The Ontological Status of Rights

[wyoguy]

...and who, exactly, has violated your rights when the ground opens up and swallows your property?

[Voluntary]

Quote by: SoylentGreen You are looking at it from a personal / subjective view point. In that you are only considering the society that you live in at the moment.

No, I am not.

Other places and other times those types of attitude you mentioned would have been of a benefit to a society not a hindrance. Such as ancient vikings who felt the morality was on their side when they plundered other villages.

People can benefit from plundering and stealing other people's property. This does not dismiss the fact that they violated the rights of others. Just because the vikings felt morally justified does not validate their thievery. Looking at it objectively, they took something that did not belong to them.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: Morality Games What I mean is, humans set goals and they need certain objects to help them reach these goals in order to feel fullfilled or complete. Since this condition is common to all humans, they go over to their neighbors and convince them to abide by a rule not to make off with one another's objects, as that would disrupt everyone's plans and lead to unenjoyable emotions like frustration across the board.

In the above post I tried to convey the origins and rights to property. People have a right to property that they create through their labor, and they have the right to protect it either with reason or with force.

Rights begin as a subjective feeling, and then people attempt to objectivy their feeling by convincing others to abide by their rules (consensus reality).

The origin of rights is not through subjective feeling and carried out by consensus. As history has shown, this can lead to genocide, which is a right to liberty and person. Therefore, you are validating genocide.

The difference is, personal subjectivity is the origin while the "objectivity" is artifical and contrived, formed by communual agreement and the joint power of a group. Beings may feel empowered when they persuade others to accept their views, but that is a long way from making their emotional interpretations of right and wrong true in fact.

Again, I do not see how anyone can validly lay claim to the property produced by others. If someone produces a boat from a tree, then that boat is their property. People may feel they have the right to other people's property, persons, and liberty, but this is just not so.

Reason is nothing to the irrational, who typically form the largest body of a community, but feeling means something to everybody. Feeling and not reason is what moves the fake organism we call 'society'. Feeling is more primordial of a drive than reason.

You need to back up this claim.

Rights emerge from human activity and are in eternal limbo, never becoming objective in fact, that is, objective as the laws of physics are objective. They can only try.

As I stated before, a degree of objectivity, not strictly objective. I still await you to justify how theft coercion, and murder can lead to individual and societal well-being.

[SoylentGreen]

Voluntary Looking at it objectively, they took something that did not belong to them.

No, looking at it subjectively they took something that did not belong to them. Possession is a subjective opinion.
Objectively they acted within their best interests.
In the same way a lion may steal a kill from a hyena , not caring whether the other starves or not.
The rights of others to own property is a subjective value made by people who live with a certain philosophical belief in property.
Born at another time or another place and the philosophical outlook would be completely different.
The right exists only if someone personally believes in that right not because it is a natural or universal right.

[Morality Games]

In the above post I tried to convey the origins and rights to property. People have a right to property that they create through their labor, and they have the right to protect it either with reason or with force.

I have read the works of social contract philosophers and remain unimpressed. They were foundation layers, not interpreters, and craftily ignored the 'emptiness' that existed beyond the paramets of their logic.

The origin of rights is not through subjective feeling and carried out by consensus. As history has shown, this can lead to genocide, which is a right to liberty and person. Therefore, you are validating genocide.

In order to validate genocide, I would have to feel as though genocide was acceptable, which I don't. Real validation must be a genuine emotional affirmation, a resounding, "Yes!", not feigned for logical purposes.

The origin of rights is an emotion and feeling driven history, with 'reason' suboordinate to desire and impulse. Hence, rights were distributed unevenly for most of human history.

Again, I do not see how anyone can validly lay claim to the property produced by others. If someone produces a boat from a tree, then that boat is their property. People may feel they have the right to other people's property, persons, and liberty, but this is just not so.

Except you aren't appealing to anything, and even if you did, why should what you appeal to matter to someone who doesn't care about the your chosen authority? Aka, the Christian can appeal to God's authority as a basis for why people shouldn't have the right to thieve, the Humanist can appeal to his conception of human nature for why you shouldn't take the boat, but these are meaningless gestures to the person determined to have your boat.

You can wail to the world when they make off with your property, but nature is cold and impartial, and the universe doesn't care about your hurt feelings at all. In fact, most of your own community doesn't care ... the only one who will feel wronged for a substantial period of time is you.

You need to back up this claim.

It is inappropriate for you, who are pre-supposing numerous logical conditions, to make a request like that. Moreover, this is a speculative debate. However, if you think reason precedes sensation, emotion, thought, and feeling, then look at the animal kingdom as evidence to prove you wrong. 'Reason' is a refinement of these psychological processes.

As I stated before, a degree of objectivity, not strictly objective. I still await you to justify how theft coercion, and murder can lead to individual and societal well-being.

