OK with abortion and slavery is a heinous offence.

Morality changed. Saying the bible was morally wrong is only saying that you want to apply today's morality to people that lived in a different age.

Slavery was *always* a moral abomination, whether people realized it or not. The Bible clearly condones what we now know is a moral abomination.

In any event, if you accept that morality can change and the Bible can be incorrect as a source of modern moral values, then it's hard to see what good it is as a guide. If we disagree with it, we have to substitute our own judgment, since "morality changed". So if you accept this view, then that condemns the Bible to be useless a source of moral guidance.

Again what you are doing is saying that today's morality is absolutely correct and that all preceding version and all the future versions are wrong. But at least we agree on the Bible

It could be that in 1000 years time, factory farming, or mass abortion, or something else we take for granted is seen as a heinous offence.

I'm not arguing that we should not enforce our moral standards - OP asked for proof objective rights exist. I genuinely don't think they do - our morals and our rights are part of our culture.

Where did anyone say that? How did you draw this conclusion?

This is a strawman argument. It even adopts your moral relativist/populist notion of "today's" morality!

Statement 1 by JoelKatz : Slavery was *always* a moral abomination, whether people realized it or not.
Statement 2 by me: What you are doing is saying that today's morality is absolutely correct and that all preceding version and all the future versions are wrong

That's where. Until 500 years ago, slavery was not a moral abomination. Morality changed and now it is. JoelKatz statement that it was always a moral abomination is applying today's morality to an age where it doesn't apply.

Explodicle

hero member

Activity: 950

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Hawker on March 31, 2012, 07:07:54 AM

Quote from: JoelKatz on March 31, 2012, 04:41:57 AM

Quote from: Hawker on March 31, 2012, 04:16:48 AM

As I said, 1000 years ago slavery was morally OK in the eyes of everyone and abortion was a heinous offence. Now most people are OK with abortion and slavery is a heinous offence.

Morality changed. Saying the bible was morally wrong is only saying that you want to apply today's morality to people that lived in a different age.

Slavery was *always* a moral abomination, whether people realized it or not. The Bible clearly condones what we now know is a moral abomination.

In any event, if you accept that morality can change and the Bible can be incorrect as a source of modern moral values, then it's hard to see what good it is as a guide. If we disagree with it, we have to substitute our own judgment, since "morality changed". So if you accept this view, then that condemns the Bible to be useless a source of moral guidance.

Again what you are doing is saying that today's morality is absolutely correct and that all preceding version and all the future versions are wrong. But at least we agree on the Bible

It could be that in 1000 years time, factory farming, or mass abortion, or something else we take for granted is seen as a heinous offence.

I'm not arguing that we should not enforce our moral standards - OP asked for proof objective rights exist. I genuinely don't think they do - our morals and our rights are part of our culture.

Where did anyone say that? How did you draw this conclusion?

This is a strawman argument. It even adopts your moral relativist/populist notion of "today's" morality!

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Quote from: organofcorti on March 31, 2012, 10:30:59 PM

Oh god.

Letting Atlas start a thread is as irresponsible as allowing mentally handicapped children access to a webcam, karaoke machine, and youtube.

... and a lot less entertaining.

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Oh god.

Letting Atlas start a thread is as irresponsible as allowing mentally handicapped children access to a webcam, karaoke machine, and youtube.

He just sets up a divisive topic, throws in a few leading comments and then lets it rip. And yet I can't put him on ignore since I always want to know what the hell Matt's latest Atlas gripe is about.

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Quote from: ?? on ??

yes, thanks I havent noticed. but I give this reply:-

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover-islam/134275057-can-someone-clarify-16-59-me-regarding-bees-eating-fruits.html
post #2
"Bees don't eat fruits? All I can say is you never had a fig, persimmon or date tree.
It is true that domesticated European honey bees only eat nectar and sugar water. But given a chance and the opportunity you will find bees and wasps and hornets eating soft fruits and some over ripe fruits such as over ripe pears and plums..."

Overripe fruit turns to alcohol. Stay away from drunken bees!

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: JoelKatz on March 31, 2012, 04:41:57 AM

Quote from: Hawker on March 31, 2012, 04:16:48 AM

As I said, 1000 years ago slavery was morally OK in the eyes of everyone and abortion was a heinous offence. Now most people are OK with abortion and slavery is a heinous offence.

Morality changed. Saying the bible was morally wrong is only saying that you want to apply today's morality to people that lived in a different age.

Slavery was *always* a moral abomination, whether people realized it or not. The Bible clearly condones what we now know is a moral abomination.

In any event, if you accept that morality can change and the Bible can be incorrect as a source of modern moral values, then it's hard to see what good it is as a guide. If we disagree with it, we have to substitute our own judgment, since "morality changed". So if you accept this view, then that condemns the Bible to be useless a source of moral guidance.

