No Soul? No human rights.

@click here,

click here wrote:

I think you are not referring to innate human rights. You are referring to human rights as invented by man.

I am referring to the rights possessed by man through their very nature.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I am referring to the rights possessed by man through their very nature.

Ohhh your talking about the ones that don't actually exist. The ones that you are imagining. Or do you believe in a soul?

@click here,

click here wrote:

Cool beans.

I've had others state things before in other threads that goes against what I have said which is why I posted this.

I'm assuming that's an on-line forum equivalent of a good poker face. :shifty:

click here wrote:

I don't say that the idea of human rights could be innate. I say that the idea of rights are innate. Yet I am not defining rights as ideas. I'm defining them as something like numbers. We know that numbers exist as intangible in their essence. So no ideas of innate human rights do not equal innate human rights. They are different by definition.

I know you're not defining rights as ideas; you haven't defined them as anything except that which is dependent on the soul. What I'm saying is we don't need the soul - rights as ideas is enough. Numbers are ideas too.

click here wrote:

Sure ideas require external conditions for them to be triggered to recognition. But the essence of the idea exists before it is thought up or else it could not be thought up. An inventor can not invent something that could never exist. The invention has to have the potentiality to exist for it to be invented. So the idea of the invention existed before the invention. So ideas are innate.

Sure, this is nothing new, but nor is it anything universally accepted, nor is it anything that was explicitly stated as an assumption in the OP. So, clarifying the question a little:

If ideas are innate and if human rights are not ideas and if human rights are innate and if human rights are not physical (and if non-physical things that are not ideas require the soul) then innate human rights necessitate a soul.

I put the last condition in brackets because with it there it's still a truism and without it, your conclusion still doesn't follow from your assumptions. It's somewhere to go, anyway.

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

I know you're not defining rights as ideas; you haven't defined them as anything except that which is dependent on the soul. What I'm saying is we don't need the soul - rights as ideas is enough. Numbers are ideas too.

rights are just ideas. numbers are ideas and they are innate. there has never been a time nor will there ever be a time when you can not assign a number to the amount of something. As long as there is something then there is at least one of it. If you don't have a soul then rights as ideas don't justify human rights at all.

Bones-O! wrote:

Sure, this is nothing new, but nor is it anything universally accepted, nor is it anything that was explicitly stated as an assumption in the OP. So, clarifying the question a little:

If ideas are innate and if human rights are not ideas and if human rights are innate and if human rights are not physical (and if non-physical things that are not ideas require the soul) then innate human rights necessitate a soul.

I put the last condition in brackets because with it there it's still a truism and without it, your conclusion still doesn't follow from your assumptions. It's somewhere to go, anyway.

My conclusion was to prove that human rights do not exist. One way that they could exist is with a soul. But if all we are is molecules human rights are non existent.

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

My stance on issues of human rights is largely if not entirely determined by my compassions for others. I know those compassions are absent in some people, so they are not innate in us, and actual societies don't tend to live up to them, so they are not innate in our relations either.

Compassion and empathy are biologically innate in both humans and animals. There is a lot of research that shows this. See the below article.

Being human we have many competing priorities and judgements that can supervene compassion. It's interesting when you read the Nuremberg testimony of Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz, who said that he often felt bad for the families and children that he was sending to their deaths, but it never occurred to him to disobey orders. I'm sure there was a good bit of sadism in him too -- but I'm also sure that he was conflicted.

Human rights is a philosophical abstraction of compassion. So while it may not be innate in an absolute way, you can argue that it's natural.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

@Aedes,

Hey Click,

Yea I see your points and have stated them well; I just don't agree with any 'em. I think there's a good-lot of folks who see definitions of the soul similarly.

Good luck!

@click here,

click here wrote:

Consciousness probably thought of in some of these terms: thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, dreams etc... can all be explained away as molecules moving around. What is a house? Molecules moving around. A house has no innate rights and neither do humans. Consciousness is an illusion in the sense that it is not an excuse for a difference between houses and humans.

I really dont see the coherence in this.

Reductionism doesnt diminish ontologies. Houses dont have innate rights because they arent living things. Youre trying to reduce all everything to the same existential 'stuff'. And actually molecules are reduced to atoms so your premise already runs into problems.

click here wrote:

If you are going to give an example of when rape is wrong you have to first state your stance on what makes it wrong. I encourage you to do so.

Im not making any claims Im just responding to yours. So ill ask again, when is rape ever ok? If you already gave an example show me because I dont feel like reading through all these pages.