Uh ... individuals do those things all the time. Sometimes they get away with it and live perfectly content lives (their conscience works differently from the collective) and sometimes they don't. Doing or not doing those things is actually sort of a gamble, kind of like, "I'm assuming I'm not one of those types who would benefit from behavior the community calls immoral, so I will go along with the community and hopefully benefit from that." Or the opposite.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: Morality Games I have read the works of social contract philosophers and remain unimpressed. They were foundation layers, not interpreters, and craftily ignored the 'emptiness' that existed beyond the paramets of their logic.

I am not sure whose works you read and what your criticisms are. You don't believe that people should be free to voluntary enter contracts that benefit themselves? How can this not contribute to individual and societal welfare?

In order to validate genocide, I would have to feel as though genocide was acceptable, which I don't. Real validation must be a genuine emotional affirmation, a resounding, "Yes!", not feigned for logical purposes.

You don't find genocide acceptable because you base it on your emotions?

The origin of rights is an emotion and feeling driven history, with 'reason' suboordinate to desire and impulse. Hence, rights were distributed unevenly for most of human history.

This does not validate unjust rights. Humans can and do use reason to establish a sense of justice.

Except you aren't appealing to anything, and even if you did, why should what you appeal to matter to someone who doesn't care about the your chosen authority? Aka, the Christian can appeal to God's authority as a basis for why people shouldn't have the right to thieve, the Humanist can appeal to his conception of human nature for why you shouldn't take the boat, but these are meaningless gestures to the person determined to have your boat.

I don't understand why you need to appeal to an outside authority. Why not appeal to reason. Can you make an reasoned argument why someone should not be allowed the fruits of their labor? Why should theft and plunder be justified? It is based on emotion

You can wail to the world when they make off with your property, but nature is cold and impartial, and the universe doesn't care about your hurt feelings at all. In fact, most of your own community doesn't care ... the only one who will feel wronged for a substantial period of time is you.

You keep bringing feeling into this debate, not I. Yes, I do know that the universe is impartial, but what it your point?

However, if you think reason precedes sensation, emotion, thought, and feeling, then look at the animal kingdom as evidence to prove you wrong. 'Reason' is a refinement of these psychological processes.

Non-sequiter. Why bring the animal kingdom into this argument? I do think people are rational rather than irrational. People make more rational choices everyday than irrational choices. Most people, overall, choose beneficial actions rather than detrimental actions.

Uh ... individuals do those things all the time. Sometimes they get away with it and live perfectly content lives (their conscience works differently from the collective) and sometimes they don't.

Just because people commit theft, coercion, and violence and get away with it, does not justify those actions.

Doing or not doing those things is actually sort of a gamble, sort of like, "I'm assuming I'm not one of those types who would benefit from behavior the community calls immoral, so I will go along with the community and hopefully benefit from that." Or the opposite.

Really? Act utility and hedonistic calculus are dead ends.

[Morality Games]

I am not sure whose works you read and what your criticisms are.

Unimportant. The point was letting you know I'm not in synch with social contract theorists.

You don't believe that people should be free to voluntary enter contracts that benefit themselves?

No, I think they should, but there is nothing in fact which makes that the case. I just find it to my advantage to 'pretend' as though there was.

How can this not contribute to individual and societal welfare?

Why should the welfare of other individuals and society matter to a human who is better off robbing both?

You don't find genocide acceptable because you base it on your emotions?

Not just my emotions, also my reasoning (aka, the logical refinement of my thoughts), but emotions are the most primary force in being human. Either you care or you don't, you are outraged or you are not -- action depends on feeling as though you need to do something. No amount of reasoning can convince a person to give a damn, but a certain line of reasoning can produce an emotion, and that makes them give a damn.

This does not validate unjust rights. Humans can and do use reason to establish a sense of justice.

A sense of justice is relative to different people, their feeling of how fairness ought to be enforced. For that matter, their sense of fairness is also relative.

I don't understand why you need to appeal to an outside authority. Why not appeal to reason. Can you make an reasoned argument why someone should not be allowed the fruits of their labor? Why should theft and plunder be justified? It is based on emotion

Because 'reason' is also subjective and relative -- reason is the logical refinement of thoughts, a way of clarifying and making sure one's reflections and opinions are consistent in the same set. People who make it a point of pride to call themselves 'reasonable' do not accept this definition, but interpretatively, it is the most accurate depiction of how sophisticated thinking works in humans. All individuals and cultures in history have had their own way of reasoning things out, that is, using logic to refne their thoughts, making their mentality more coherent.

But we are crossing into semantics, and that is dangerously confusing territory.

Non-sequiter. Why bring the animal kingdom into this argument? I do think people are rational rather than irrational. People make more rational choices everyday than irrational choices. Most people, overall, choose beneficial actions rather than detrimental actions.

