|
The Fallacy of Human Rights (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Epicurus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
The philosophies of subjectivism and moral relativism are utter crap. They're completely anti-intellectual as they essentially involve saying "hey, other people have a different idea of what's right and wrong, so that must mean there's no such thing as right or wrong". That's the logic, right there, and it should be easy to see that you're skipping about 15 steps in the reasoning process.
|
So, I have a GREAT book that YOU, in particular, MUST read...I think you'll appreciate it tremendously...you can thank me later...
Thomas Nagel - The Last Word.
One of my favourite philosophers, despite the fact that I tend to disagree with him on quite a few issues. Anyway, one of the best books I've read in recent memory, because of it's insight regarding our faculty of reason. He goes on a rant about subjectivism in the entire book, ethics included. Beautiful and elegant argument that he generalizes to a slew of fields, from logic, to science, to language and so forth. Anyway, get it and you won't regret it. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilDust
Right. So we shouldn't penalize someone for plagiarism. We should be able to copy works of art and ideas, claim them as original and sell them for cash! After all, who's to say that wasn't our own original thoughts? |
Intellectual property is still property.
| quote: | | If only life were this simple, we wouldn't be debating about abortion, homosexuality, capital punishment, racism, raising kids appropriately, how to treat women, invading countries, the importance of money, etc. etc... |
Nearly everything in that list came to be because of religion, which is anti-freedom and anti-reason.
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
no, I disagree...
Food has no *intrinsic* value...instrinsic value meaning value that is independent of anything other than itself...ie. "inherently" valuable or good or bad or whatever. If food is valuable to a human being to be eaten...then it's value is relative to that human being, that human's level of hunger, the amount of other food available, etc.
so there is no inherent and measurable value outside of what an organism (human, whatever) would attach to it ;) |
Presumably then, you also believe that animals and the environment have no intrinsic value?
Epicurus, I'll get on the ball with that... |
|
|
| MarkT |
I'm not saying I agree with this position...I'm simply saying it's a valid position ;)
I'm going to keep restating what intrinsic means in philosophical terms, because I think it's being ignored. intrinsic value...valuable IN AND OF ITSELF...valuable FOR ITS OWN SAKE...etc.
So what intrinsic value do animals and/or the environment possess? One might argue that as human beings, we value the "health" or preservation of the environment to support the continuation of our species generation after generation. That is not intrinsic value...that's value that we, as humans, have attached to preserving the environment.
It's not an easy position to logically refute, I think... |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Nothing is good or bad, but thinking makes it so. |
You can't have good without the bad, but if you dont have the bad then you will not have the good as you will not know what good is without knowing its opposite, the bad.
Am I right? |
|
|
| EvilDust |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Intellectual property is still property.
|
But these intellectual properties are just ideas. How can one person claim ownership on an idea? And also, this kind of property has no physical properties. How do you fit this in with your statement that "Human rights are meant to protect physical things (life and property), not ideas"?
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Nearly everything in that list came to be because of religion, which is anti-freedom and anti-reason.
|
So what does an objectivist say about these issues? |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilDust
But these intellectual properties are just ideas. How can one person claim ownership on an idea? And also, this kind of property has no physical properties. How do you fit this in with your statement that "Human rights are meant to protect physical things (life and property), not ideas"? |
A def. of human rights I accept is "Human right is a justified claim/entitlement on somebody/institution for something".
Human right is your entitlement to get something concrete as in object.
An example might be purchasing a plane ticket to go on a trip. The plane ticket entitles you to a trip on the plane, but without the ticket, you're not allowed to get on the plane. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I'm not saying I agree with this position...I'm simply saying it's a valid position ;)
I'm going to keep restating what intrinsic means in philosophical terms, because I think it's being ignored. intrinsic value...valuable IN AND OF ITSELF...valuable FOR ITS OWN SAKE...etc.
So what intrinsic value do animals and/or the environment possess? One might argue that as human beings, we value the "health" or preservation of the environment to support the continuation of our species generation after generation. That is not intrinsic value...that's value that we, as humans, have attached to preserving the environment.
It's not an easy position to logically refute, I think... |
You don't need to restate what it means, I understand perfectly. I just posed the question because I find that many subjectivists are also environmentalists and don't seem to realize the obvious contradiction. If one believes that nothing has value except the value we attach to it, then Mother Earth has to fall into that category too! ;) I see at least you're consistent in that respect...