@click here,

Click here,

No soul, no human rights.
A Soul, then what......? What is the difference and how do we determine what those rights are?
If this is not the correct way to ask this question, help me.
William

@click here,

click here wrote:

rights are just ideas. numbers are ideas and they are innate. there has never been a time nor will there ever be a time when you can not assign a number to the amount of something. As long as there is something then there is at least one of it. If you don't have a soul then rights as ideas don't justify human rights at all.

Okay, I'm with you up to the last statement. So rights (that must include human rights) are ideas, and ideas can be innate. This would lead me to believe that human rights could be innate (not necessarily that they are - as you know I don't believe that they are). It's your last statement that loses me: If rights are ideas, and ideas can be innate, and human rights are rights for humans... why can't they be innate? Why do we need a soul? (Seriously, I'm not being awkward, I just can't follow you in that step.)

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Compassion and empathy are biologically innate in both humans and animals. There is a lot of research that shows this. See the below article.

Being human we have many competing priorities and judgements that can supervene compassion. It's interesting when you read the Nuremberg testimony of Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz, who said that he often felt bad for the families and children that he was sending to their deaths, but it never occurred to him to disobey orders. I'm sure there was a good bit of sadism in him too -- but I'm also sure that he was conflicted.

Human rights is a philosophical abstraction of compassion. So while it may not be innate in an absolute way, you can argue that it's natural.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

Sorry Aedes, I tried to make it clear by talking about 'my compassions' (plural) and those of other people that I was not talking about compassion as a capacity. I should have clarified that further.

I mean by 'compassions' recurring instances of applied compassion. For instance: euthanasia. My compassion for someone dying a needlessly slow and painful death (a particular and special instance of compassion) is not synonymous with compassion in general (by lieu of it being a special and personal case). Other people who also have the same compassion (in the capacitorial sense) as I do not share that particular compassion.

So, yes, I agree: compassion is innate, but my compassions are not. I'll welcome better terminology, but I see the former (general) case as nothing but the capacity for phenomena such as the latter (special, personal).

@Kielicious,

Kielicious wrote:

Im not making any claims Im just responding to yours. So ill ask again, when is rape ever ok? If you already gave an example show me because I dont feel like reading through all these pages.

I guess you can say it's okay in the absence of human morality, for instance in other primate societies where it's a fact of life and the world doesn't end because of it. It's a difficult thing to say because I'm a moral person and I extend that morality outside of human society (I'm an animal rights kinda fella) but monkeys don't give two hoots about my views on animal rights or my morality in general for that matter. Little brutes.

@Bones-O,

Click here,

Based on the premise that you set up, I cant think of a way to identify INNATE human rights. I cannot think of a single action or idea that is as constant as something like Numbers (good example).

Perhaps a humans activity cannot be used as a whole. Meaning if each person has shown or felt or thought against the idea of murder, for only a millisecond, then perhaps that is enough to show a constant in everyones belief in rights.

I think its almost a trick question, given the variables. Unless people identify with common ideas such as a soul, they would have difficulty in explaining these rights in a timely and uncluttered manor.

My conclusion is there are Innate human rights. But the issue lies in the individual to acknowledge those rights at any given moment.

@Joe,

I still cant get the relationship, it appears a desperate measure to try proving a soul.If only it was that easy.

@Joe,

Aedes wrote:

Compassion and empathy are biologically innate in both humans and animals. There is a lot of research that shows this. See the below article.

Being human we have many competing priorities and judgements that can supervene compassion. It's interesting when you read the Nuremberg testimony of Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz, who said that he often felt bad for the families and children that he was sending to their deaths, but it never occurred to him to disobey orders. I'm sure there was a good bit of sadism in him too -- but I'm also sure that he was conflicted.

Human rights is a philosophical abstraction of compassion. So while it may not be innate in an absolute way, you can argue that it's natural.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

Maybe you can argue that we can feel a desire for human rights but it is a false desire. For then we are desiring something we don't have. Our desires are not justified they are mere whims. Just as someone desires 'love' the best they are going to get is another person that has their biological juices pumping when they interact but that isn't 'love' as some sort of innate force. So it is the same then with human rights. We can long for this thing wishing for it to be innate but it can't be.

Khethil wrote:

Hey Click,

Yea I see your points and have stated them well; I just don't agree with any 'em. I think there's a good-lot of folks who see definitions of the soul similarly.

Good luck!

Would you please state where you disagree so we can work to find something?

Kielicious wrote:

I really dont see the coherence in this.

