No Soul? No human rights.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I believe Click Here is arguing that there must be some metaphysical quality or essence to humanity to justify the idea of universal absolute rights.

Yes, and I was honestly curious to see what it was. <hint><hint>-<nudge><nudge>

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Reductio Ad Absurdum

Basically I interpreted your basic argument as such:

1. Absolute rights must extend from some innate essence of their possessor.

2. Without a soul or something analogous, there is no innate essence that differentiates a person from a very complex house.

3. There is no soul, therefore there is no differentiation.

4. Therefore, there either houses have natural rights or people do not.

5. Houses having rights is an absurdity, therefore humans do not have natural rights.

Wow I'm realizing how muddy I did lay things out to see. lol Wow the more I think about this the more I see how I can make things even more clear. This is a great feeling.

I'm not saying that houses have or do not have rights. I'm talking about a person having absolute rights to a house. Big difference. I should have made that clear earlier.

In the example the 'owner' and the house are joined in a sense. I'm comparing someone having absolute rights to a house, alongside humans having absolute rights to themselves.

So the house in this example is equivalent to 'universal absolute human rights' The owner of the house is equivalent to the human demanding 'universal absolute rights'

I state that all ownership of the house is man made. There is no absolute ownership. So the link between the house and owner is all man made.

Just as with a human the attachment between you and your 'universal absolute human rights' is all man made.

I don't think I had thought through it this thoroughly in my OP. Maybe I was just tired, it was late. lol I say that because by calling humans 'complex houses' while it may be true, throws people off. Because the house is supposed to be viewed as the 'absolute rights'. hmmm... So then consciousness has nothing to do with it as it doesn't matter if a house could or couldn't be conscious. That is because the comparison is between the owner and his house. He can't have absolute rights to it and that is plain to see. Absolute human rights must exist outside of a physical person as they would have to apply universally to everyone. Also your body can not house something like an intangible idea such as rights. So then human rights can only be justified by man made creation and nothing else.

I think that works. Let me know what you think. I may see something I missed again.

@click here,

Owing that the world is characterized by the space-time continuum, the most fundamental criterion for determining if something exists is describing what it looks like and where it is at. The ego and thoughts, for example, are in the nervous system and look like a mess of moving, electrically charged chemicals.

And where do rights exist? In their practice -- the right is embodied in its application (behavior) just as our mental life is embodied in the nervous system. Human rights are no different -- where the greater power enforces human rights, human rights exist in the behaviors of human beings.

One of my favorite sayings:

The criterion of existence is being in a place and time.

Now although the presence of rights is peceptible across all the pages of human history, where in our four-dimensional universe has the soul ever been observed?

@Language Games,

I think Khetil's right...but that's just the thing, isn't it?

It seems click here is trying to argue that the only reason why you, as a homeowner, has a right to own your home is because you, unlike the home, has a soul. And further, those pushing for human rights favor this sort of "ensoulment" of humanity.

The idea we have a soul is so all-pervasive in our society, it's hard to believe any human being could rationally reject its very idea on religious grounds. But the Buddhists have done just that! And what's more, among world religions, it's the Buddhists--those whose doctrine of anatman (Self-less-ness or Soul-less-ness) means that they hold the idea of the soul, not just as err other religions make, but the root of all sin in the world--who are most proactive in trying to secure basic human rights for every man, woman, and child alive.

The paradox of this, especially for click here's argument, is striking.

@click here,

click here wrote:

Wow I'm realizing how muddy I did lay things out to see. lol Wow the more I think about this the more I see how I can make things even more clear. This is a great feeling.

I'm not saying that houses have or do not have rights. I'm talking about a person having absolute rights to a house. Big difference. I should have made that clear earlier.

In the example the 'owner' and the house are joined in a sense. I'm comparing someone having absolute rights to a house, alongside humans having absolute rights to themselves.

So the house in this example is equivalent to 'universal absolute human rights' The owner of the house is equivalent to the human demanding 'universal absolute rights'

I state that all ownership of the house is man made. There is no absolute ownership. So the link between the house and owner is all man made.

Just as with a human the attachment between you and your 'universal absolute human rights' is all man made.