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilDust
But these intellectual properties are just ideas. How can one person claim ownership on an idea? And also, this kind of property has no physical properties. How do you fit this in with your statement that "Human rights are meant to protect physical things (life and property), not ideas"? |
They're ideas until they are made into something physical. A song isn't an idea, it's a physical arrangement of tones or words that's notated on paper. If you "wrote" a song in your head and never actually transcribed it on paper, then anyone could use it, which makes perfect sense. It's the IMPLEMENTATION of those ideas - a written song, a patented design, etc. - that becomes intellectual property, not the idea.
| quote: | | So what does an objectivist say about these issues? |
Could you be a little more specific with your question?
Incidentally I'm not an objectivist per se. I suppose that Ayn Rand would be my philosopher of choice IF I had to pick one, but I simply don't believe that the reality of human life can be condensed into some quaint little theory, no matter if that theory is from Ayn Rand or Noam Chomsky. Theories can only act as models for life, not explanations of it. |
|
|
| EvilDust |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
They're ideas until they are made into something physical. A song isn't an idea, it's a physical arrangement of tones or words that's notated on paper. If you "wrote" a song in your head and never actually transcribed it on paper, then anyone could use it, which makes perfect sense. It's the IMPLEMENTATION of those ideas - a written song, a patented design, etc. - that becomes intellectual property, not the idea.
|
ok, I guess I got confused with your statement about the right to ideas. You probably meant the right to have your own beliefs.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Could you be a little more specific with your question?
|
I guess what I'm curious is, how does one make an objective stance on issues like abortion and homosexuality? Are they wrong or are they right? I mean both sides make strong valid arguments even without the use of religion. |
|
|
| Cal |
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? The right to own property?
Yeah it does sound good, so good that in fact it seems that youd have to be crazy not to appreciate its existance.
Well guess what, the native peoples of Canada have been it's opponents for a long time now. Why? Because it's destroying their culture, its destroying their unique way of life.
How's that for "universal" rights. |
|
|
| Allegory |
Human Rights in Ontario: A Complainant's Guide
"The Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code) is a very important law in Ontario. It exists to protect everyone in Ontario from discrimination and harassment. All other laws must be consistent with the Code. The Ontario Human Rights Commission administers the Code and is responsible for making sure that the Code is respected.
You may make a complaint to the Human Rights Commission if you believe you have been discriminated against or harassed. A complaint form is a legal document. It contains your description of why you believe discrimination has taken place.
Protecting human rights is everyone's responsibility. We all have an obligation to respect each other's human rights and to speak out against discrimination and harassment for ourselves and for others.
What is Discrimination? What is Harassment?
Discrimination means unfair treatment because of your race, sex, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, marital status, same sex partner status, sexual orientation, age, disability, citizenship, family status or religion.
You have the right to be free from discrimination and harassment in shops, restaurants, transit, hospitals, schools, insurance, housing, contracts, employment, membership in unions or vocational associations.
Harassment is a form of discrimination. It includes behaviour or comments that put you down or that insult or offend you based on race, sex, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, marital status, same sex partner status, sexual orientation, age, disability, citizenship, family status or religion. If a person says something to you that the person knows or ought to know is unwelcome or makes you feel uncomfortable because it is discriminatory, this is harassment."
What isn't defined by the Human Rights commision is that we, as people discriminate on a daily basis; we entitle ourselves to our preferences and subject our opinions constantly. Harrassment and discrimination can be defined together or separately, and manifest's itself on a daily basis because many of us don't perceive it that way or choose to ignore it; these opinions can invariably be construed from one person to the next, and that's why a human rights violation can be so subjective. As a result of this people can feel hopeless, and that there is no point in contesting this harrassment because they wouldn't be supported. I feel that there are ways to mitigate harrassment by not compromising ourselves. One just needs to employ a little strategy.
It's funny, I took a course all day yesterday on "understanding harrasment in the workplace". It was an incredibly enlightening course filled with scenarios, defining human rights or lack thereof, and most importantly learning how to employ strategies to prevent or mediate harrasment and/or descrimination.
Anyway, this is just my two cents. You can find lots of info here:
Human rights commision of Ontario - http://www.ohrc.on.ca/
I highly recommend it to everyone. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
^ ^ ^ That "Ontario Human Rights Code" right there is everything that Human Rights is NOT supposed to be. The whole "anti-discrimination" front is completely opposed to individualism; while I certainly agree, for example, that people shouldn't be refused a position because they're black or gay, that's not the only kind of "discrimination" - and discrimination itself is not only NOT intrinsically wrong, but practically fundamental to our existence!
Hey kids, slavery ended over 100 years ago, and women have been voting for over 50. It's time to take some responsibility for yourselves instead of whining that every obstacle in your life is the result of some systematic prejudice.