Reductionism doesnt diminish ontologies. Houses dont have innate rights because they arent living things. Youre trying to reduce all everything to the same existential 'stuff'. And actually molecules are reduced to atoms so your premise already runs into problems.

I could have stated atoms or even protons, neutrons electrons etc.... but that isn't important.

That is because everything is made from the same 'stuff'. You can classify life as an advanced arrangement of molecules but you still can only define rights as man made. A plant is living yet it doesn't have plant rights. How does that work for you? Now we have 2 (by human definition) 'living' things. How can either have innate rights? No it is all man made.

Kielicious wrote:

Im not making any claims Im just responding to yours. So ill ask again, when is rape ever ok? If you already gave an example show me because I dont feel like reading through all these pages.

It depends on your presuppositions. I assume that you are a relativist. You then state that murder is not absolutely wrong but is only wrong relatively. You state then that the reason you deem it relatively wrong is because it 'inhibits the growth of a civil society'. So then by definition anything that does not 'inhibit the growth of a civil society' is not wrong.

If rape is done and the effects, in the end, end up benefiting the society more then hindering then the act was 'good'. It is also impossible for you to calculate the situation to find out the "+'s" and "-'s" of each act of rape. So when you say that in that situation rape was wrong. You are by definition wrong because you make assumptions without facts to back up. So you must either refrain from accusing or redefine when rape is wrong.

William wrote:

Click here,

No soul, no human rights.
A Soul, then what......? What is the difference and how do we determine what those rights are?
If this is not the correct way to ask this question, help me.
William

I state the example of a soul for if I did not then people would come in here and say "how do you know we don't have souls" "souls give us human rights"

It may be inferred that if you have a soul then you have innate human rights. I was not trying to prove that. I only state the example of a soul because that is how most people would justify human rights.

Bones-O! wrote:

Okay, I'm with you up to the last statement. So rights (that must include human rights) are ideas, and ideas can be innate. This would lead me to believe that human rights could be innate (not necessarily that they are - as you know I don't believe that they are). It's your last statement that loses me: If rights are ideas, and ideas can be innate, and human rights are rights for humans... why can't they be innate? Why do we need a soul? (Seriously, I'm not being awkward, I just can't follow you in that step.)

Ohhhhhhhh. Now I understand where we are mixed up. Now I think we can get a bit farther. :-)

Here yah go: I believe that human rights can be innate. Though for them to be innate their reason for being innate has to be justified. Most of the time it is justified in the medium of a soul. I provide the soul for example because that it how most people would justify innate human rights. I then am asking how else can you justify innate human rights. I don't think it is possible. I think that you need some sort of intangible thing for there to be innate laws on something that many believe evolved. For human rights to be innate they would have to have existed before humans evolved just like numbers existed before humans evolved. I can't see how you can justify that other then something asside from matter. Something asside from matter being a soul as my example shows.

Please tell me we are getting somewhere now.

Joe wrote:

Click here,

Based on the premise that you set up, I cant think of a way to identify INNATE human rights. I cannot think of a single action or idea that is as constant as something like Numbers (good example).

I have another example for you. Laws of logic. We all know that circular logic is wrong. It isn't wrong because man set up a rule system. It just is because it doesn't logically make sense. Man may have created a system on how to interpret the laws of logic but it is then interpretting something that pre existed. So they are innate and intangible in nature.

Joe wrote:

Perhaps a humans activity cannot be used as a whole. Meaning if each person has shown or felt or thought against the idea of murder, for only a millisecond, then perhaps that is enough to show a constant in everyones belief in rights.

I think its almost a trick question, given the variables. Unless people identify with common ideas such as a soul, they would have difficulty in explaining these rights in a timely and uncluttered manor.

My conclusion is there are Innate human rights. But the issue lies in the individual to acknowledge those rights at any given moment.

If human rights were innate then yes it still would rely on people to acknowledge them as rights. Though just because everyone shares an opinion that doesn't make it true. Everyone use to believe the sun revolved around the earth. You have to justify your statement of innate human rights you can't just throw an opinion out there and expect it to be a fact.

@click here,

I am still lost..let me say it my way and you put me right.Before humans arrived there was no such thing as innate human rights so man invented rights to protect themselves so we either have a soul and innate laws for humans or no such thing as natural laws for just humans.Sorry to be lost on this thread...