I think your idea of reason is a bit wide.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: SoylentGreen The rights of others to own property is a subjective value made by people who live with a certain philosophical belief in property.

How do people decide who owns property and how it is distributed? What is the authoritative entity who ultimately decides?

Born at another time or another place and the philosophical outlook would be completely different. The right exists only if someone personally believes in that right not because it is a natural or universal right.

Yes, and? This does not get around the fact that the means of production are either privately owned, socially owned, or state owned. I am including labor as a means of production. The default position is that you privately own your labor since to validate social or state ownership would require voluntary agreement. Otherwise, society or the state is committing coercion.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: Morality Games No, I think they should, but there is nothing in fact which makes that the case. I just find it to my advantage to 'pretend' as though there was.

You just 'pretend' that people should have the voluntary right right to enter contracts. Is there not one ounce of reasoning involved in your judgment on why people should not be coerced into contracts? Freedom of voluntary choice is good, is it not? Coercive choice is bad, is it not?

The choice to value freedom over coercion is logically arrived at, not driven by emotional appeals.

Why should the welfare of other individuals and society matter to a human who is better off robbing both?

It matters to the individuals being robbed. It is in their best interest to protect their persons, property, and liberty either by force or by establishing a collective force which is conducive to the attainment of persons, property, and liberty.

Not just my emotions, also my reasoning (aka, the logical refinement of my thoughts), but emotions are the most primary force in being human.

No, there are not. They may be the second most primitive after instinct, but they are not the primary force in being human; reason is. Advancement of mankind is built off of reason, not an appeal to emotion.

Either you care or you don't, you are outraged or you are not -- action depends on feeling as though you need to do something. No amount of reasoning can convince a person to give a damn, but a certain line of reasoning can produce an emotion, and that makes them give a damn.

I don't buy into this statement. There are plenty of "grays" in emotions; it is not an 'off and on' switch. I have never regretted my choices based off of reason, but I regret certain choices based off of emotion.

A sense of justice is relative to different people, their feeling of how fairness ought to be enforced. For that matter, their sense of fairness is also relative.

I will grant you some sway in justice, but it is not purely relative. Some people think that it is just to plunder, pillage, and rape the country side. That is not just. That is why people have the Natural Right to defend themselves against plunder, pillage, and rape regardless of societal, dictator, monarchical, democratic rights. They have that right, but it is up to them to exercise it.

Again, logic and reason dictate that plunder, pillage, and rape is unjust. I cannot think of any situation why it would by just.

Because 'reason' is also subjective and relative -- reason is the logical refinement of thoughts, a way of clarifying and making sure one's reflections and opinions are consistent in the same set.

Reason and logic is not always relative. 2 + 2 = 4 in a base 10 numerical system always holds. Logic proved this is an axiom.

People who make it a point of pride to call themselves 'reasonable' do not accept this definition, but interpretatively, it is the most accurate depiction of how sophisticated thinking works in humans. All individuals and cultures in history have had their own way of reasoning things out, that is, using logic to refne their thoughts, making their mentality more coherent.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you refine your statement.

I think your idea of reason is a bit wide.

Can you expand why my reason is a bit 'wide' along with backing up your claim that people are more irrational than rational.

[SoylentGreen]

Voluntary How do people decide who owns property and how it is distributed? What is the authoritative entity who ultimately decides?

I beleive I answered that when I said:
"made by people who live with a certain philosophical belief in

property." Yes, and? This does not get around the fact that the means of production are either privately owned, socially owned, or state owned. I am including labor as a means of production. The default position is that you privately own your labor since to validate social or state ownership would require voluntary agreement. Otherwise, society or the state is committing coercion

No, but it does once again point out that ownership takes on a meaning only within context of the philosophy as you use it.
Taken in context with a completely differing philosophy and the default position shifts accordingly.

Some people think that it is just to plunder, pillage, and rape the country side. That is not just. That is why people have the Natural Right to defend themselves against plunder, pillage, and rape regardless of societal, dictator, monarchical, democratic rights. They have that right, but it is up to them to exercise it.

It is only unjust to the raped and pillage. The plunderers and pillagers might be doing quite well out of it though.
Why would they consider your right, natural or not?

[Voluntary]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Why would they consider your right, natural or not?

They do not have to consider my right, but I have the right to defend myself regardless of a divine entity, dictator, or a democratic right.

Please tell me why I do not have the right to protect my well being? This is a natural right; pervasive and universal regarding time and culture.

[SoylentGreen]

Voluntary Please tell me why I do not have the right to protect my well being? This is a natural right; pervasive and universal regarding time and culture.