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilDust
I guess what I'm curious is, how does one make an objective stance on issues like abortion and homosexuality? Are they wrong or are they right? I mean both sides make strong valid arguments even without the use of religion. |
Homosexuality is a non-issue, people have the right to practice whatever kind of sexuality they want (with a few exceptions of course, like rape and the age of consent). When it comes to things like marriage and adoption then it's another story because those things are institutions of the State - but that discussion is for another time and place.
The only thing subjective about abortion is whether or not an unborn fetus can be classified as a living human being with full protection under the human rights code (constitution, charter, etc.). While that may depend to some extent on personal belief, the general consensus is that such protection only exists after the baby has been born - or to get technical, only after a birth certificate has been issued (nobody's going to jail if the baby dies during delivery or 20 minutes afterwards). Therefore, abortions are legal and protected under the constitution.
While some may not consider it "right" to abort a 7-month-old fetus, that does not make it illegal. From an objective standpoint, there's really no logical footing to argue against abortions or homosexuality. Other than a lame "it just ain't proper" attitude, there's really nothing to discuss, and nothing to discuss means nothing to take to court. |
|
|
| Spam |
If you believe these things are wrong, convince people to do what's right, don't throw stones at them and tell them to go to hell. Christians are supposed to strive to be like Jesus. Jesus had dinner with prostitutes and criminals, and 'convinced' (for lack of a better term) them to give up their evil ways by showing grace and mercy. In fact, of all the years I've been going to church... I've never heard the story of Jesus lobbying to make abortion (or ANYTHING for that matter) illegal. He taught what was right, he taught what was wrong, and after that, it is the people's decision. They will be punished by GOD, even if the immoral life they choose is 'legal'. The laws of the world have no effect on God's judgements.
I find it strange how Christians try to force non-Christians to conform to their beliefs. If that's what God wanted, he'd do it himself. He wants people to CHOOSE to follow and obey. God wants his people to go out and teach others His ways and bring them to choose Him. He wants WILLING servants. Like I pointed out earlier, I haven't read the verse where Jesus teaches us to make things illegal and FORCE others to follow God's commands (although I've read plenty of his teachings about what will happen to you if you decide not to follow them). For instance, if the only reason you haven't smoked pot is because it's illegal, but you know that if it were legal, you'd be perma-fried for the rest of your natural life. Then, logically, you didn't follow his command at all, you simply didn't have any other choice.
On another subject, Digi mentioned that religion is anti-freedom in one of his posts I've recently read. I dissagree, to an extent... I have the freedom to believe that those things are wrong, and choose not do them. If I believe those things are wrong, and don't do them... then actually, my freedom hasn't been taken away, it's been GIVEN away by me (because I have the freedom to choose to do so), a ready and willing servant of God. Here's the kicker... at any time, I have the freedom to change my mind, and deal with any potential consequences from God when I die. I also have the freedom to discuss my beliefs and try and tell others why I believe what I do, just as they have the freedom to tell me to "F Off" if they don't agree. Incidently, I DO NOT have the freedom to lock someone up in a room to stop them from committing a sin. That isn't saving anyone, since to be of any use to them, they have to CHOOSE for themselves. On top of that, I would probably then be arrested for kidnapping or some such thing.
I've also always found it strange the way that conservatives will fight to simplify freedom (freedom to life and physical property, forget all that anti-discrimination bull... forget freedom of expression, sure, they CLAIM we have that freedom, just make sure it doesn't offend anyone!!!). Then go out, and institute laws that remove people's God-given freedom to choose the way they live their life (ironicaly, in the name of God). The ONLY time something should be punisheable in the world is when it has an adverse effect on someone else (murder, stealing, rape, assault, etc.), or a statisticaly proven probability to do so (drunk driving). Things like smoking can be controlled. Give them seperately ventilated rooms, or tell them to take it outside, and you're set. Guy gets a little intoxicated? Well... he better hope he doesn't hurt anyone or get into his car to go for a spin. Gay guy has sex with another, consenting gay guy? I hope for his sake they used protection, because AIDS is a growing epidemic (same with any sex on that matter). Abortion is the only objective subject I've seen yet, because we aren't really sure when life ACTUALLY begins. When does a fetus become a human? When does killing that blob of cells become killing a human? I personally believe human life begins immediately, as soon as that sperm hits the egg. In the rest of my examples however, they didn't hurt anyone but themselves, and should be free to do as they choose on this world until they commit an offense against someone. From a Christian perspective, it is not OUR place to judge anyone else, as we ALL have sinned (and no sin is worse than another). If you are a true, knowledgeable Christian, you know that THAT freedom, is reserved for God alone. |
|
|
|
|