I don't think I had thought through it this thoroughly in my OP. Maybe I was just tired, it was late. lol I say that because by calling humans 'complex houses' while it may be true, throws people off. Because the house is supposed to be viewed as the 'absolute rights'. hmmm... So then consciousness has nothing to do with it as it doesn't matter if a house could or couldn't be conscious. That is because the comparison is between the owner and his house. He can't have absolute rights to it and that is plain to see. Absolute human rights must exist outside of a physical person as they would have to apply universally to everyone. Also your body can not house something like an intangible idea such as rights. So then human rights can only be justified by man made creation and nothing else.

I think that works. Let me know what you think. I may see something I missed again.

All along I have pointed to rights, like all of morality, being a part of the world of human understanding that supervenes off of the material world. Basically, rights do not exist in the material world, rather they exist in the conscious world built upon the mental rules programmed by the material world.

If I added to this that rights are not links between mind and object but between mind and mind, that is, that ownership and other rights do not exist between the man and his house, but in between all men concerning a particular house, would it bring you over to my side?

Rights exist in the mental world. When one man owns a house, he doesn't necessarily have more of a link to the house than any other man, it is just that all other men bear a moral obligation to respect his use of the house.

So in a way I agree with you but I don't think you are critiquing rights in their correct context.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

All along I have pointed to rights, like all of morality, being a part of the world of human understanding that supervenes off of the material world. Basically, rights do not exist in the material world, rather they exist in the conscious world built upon the mental rules programmed by the material world.

If I added to this that rights are not links between mind and object but between mind and mind, that is, that ownership and other rights do not exist between the man and his house, but in between all men concerning a particular house, would it bring you over to my side?

Rights exist in the mental world. When one man owns a house, he doesn't necessarily have more of a link to the house than any other man, it is just that all other men bear a moral obligation to respect his use of the house.

So in a way I agree with you but I don't think you are critiquing rights in their correct context.

There is something in what your saying, but there is no sense in categorizing rights as mental rules programmed by the material world because the same could be said of our interpretations of any experience and also because the relation and distinction between the material and mental world is mysterious -- the material could just be mental stuff buried beneath more mental stuff.

@Language Games,

Language Games wrote:

There is something in what your saying, but there is no sense in categorizing rights as mental rules programmed by the material world because the same could be said of our interpretations of any experience and also because the relation and distinction between the material and mental world is mysterious -- the material could just be mental stuff buried beneath more mental stuff.

You may need to explain more to ensure that I understand what you are saying. It could be true that all of our consciousness is nothing more than free-floating mental properties that play out without relation to anything material. To that, all I can do is ask, "Why not just assume that our understanding is correct and there is a link between material and mental? What method would there be of overturning it, and what would be the advantages?"

And to clarify, rights are not really programmed by the material world, rather there are certain rules ingrained into the human mind that facilitate social interaction and these can be used to formulate moral rules that simply cannot be denied.

@Mr Fight the Power,

This poor soul has no idea what this thread is about..I cant see these rights these absolutes..Ive been waiting for them to be clarified whatever they are called.Every time someone mentions a certain right its not those its not what i mean etc etc..A house has not got them not unless we bestow them oh my oh my..

@click here,

xris, here is an explanation of my position:

Rights are properly understood as relationships between people, not between people and things. When someone has a right of ownership, use, or possession (whichever you prefer) it is not a connection between the person and the object to which the right refers, but a connection between all people affected by the object.

To use his example, when a person has ownership of a house, that does not define the relationship between the person and the house, but rather it defines all of the liberties and forbearances placed upon all the people in relation to each other as it concerns the house.

When rights are looked at in this way, one only need to look at the social nature of humans, especially their communicative and moral evolutionary development, to see that certain rights can be derived from the natural essence of humanity.

As far as Click Here is concerned, I believe that he simply hadn't quite came to the correct understanding of what rights actually are.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

xris, here is an explanation of my position:

Rights are properly understood as relationships between people, not between people and things. When someone has a right of ownership, use, or possession (whichever you prefer) it is not a connection between the person and the object to which the right refers, but a connection between all people affected by the object.

To use his example, when a person has ownership of a house, that does not define the relationship between the person and the house, but rather it defines all of the liberties and forbearances placed upon all the people in relation to each other as it concerns the house.

When rights are looked at in this way, one only need to look at the social nature of humans, especially their communicative and moral evolutionary development, to see that certain rights can be derived from the natural essence of humanity.

As far as Click Here is concerned, I believe that he simply hadn't quite came to the correct understanding of what rights actually are.

