No Soul? No human rights.

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » No Soul? No human rights.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 07:57 am
If you don't believe there is a human soul then no one in the world has innate human rights. If you disagree with me then you are doing it on your own accord with no valid reasons. Let me explain to you why. I have talked about this in another thread and I will use my same example of a house. A human and a house both do not have souls and both are entirely made up of molecules. Your house, you own the deed to it. The law will protect your house from others to keep a society civil. But that does not make it "yours". All ownership of the house is man made. The deed is man made etc... There is nothing other then the law that makes your house 'yours'. When you purchased the house you purchased the protection of your house, by the law, from others from stealing it etc... There is nothing that makes it yours other then man made ownership documents and enforcement. The only thing that makes 'your' body 'your own' is then the government that protects it. Remember we do not have souls so all we are is 'complex houses'.


You may say "humans are conscious etc...." Ok and your point? What is consciousness? An illusion put together by some randomly organized molecules. Humans are just a 'complex house' that doesn't give humans an innate right.


If you are going to prove to me that humans do have innate human rights while maintaining that they are soul lacking first show me where the difference between a house and a human is.


Now I will add to this by addressing a moral issue in relation to the lack of human rights.


Since humans have no rights then the act of rape is not wrong. Even many of you relativists must either accept that rape is wrong or that you are holding onto an illusion of human rights. If your moral ideas are based off of what makes a civil society then rape is still only situationally wrong even in your own opinion. That is because it is incalculable as to how 'wrong' it is. You say that it prevents a civil society well how sure can you be? If someone is raped in the middle of the night in their own house how wrong is that? We start off with one rapist and one victim. The rapist goes home happy, the victim is not to happy. You still say that this hurts societal growth. Can you prove this? Are you sure that the chain of events that will follow after the incident will not lead to more positive results then if the rape had never happened? You can not calculate the effects of such an act. Also if say this person raped everyone in the town and initially everyone suffered you say that what he did was wrong. Yet unbeknownst to you years down the road the society prospers due to the incidents that happened before. So then in that situation rape was the 'right' thing to do based off your proof of the existence of morals. This even holds true in murder. Someones death may be initially painful to some but it may yield very positive societal growth. It is unknown which way things will go though so you are wrong to say even under your relativistic umbrella that something is absolutely wrong or even situationally absolutely wrong.


So were does this leave you? Well you have no innate human rights. Secondly your ideas of what makes something immoral is up for some serious questioning and some serious re-thinking.


I await your replies.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 08:01 am
@click here,
Rather pedantic, don't you think?
 
click here
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 08:05 am
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:
Rather pedantic, don't you think?


I know, I could have stated what I wanted to say in about 5 sentences. Though from my previous experience I have noted that that ends up leaving people either not understanding me or asking questions which I could have already answered. So I try to be thorough which hopefully keeps the back and forth replies down.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 08:08 am
@Theaetetus,
I believe in the possibility of the soul but you theory does not prove one..so whats your point? we should act as if my neighbour has no rights, i can do as i wish. I hope i live by more than the chance my soul governs my existance.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 08:15 am
@click here,
I think rights are necessary mechanisms to allow for rational beings to live together. Without rights there is little to stop behavior detrimental to the community other than coercive laws that force the people to obey. Rights are largely responsible for people's ability to choose.

As to the soul, even if it exists, I do not see what it would have to do with rights--other than an argument against abortion.
 
click here
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 08:18 am
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:
I think rights are necessary mechanisms to allow for rational beings to live together. Without rights there is little to stop behavior detrimental to the community other than coercive laws that force the people to obey. Rights are largely responsible for people's ability to choose.

As to the soul, even if it exists, I do not see what it would have to do with rights--other than an argument against abortion.



It has to do with innate human rights. I've heard some people say that humans have innate human rights. I have also heard people say that rape is absolutely wrong. etc... my post is to reply to those people and to see what others think.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 08:20 am
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:
I think rights are necessary mechanisms to allow for rational beings to live together. Without rights there is little to stop behavior detrimental to the community other than coercive laws that force the people to obey. Rights are largely responsible for people's ability to choose.