Again what you are doing is saying that today's morality is absolutely correct and that all preceding version and all the future versions are wrong. But at least we agree on the Bible

It could be that in 1000 years time, factory farming, or mass abortion, or something else we take for granted is seen as a heinous offence.

I'm not arguing that we should not enforce our moral standards - OP asked for proof objective rights exist. I genuinely don't think they do - our morals and our rights are part of our culture.

Xenland

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1003

I'm not just any shaman, I'm a Sha256man

TL:DR

The only true and real rights anyone has is those are already in place by the physical laws of the universe anything. Beyond that is just an illusion of rights.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: Hawker on March 31, 2012, 04:16:48 AM

As I said, 1000 years ago slavery was morally OK in the eyes of everyone and abortion was a heinous offence. Now most people are OK with abortion and slavery is a heinous offence.

Morality changed. Saying the bible was morally wrong is only saying that you want to apply today's morality to people that lived in a different age.

Slavery was *always* a moral abomination, whether people realized it or not. The Bible clearly condones what we now know is a moral abomination.

In any event, if you accept that morality can change and the Bible can be incorrect as a source of modern moral values, then it's hard to see what good it is as a guide. If we disagree with it, we have to substitute our own judgment, since "morality changed". So if you accept this view, then that condemns the Bible to be useless a source of moral guidance.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Explodicle on March 27, 2012, 07:39:40 PM

...snip...
Sorry to feed the trolls, but this guy keeps posting the same goddamn thing in every thread. IS != OUGHT, HAWKER. The bible was morally wrong about slavery then and it still is now, regardless of who voted on it and who was in charge at whatever time.

Is it too hard for you to perform ANY moral reasoning on your own? Must local opinion shape every single thing you believe is right and wrong?

As I said, 1000 years ago slavery was morally OK in the eyes of everyone and abortion was a heinous offence. Now most people are OK with abortion and slavery is a heinous offence.

Morality changed. Saying the bible was morally wrong is only saying that you want to apply today's morality to people that lived in a different age.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: ?? on ??

This verse is compatible with science, yes bees don't generally eat fruit, but sometimes they do.

It's compatible with science only if you change the meaning of the verse. But since you are happy to do that, I have no problem. The Qu'ran is sufficiently vague that you can make it say whatever you want it to say, and so long as you are willing to reinterpret it to conform to common sense and science, it will do you no harm. The problem would be if you say, "The Qu'ran says bees eat fruit, so that's that. If you think otherwise, you are wrong and the Qu'ran is right." You can make the book mean whatever you want to mean, and so long as you are willing to do that, it cannot lead you astray.

I wish more Christians would do that. They tend to say "The Bible said the animals all died in a flood, so they died in a flood". It would be much saner to re-interpret the Bible as a metaphor or say that maybe one or two animals drowned somewhere, just as one or two bees probably occasionally eat a fruit or two. That's how you can be religious and not wind up believing lots of silly nonsense.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: ?? on ??

It is true that domesticated European honey bees only eat nectar and sugar water. But given a chance and the opportunity you will find bees and wasps and hornets eating soft fruits and some over ripe fruits such as over ripe pears and plums. If you ever have had any experience with wild African Honey Bees (Killer bees) you will find they not only eat fruit, but also carrion. The European Honey bee that you are familiar with is only one species of bee and is not found on the Arabian Peninsula or in Africa."

I think you're missing the point. The point is that people would read that portion of the Quran and think that bees generally eat fruit and they do not. The issue is not whether it's possible for you to torture language and common sense into some way of making what the Quran says arguably true. Yes, you can twist language to make Allah say whatever you want him to say. But that's not how it's supposed to work. You're supposed to understand what he's saying, not make him say something else.

If I told someone "bees eat all the fruits of the earth", you'd rightfully call me either a liar or an uneducated moron. It matters not that you can find a picture of a bee eating a fruit somewhere.

However, if you want to argue that science and reason come first, and you'll be willing to twist the clear words of the Qu'ran to match, then I have no quarrel with you. I think that's a silly exercise, but at least it will keep you out of trouble. If the Qu'ran says X and you want to believe Y, just find a way to argue X means Y and off you go.

It's better than actually believing that god taught bees to eat all the fruits of the Earth, isn't it?

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but those are wasps. See, for example, this link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_wasp_white_bg02.jpg
Look familiar?

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

The Qur'an says bees eat fruit:

"And thy Lord taught the Bee to build its cells in hills, on trees, and in human habitations. Then to eat of all the fruits of the earth and find with skill the spacious paths of its Lord."

senbonzakura

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 502

Quote from: Sovereign Investor on March 27, 2012, 08:06:34 PM

The Bible has never been wrong on anything, it is 100% accurate. The Bible did not create slavery; the Old Testament must be understood in the light of the cultural practices of the time, like polygamy.
You have your opinion and I have mine. I leave it at that.