@click here,

click here wrote:

That is because everything is made from the same 'stuff'. You can classify life as an advanced arrangement of molecules but you still can only define rights as man made. A plant is living yet it doesn't have plant rights. How does that work for you? Now we have 2 (by human definition) 'living' things. How can either have innate rights? No it is all man made.

what do you mean exactly by innate human rights?.... Also whats wrong with saying some human rights are man made and what does this have anything to do with a soul? By soul Im guessing youre implying objective morality and god and all that 'stuff'.... Wink

click here wrote:

It depends on your presuppositions. I assume that you are a relativist. You then state that murder is not absolutely wrong but is only wrong relatively. You state then that the reason you deem it relatively wrong is because it 'inhibits the growth of a civil society'. So then by definition anything that does not 'inhibit the growth of a civil society' is not wrong.

Im not saying any of that Im just asking questions about your claim.

click here wrote:

If rape is done and the effects, in the end, end up benefiting the society more then hindering then the act was 'good'.

This raises the same question I asked before.... provide an example of when the act of rape was good in the end.

@click here,

Click,
Let me see if I understand what you are saying. I believe in the soul, big time. I believe that is "who we are". The eternal we, what ever that is. Human rights are those 'accurate' rights that are 'good' for the soul and that which would be constituent for it 'positive' continuation. In other words the soul will issue ideas that are necessary for it's eternal survival and those would be 'proper' human rights. There are no human rights if the eternal soul is not taken into consideration. How am I doing?
William

@click here,

click here wrote:

Ohhh your talking about the ones that don't actually exist. The ones that you are imagining. Or do you believe in a soul?

Do you believe there are no common trends throughout human kind? Other than a soul, that is?

@William,

xris wrote:

I am still lost..let me say it my way and you put me right.Before humans arrived there was no such thing as innate human rights so man invented rights to protect themselves so we either have a soul and innate laws for humans or no such thing as natural laws for just humans.Sorry to be lost on this thread...

"Before humans arrived there was no such thing as innate human rights"
if that statement is true then after humans arrive there still are no innate human rights.

If you agree that their are no innate human rights then what the law did was create human rights. though they are changeable because they are created by opinions. I mention the soul because it is a way that some people justify innate human rights. I'm looking to see if people have other measures to justify innate human rights. I say none exist. So I state that neither do innate human rights.

Kielicious wrote:

what do you mean exactly by innate human rights?.... Also whats wrong with saying some human rights are man made and what does this have anything to do with a soul? By soul Im guessing youre implying objective morality and god and all that 'stuff'....

Innate meaning they are not tangible in nature. They exist just as numbers and laws of logic exist.

The only thing wrong with saying that some human rights are man made is because ALL human rights are man made. If you state that there is nothing wrong with that because they are not innate human rights.

Kielicious wrote:

Im not saying any of that Im just asking questions about your claim.

That is what my claim is coming from. I answered you as to where I am coming from. Maybe if you state your view I can appeal to that. But I can not appeal to your view if I don't know what it is.

Kielicious wrote:

This raises the same question I asked before.... provide an example of when the act of rape was good in the end.

Sure no problem.

Jenny gets raped by Mike. Jenny use to be a very quiet woman that wasn't going anywhere with her job. This act of rape gave her the fierce desire to advance in her job because she now is a more driven individual. She started her own business that in 10 years grew to be the largest company to provide clean water to thousands in Africa.

When she was raped that act was good because it influenced the positive growth of a society and benefited many more people then those that it affected negatively.

William wrote:

Click,
Let me see if I understand what you are saying. I believe in the soul, big time. I believe that is "who we are". The eternal we, what ever that is. Human rights are those 'accurate' rights that are 'good' for the soul and that which would be constituent for it 'positive' continuation. In other words the soul will issue ideas that are necessary for it's eternal survival and those would be 'proper' human rights. There are no human rights if the eternal soul is not taken into consideration. How am I doing?
William

I wouldn't say that the soul influences us to create these rights. It may give us a way to interpret innate human rights. I would say that you have to go back further to relate how a soul and innate human rights come to be. If you believe in a soul as an intangible thing then you must justify it. Many would justify its existence as creation from a god. Then most likely that god was the one where the innate human rights spawn from. They are still eternal rights they are not necessarily created by the god. They are part of the gods nature and so they exist eternally as well.

But this isn't something that I want to get into in this thread. It's already a huge chunk of stuff to think about. In this thread we are discussing how innate human rights can't exist without some sort of justification. Most commonly justified by a soul.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Do you believe there are no common trends throughout human kind? Other than a soul, that is?

Nope I believe that there are common trends. A soul, if it exists, would also not be a common trend. Innate human rights are not common trends as well.

Or maybe I have your definition of "common trends" wrong?

Philosophy Forum

No Soul? No human rights.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know