As to the soul, even if it exists, I do not see what it would have to do with rights--other than an argument against abortion.
The soul enters the body with the first breath and leaves with the last..well if it exists it does..
 
click here
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 08:21 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
I believe in the possibility of the soul but you theory does not prove one..so whats your point? we should act as if my neighbour has no rights, i can do as i wish. I hope i live by more than the chance my soul governs my existance.


I'm not trying to prove the existence of a soul. I'm referring to the contradictions I hear people say; that they believe that there is no soul yet we have rights/rape is wrong.

xris wrote:

The soul enters the body with the first breath and leaves with the last..well if it exists it does..


If it exists how do you know that is the case? Your making assumptions on something you don't even know if you should believe exists.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 08:27 am
@click here,
I don't believe in the soul and I don't believe in innate human rights. I don't believe in the OP either.

If one assumes that (human - soul) has no innate human rights and (human inc. soul) does then it is the soul that has the innate properties called human rights. But if the soul can have such innate properties, why can't a (human - soul)? The OP nowhere states the fundamental difference between physical object and soul that forbids the former such innate properties and allows the latter the same.

Further more, it completely ignores the phenomenon of emergence. Each cell in my body does not have innate human rights since no cell individually is a human. However if one draws from this that an aggregate of such cells cannot have innate human rights because the cells themselves do not have them (i.e. one denies the possibility of emergence), then one by the same reasoning draw the conclusion that said aggregate of cells cannot have the innate property of being human, since none of those cells are innately human. Somewhere this dismissal of emergence must break down.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 08:37 am
@click here,
click here wrote:
I'm not trying to prove the existence of a soul. I'm referring to the contradictions I hear people say; that they believe that there is no soul yet we have rights/rape is wrong.



If it exists how do you know that is the case? Your making assumptions on something you don't even know if you should believe exists.
I am making a statement of belief i dont do it often but thats my belief.You can say i dont believe that but it wont change my belief in a soul.I did say if..I cant see why having a soul or not could influence my rights as a human and i cant honestly say i understand exactly what you are saying..
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 08:40 am
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
I don't believe in the soul and I don't believe in innate human rights. I don't believe in the OP either.

If one assumes that (human - soul) has no innate human rights and (human inc. soul) does then it is the soul that has the innate properties called human rights. But if the soul can have such innate properties, why can't a (human - soul)? The OP nowhere states the fundamental difference between physical object and soul that forbids the former such innate properties and allows the latter the same.

Further more, it completely ignores the phenomenon of emergence. Each cell in my body does not have innate human rights since no cell individually is a human. However if one draws from this that an aggregate of such cells cannot have innate human rights because the cells themselves do not have them (i.e. one denies the possibility of emergence), then one by the same reasoning draw the conclusion that said aggregate of cells cannot have the innate property of being human, since none of those cells are innately human. Somewhere this dismissal of emergence must break down.
If you was to say the essence of man has rights it does not mean your right leg has a proportion of those rights thats just silly.
 
click here
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 08:40 am
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
I don't believe in the soul and I don't believe in innate human rights. I don't believe in the OP either.

If one assumes that (human - soul) has no innate human rights and (human inc. soul) does then it is the soul that has the innate properties called human rights. But if the soul can have such innate properties, why can't a (human - soul)? The OP nowhere states the fundamental difference between physical object and soul that forbids the former such innate properties and allows the latter the same.


Oh good point let me elaborate. The soul is an intangible thing in the same sort of way you would describe God. Most of the time those that believe in a soul also believe in a god. So in that case then the god would give these innate human rights in the possible medium of a soul.

Bones-O! wrote:

Further more, it completely ignores the phenomenon of emergence. Each cell in my body does not have innate human rights since no cell individually is a human. However if one draws from this that an aggregate of such cells cannot have innate human rights because the cells themselves do not have them (i.e. one denies the possibility of emergence), then one by the same reasoning draw the conclusion that said aggregate of cells cannot have the innate property of being human, since none of those cells are innately human. Somewhere this dismissal of emergence must break down.


No I don't think so. We call a human a human because we know it is the combination of all of the said cells. Of course we don't call a cell human. Also I do not say that anyone is innately human either. (with respect to a lack of soul) That is because the term for the organization of cells is a man made term that term being 'human'.