Do you mean a written agreement..sorry i thought it was something more than a deed of ownership..I cant for the life of me understand what the purpose of this thread is..Absolute innate..sorry but how this assumed idea has developed into owning a house ill never know.We have never had any rights other those we gave ourselves.Nature is ,it does not give us rights only the means to give ourselves these laws.We have the right to die but nothing else.We are given insights in possibilities but it can only be belief that decides and that maybe our only other right but its not innate.

@xris,

xris wrote:

Do you mean a written agreement..sorry i thought it was something more than a deed of ownership..I cant for the life of me understand what the purpose of this thread is..Absolute innate..sorry but how this assumed idea has developed into owning a house ill never know.We have never had any rights other those we gave ourselves.Nature is ,it does not give us rights only the means to give ourselves these laws.We have the right to die but nothing else.We are given insights in possibilities but it can only be belief that decides and that maybe our only other right but its not innate.

Start by reading a summary of Kant's moral philosophy, then advance on to a summary of communicative rationality and discourse ethics via Habermas (Hoppe for anyone of the conservative persuasion), then read wikipedia's entry on rights and property. Finally find some sort of source that addresses evolutionary behavior and morality: Marc Hauser, E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker, or Daniel Dennett would be a good source.

Other than that, I don't think I can say anymore to make my words make sense to you.

If you wish to link this discussion with our earlier disagreement, refer to Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Peter Kropotkin.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Start by reading a summary of Kant's moral philosophy, then advance on to a summary of communicative rationality and discourse ethics via Habermas (Hoppe for anyone of the conservative persuasion), then read wikipedia's entry on rights and property. Finally find some sort of source that addresses evolutionary behavior and morality: Marc Hauser, E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker, or Daniel Dennett would be a good source.

Other than that, I don't think I can say anymore to make my words make sense to you.

If you wish to link this discussion with our earlier disagreement, refer to Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Peter Kropotkin.

I dont think its necessary to be smug on this issue ..i have asked for examples over and over again and if you have read all you request i read i would have thought you could give me an example.Your telling me you have given a good example and you can explain what the purpose of this debate is???

@xris,

xris wrote:

I dont think its necessary to be smug on this issue ..i have asked for examples over and over again and if you have read all you request i read i would have thought you could give me an example.Your telling me you have given a good example and you can explain what the purpose of this debate is???

I am not trying to be smug, but much like the anarchism thread, I could spend months summarizing the relevant information to put the idea in context and still be insufficient in my explanation.

If you wish to gain a little insight into where I think rights come from and why I think some of them are natural, refer to the stuff I mentioned. I assure you that, even if taken individually and without reference to this topic, they are interesting.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Hey Mr. FTP. You do believe though that there are no "universal absolute human rights" right?

@click here,

click here wrote:

Hey Mr. FTP. You do believe though that there are no "universal absolute human rights" right?

Ok.

I am going to set a definition for "universal absolute human right".

From here on, when I refer to a right I refer to some legitimate claim by an individual that places an obligation on all other individuals. When someone has a right to free speech, all other individuals have an obligation to respect his ability to voice his or her opinion. When someone has a right of ownership, all other individuals have an obligation to respect his or her use of whatever object the right is in relation to.

Rights, in turn, can be divided into positive legal rights and normative rights. Legal rights are those obligations placed upon all others by government degree, while normative rights are simply those obligations placed upon others purely through moral duty (someone has a normative right simply because all others should bear certain obligations). Any given right can be legal or normative and some are both.

Now, if a right is absolute, the right is universal, in that all people (note that there are certain qualifications) has this right regardless of where the person lives, what culture the person belongs to, etc.

Obviously, no legal right is held by all people in all cultures, so that leaves us with normative rights, and the question becomes:

"Does there exist a absolute normative right, that is, does there exist some morally legitimate claim all individuals can make to certain behavior from all other individuals?"

To this, I say that there are universal human qualities of reason, communication, and morality that define certain absolute normative rights.

The basic argument is this: All actions carry with them a validity claim. In other words, if a person acts, then moral legitimacy can be applied to this act for the pro or for the con. Those affected can argue the legitimacy of an action, and only through this argument and communication can morality be established. There are certain embedded rules of communication and argumentation that prohibit certain arguments, meaning that certain actions can simply not be justified.