You do have the right to protect what is yours as long as you are of the belief that that right is yours to exercise.
However It is not a natural right , it has been neither persuasive or universal as in there have been many cultures where individuals rights have not been considered and one persons well being may be considered only secondary to that of another.
You may disagree with their view point but then subjectively you do have yours.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: SoylentGreen You do have the right to protect what is yours as long as you are of the belief that that right is yours to exercise.

Unfortunately it takes a degree of advancement to recognize this.

However It is not a natural right

Yes, it is. That right always existed. It is your choice not to exercise or not.

, it has been neither persuasive or universal as in there have been many cultures where individuals rights have not been considered and one persons well being may be considered only secondary to that of another. You may disagree with their view point but then subjectively you do have yours.

Your natural rights of person, property, and liberty always existed. It is only the culture that restricted you to exercise those rights.

[SoylentGreen]

Voluntary Your natural rights of person, property, and liberty always existed. It is only the culture that restricted you to exercise those rights.

How can it exist? It is not corporeal nor does it have a separate spiritual nature. It is simply a concept that exists within the mind.
It is not possible to restrict you of a concept that has never been formed.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: MG Rights emerge from human activity and are in eternal limbo, never becoming objective in fact, that is, objective as the laws of physics are objective. They can only try.

Exactly. Rights are nothing more than a concept. Its like numbers. They exist in concept, but not in physical reality. Its like gods, they exist in concept, but never in physical reality. Like any other concept, they exist in thought, but are not necessarily necessary, ontologically speaking.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: SoylentGreen How can it exist? It is not corporeal nor does it have a separate spiritual nature. It is simply a concept that exists within the mind. It is not possible to restrict you of a concept that has never been formed.

Freedom always existed, it did not take a magical entity to bestow us with this fact. It took reason.

Again, rights are concepts of reason and nature.

[Morality Games]

You just 'pretend' that people should have the voluntary right right to enter contracts. Is there not one ounce of reasoning involved in your judgment on why people should not be coerced into contracts? Freedom of voluntary choice is good, is it not? Coercive choice is bad, is it not?

If I think it is good, then it is because I find something wonderful about it, if I think it is bad, it is because I find something terrible about it. Either way, that's a subjective estimation. I'm not going to lie and say that something is true in fact when it isn't -- what is true in fact is that my notion of rights derives from my conscience, just as my enemy's notion of rights (which could be very different) derive from his conscience.

It matters to the individuals being robbed. It is in their best interest to protect their persons, property, and liberty either by force or by establishing a collective force which is conducive to the attainment of persons, property, and liberty.

You are avoiding the essence of the argument. The point is, there is no universal or permenant way to condemn the individual who thieves or murders, since he was like everybody else working in what he believed to be in his interest, for his advantage in life.

Society may have reached a consensus they will punish him for their own well-being, and so grows a law enforcement organization, but that does not make a right a fact -- a right, like a wrong, is a subjective estimation by its nature, and can be nothing else.

No, there are not. They may be the second most primitive after instinct, but they are not the primary force in being human; reason is. Advancement of mankind is built off of reason, not an appeal to emotion.

It is because of emotions we want to move at all, emotions came before higher reasoning, the best arts make their audience's feel emotion, passion and enthusiasm are the strongest drives behind human activity, but somehow reasoning, which not even everyone can do, becomes the primary force? Okay. Sounds eminently reasonable.

I don't buy into this statement. There are plenty of "grays" in emotions; it is not an 'off and on' switch. I have never regretted my choices based off of reason, but I regret certain choices based off of emotion.

I thought you weren't supposed to appeal to your own subjective experience as support for a standard of right and wrong.

I will grant you some sway in justice, but it is not purely relative. Some people think that it is just to plunder, pillage, and rape the country side. That is not just. That is why people have the Natural Right to defend themselves against plunder, pillage, and rape regardless of societal, dictator, monarchical, democratic rights. They have that right, but it is up to them to exercise it. Again, logic and reason dictate that plunder, pillage, and rape is unjust. I cannot think of any situation why it would by just.

Okay, but your conscience and thinking doesn't exist on a higher elevation than the robber's or plunderer's, it is just different in form. It is just as bound to earth and your own interests as anyone else's.

Reason and logic is not always relative. 2 + 2 = 4 in a base 10 numerical system always holds. Logic proved this is an axiom.

Relative in the only way that matters. This seems off basis, considering we were talking about humans, their rights, and the ontological status of the latter.

Yes, it is. That right always existed. It is your choice not to exercise or not.

Where, how, in what form? So far you have described a process, you haven't shown how this process is true in fact.

Again, rights are concepts of reason and nature.

And the viking reasons it is to his advantage to plunder villages in spite of the risk and we know there is capacity for this action in human nature because it has already occurred. Hence, by his standard, it is right to plunder the village, aka, his right, the right of his culture.