TO XRIS: Remember I'm refering to innate human rights not man made human rights.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 08:45 am
@click here,
I believe in the possibility of the soul but not god ,so do a few million Buddhists. Its like not saying a machine has the ability to think so it has rights not to be switched off..We are creatures of family we are protecting ourselves by giving each other certain rights.
 
click here
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 08:51 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
I believe in the possibility of the soul but not god ,so do a few million Buddhists. Its like not saying a machine has the ability to think so it has rights not to be switched off..We are creatures of family we are protecting ourselves by giving each other certain rights.


I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. You just mentioned above "giving each other certain rights".

I'm talking about innate, inherent, natural human rights. Meaning that they exist aside from things given. Meaning that they exist just as the essence of a number exists.

innate: "inherent in the essential character of something"
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 09:00 am
@click here,
click here wrote:
Oh good point let me elaborate. The soul is an intangible thing in the same sort of way you would describe God. Most of the time those that believe in a soul also believe in a god. So in that case then the god would give these innate human rights in the possible medium of a soul.

That last sentence doesn't follow from the preceding ones.

Another thing that is intangible is ideas, such as the ideas of innate human rights. But I have other ideas, innate (e.g. hunger) or otherwise (e.g. the moon moves around the earth) that require nothing more than physical configuration, either of myself (for innate ideas) or of myself and my environment (non-inate ideas). I'm using the term 'innate' now in the sense you seem to be using it, i.e. dependent on something external to my physicality rather than something whose existence necessarily began with my own.

click here wrote:

No I don't think so. We call a human a human because we know it is the combination of all of the said cells. Of course we don't call a cell human. Also I do not say that anyone is innately human either. (with respect to a lack of soul) That is because the term for the organization of cells is a man made term that term being 'human'.

And our term for the 'soul' and 'human rights'..? These were made by God? God spoke English?
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 09:09 am
@click here,
click here wrote:
I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. You just mentioned above "giving each other certain rights".

I'm talking about innate, inherent, natural human rights. Meaning that they exist aside from things given. Meaning that they exist just as the essence of a number exists.

innate: "inherent in the essential character of something"
Sorry you have got me here natural rights :perplexed:..rights to do what have what?.Nature decides by natural adaption, survival of the fittest..WE have the right to try and survive thats all and then we adjust our survival rates by joining together to form gangs and make rules..The natural right to survive is not dependant on me having a soul.
 
click here
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 09:13 am
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
That last sentence doesn't follow from the preceding ones.


How is this: The soul is an intangible thing in the same sort of way you would describe God. Most of the time those that believe in a soul also believe in a god. Many of those that believe in god also believe that he was the one that gave the human rights in the medium of a soul.


Bones-O! wrote:

Another thing that is intangible is ideas, such as the ideas of innate human rights. But I have other ideas, innate (e.g. hunger) or otherwise (e.g. the moon moves around the earth) that require nothing more than physical configuration, either of myself (for innate ideas) or of myself and my environment (non-inate ideas). I'm using the term 'innate' now in the sense you seem to be using it, i.e. dependent on something external to my physicality rather than something whose existence necessarily began with my own.


I'm using innate as in this definition: innate: "inherent in the essential character of something"

I don't know what your getting at by bringing up that ideas are intangible. Are you trying to say that I can't say that human rights don't exist merely because they are intangible? No I am not saying that. I am saying that if you do not believe that souls exist then you as well my agree that innate human rights do not as well exist.

Bones-O! wrote:

And our term for the 'soul' and 'human rights'..? These were made by God? God spoke English?


No the terms were made by us...
 
click here
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 09:16 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
Sorry you have got me here natural rights :perplexed:..rights to do what have what?.Nature decides by natural adaption, survival of the fittest..WE have the right to try and survive thats all and then we adjust our survival rates by joining together to form gangs and make rules..The natural right to survive is not dependant on me having a soul.


That is what I'm talking about. Where do you get this "natural right to survive"
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 09:20 am
@click here,
click here wrote:
That is what I'm talking about. Where do you get this "natural right to survive"
Creation its gods will...Evolution by natural selection initiated when life first broke wind.
 
click here
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 09:33 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
Creation its gods will...Evolution by natural selection initiated when life first broke wind.


If evolution created these rights then they are not innate. They were created by evolution. If it was created then its not innate.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » No Soul? No human rights.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/14/2024 at 05:18:28