I need to leave work, but I will continue at a later point.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Ok.

I am going to set a definition for "universal absolute human right".

From here on, when I refer to a right I refer to some legitimate claim by an individual that places an obligation on all other individuals. When someone has a right to free speech, all other individuals have an obligation to respect his ability to voice his or her opinion. When someone has a right of ownership, all other individuals have an obligation to respect his or her use of whatever object the right is in relation to.

Rights, in turn, can be divided into positive legal rights and normative rights. Legal rights are those obligations placed upon all others by government degree, while normative rights are simply those obligations placed upon others purely through moral duty (someone has a normative right simply because all others should bear certain obligations). Any given right can be legal or normative and some are both.

Now, if a right is absolute, the right is universal, in that all people (note that there are certain qualifications) has this right regardless of where the person lives, what culture the person belongs to, etc.

Obviously, no legal right is held by all people in all cultures, so that leaves us with normative rights, and the question becomes:

"Does there exist a absolute normative right, that is, does there exist some morally legitimate claim all individuals can make to certain behavior from all other individuals?"

To this, I say that there are universal human qualities of reason, communication, and morality that define certain absolute normative rights.

The basic argument is this: All actions carry with them a validity claim. In other words, if a person acts, then moral legitimacy can be applied to this act for the pro or for the con. Those affected can argue the legitimacy of an action, and only through this argument and communication can morality be established. There are certain embedded rules of communication and argumentation that prohibit certain arguments, meaning that certain actions can simply not be justified.

I need to leave work, but I will continue at a later point.

I think you will have to do some more reading because not one of those is a innate or fundamental right. It may well be right in your country with your laws but stray a little further and they dont mean a dam thing.Absolute truths are there whether man exists or not or if laws exist or not and there are non that are applicable to humans alone..

@xris,

xris wrote:

I think you will have to do some more reading because not one of those is a innate or fundamental right. It may well be right in your country with your laws but stray a little further and they dont mean a dam thing.Absolute truths are there whether man exists or not or if laws exist or not and there are non that are applicable to humans alone..

I only defined what rights actually were in general and provided a brief overview of the basis of what rights could be said to be universal. I hadn't even gotten into what actual rights were fundamental human rights.

Probably not going to bother.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I only defined what rights actually were in general and provided a brief overview of the basis of what rights could be said to be universal. I hadn't even gotten into what actual rights were fundamental human rights.

Probably not going to bother.

Bother is that the correct word for you to be using...its you that gave me the examples by your acclaimed intelligence but now its not them but something you cant be bothered to inform me of. I would not have minded had you not requested i became as well read as you..

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

It seems click here is trying to argue that the only reason why you, as a homeowner, has a right to own your home is because you, unlike the home, has a soul. And further, those pushing for human rights favor this sort of "ensoulment" of humanity.

Yea, I was hoping for a re-direct here to get back on topic; namely, that having a soul was what established, enabled or was the basis for accepting that human rights exist as having an 'objective' basis; doesn't look like we're going to get it though.

I'll bet, if I'm seeing his point at all here, that it has to do with the notion that those things that do seem have a soul have rights often granted, thus explaining why we don't commonly attribute rights to those things that don't appear to have one. Not sure this is close to the mark though; and I don't buy the notion of the soul at all (except as a euphemism as I described earlier). As with all things I say here, I can't claim knowledge, only what my experience and perceptions lead me to.

hammersklavier wrote:

The idea we have a soul is so all-pervasive in our society, it's hard to believe any human being could rationally reject its very idea on religious grounds. But the Buddhists have done just that! ...

Yea, good observations. I personally find the notion charming; wouldn't it be nice.

Thanks

@xris,

xris wrote:

Bother is that the correct word for you to be using...its you that gave me the examples by your acclaimed intelligence but now its not them but something you cant be bothered to inform me of. I would not have minded had you not requested i became as well read as you..

I have not claimed to be smarter or better read, I have probably just pursued different interests in my studies.

From this and our previous thread, I think conversation on moral and political philosophy may be a lost cause due to different lines of thought and what has probably become a mutual antagonism between us.

I don't mean it as an attack against you but I become frustrated when discussing these issues with you and it is best if I leave explanation of my opinions to the recommended reading. I have no doubt that you are competent enough to absorb them and then offer a good critique of my views.

Philosophy Forum

No Soul? No human rights.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know