Proverbs 6:6-8 New International Version (NIV)

6 Go to the ant, you sluggard;
   consider its ways and be wise!
7 It has no commander,
   no overseer or ruler,
8 yet it stores its provisions in summer
   and gathers its food at harvest.

Ants live in colonies and ranks of rulership and authority and they have a queen.
Qur'an
[027:018] At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it."

Advances in audio technology have enabled scientists to discover that ants routinely talk to each other in their nests.
Most ants have a natural washboard and plectrum built into their abdomens that they can rub together to communicate using sound.
Using miniaturised microphones and speakers that can be inserted unobtrusively into nests, researchers established that the queens can issue instructions to their workers.
The astonished researchers, who managed to make the first recordings of queen ants “speaking”, also discovered that other insects can mimic the ants to make them slaves.
Rebel's large blue butterfly is one of about 10,000 creatures that have a parasitic relationship with ants and has now been found to have learnt to imitate the sounds as well as using chemical signals.
Research several decades ago had shown that ants were able to make alarm calls using sounds, but only now has it been shown that their vocabulary may be much bigger and that they can “talk” to each other.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5672006.ece

"We will show them Our signs in the Universe and inside their selves, until it will become quite clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that He is a witness over all things? (The Noble Quran, 41:53)"

----------------------------------------------------
2 Samuel 10:18 - David slew 700 and 40,000 horsemen and Shobach the commander.
1 Chronicles 19:18 - David slew 7000 chariots and 40,000 footmen.

2 Chronicles 9:25 - Solomon had 4000 stalls for horses and chariots.
1 Kings 4:26 - Solomon had 40,000 stalls for horses.

Ezra 2:5 - Arah had 775 sons.
Nehemiah 7:10 - Arah had 652 sons.

2 Samuel 24:13 - SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE.
1 Chronicles 21:11-12 - THREE YEARS OF FAMINE.

Who was Josiah's successor?
Jehoahaz - 2 Chronicle 36:1
Shallum - Jeremiah 22:11
-------------------------------------------------------------

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 29, 2012, 11:44:40 PM

Sounds very much like discussion on qualia. You might want to read about "Mary in the black and white room". Google it.

I'm not really making a qualia argument except to argue that the fact that we sense something is conclusive evidence that something exists that accounts for that sensation. The fact that people have similar sensations in similar situations proves almost conclusively that something exists in those situations that accounts for those similar sensations.

Quote from: Explodicle on March 30, 2012, 09:30:30 AM

The main difference being qualia are inherently impossible to define. In that sense, the experience of perceiving color is a quale, but the wavelength of light is not. So it might be impossible to describe what it feels like to have one's rights violated without analogy.

I think the more relevant experience would be perceiving that a right, anyone's right, has been violated -- our sense (in the most literal sense of the word "sense") of injustice.

And I should say that doesn't mean "injustice" has to exist in the real world in the same form as we sense it. Just like "black" in human sensation means the absence of specific frequencies of light in the physical world -- but which frequencies those are is determined solely by human vision.

Explodicle

hero member

Activity: 950

Merit: 1001

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 29, 2012, 11:44:40 PM

Sounds very much like discussion on qualia. You might want to read about "Mary in the black and white room". Google it.

The main difference being qualia are inherently impossible to define. In that sense, the experience of perceiving color is a quale, but the wavelength of light is not. So it might be impossible to describe what it feels like to have one's rights violated without analogy.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: benjamindees on March 29, 2012, 11:37:43 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 29, 2012, 05:42:27 PM

Could someone unambiguously define a natural right, or an objective right?

In short, it is what you have alone on a deserted island, and what another has alone on her own deserted island, and what you both keep when together on the same island.

Huh?

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: JoelKatz on March 29, 2012, 06:09:59 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 29, 2012, 05:42:27 PM

Could someone unambiguously define a natural right, or an objective right?

Not much better than people could define color three hundred years ago. Just like three hundred years ago about the best we could do with defining a color is, "it's what in the objective world corresponds to when I see something that has an apparent color", about the best we can do with natural rights or objective rights is, "it's what in the outside world corresponds to when I see something violating rights, probably something about the nature of volition". It's circular because we don't know enough about what we're perceiving or how we're perceiving it yet to do more than that. (Fully realizing that things inside us account for the perception as well, of course. See my other post in this thread.)

They are something we sense directly with a sensory mechanism that we don't understand very well yet.

I would add that most of what people say about objective rights is probably bunk. It would be like color blind people writing things about color -- "People tend to call plants green, so perhaps greenness is about plants. People tend to describe water as blue, so that probably has something to do with liquids that are refreshing, but then why don't they call soda blue?" You can see how it's clearly nonsense if you change it from rights to colors.

Sounds very much like discussion on qualia. You might want to read about "Mary in the black and white room". Google it.

Topic: Prove to me objective "rights" exist. - page 2. (Read 9643 times)