No Soul? No human rights.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

xris
 
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 11:18 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
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.
Sorry but you claim to give examples but when questioned say they are not examples.Its not just you that does not seem to understand what we are talking about its all of us.Its not if we understand each other or differ in our views, none of us can agree on what we are debating.
 
click here
 
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 12:27 pm
@xris,
hammersklavier wrote:
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.


No I'm not trying to prove existence of rights because of a soul. I'm trying to prove the non existence of absolute human rights assuming there is no soul.


Khethil wrote:
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.


Again I'm not trying to prove the existence of rights because of a soul...

The soul was stated and expected to be thrown out the window after reading the OP. Meaning no discussion of the 'soul' is expected after the OP. As we are assuming its non existence.

I'm asking for justification of absolute human rights and have yet to find them.



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.


"(someone has a normative right simply because all others should bear certain obligations)"

How do you justify that others "should" bear these obligations? What even makes them obligations?

Your arguement for normative rights is only an arguement for legal rights. Your saying that morality is established through arguement for legitimacy by certain individuals. So then human normative rights are man made meaning there is no absolute reason to follow them. Which makes them no different then legal rights.

I would like to hear more on how certain actions can not be justified. I'm not sure if I am interpreting you wrong but are you saying that there are actions that can not be justified as 'good'?

I really want to hear more on how you go on to justify how someone 'should' bear these obligations. They only 'should' bear them in your eyes. So again they are man made.

I don't think you can justify that humans have a 'normative' right to 'their' lives.
 
hammersklavier
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 07:27 am
@click here,
Well, then...

We have basic human rights because we're able to complain if what we perceive to be our "rights" is infringed!

If you throw the "soul" and all the metaphysical explanations relating to it out the window, that's more or less what it comes down to.
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 07:47 am
@click here,
Supposing that a house and human being were to not have a soul, it would be a category mistake to compare them as whole entities. Your reductio ad absurdum does not even get off the ground.

Your argument is weak and much rather underscores your insufficient understanding of the conception of rights and property law, and you accept a patently absurdly philosophical position about mind and consciousness.

Quote:
An illusion put together by some randomly organized molecules. Humans are just a 'complex house' that doesn't give humans an innate right.


This is epiphenomenalism, and it certainly is not a view that people commonly hold. Primarily naturalistic reductionists, physicalists and eliminative materialists ascribe to this view, and it is by no means tenable.

Quote:
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.


It would be wrong-headed of one to take this challenge since you apparently have an insufficient understanding of various theories of consciousness. No one should accept that a human being is just a collection of molecules, and we typically at least admit that "consciousness" is not itself just some biological thing. It stands in relation to the biological organism. The biological organism must be certain necessary physiological conditions to have consciousness but these are necessary conditions for consciousness. They are by no means sufficient. A house does not meet even the necessary conditions for being conscious; so it is categorically different from a human being.

Scientists hold it is a metaphysical (non-scientific) axiom that the universe is homogeneous. It is absolutely essential that you understand this. This is not a demonstrable belief. It is literal nonsense, but it nevertheless serves some other goal that drives science. It is similar to the notion that "every event has a cause" and "the world has order"--if interpreted to mean some metaphysical thesis, these are nonsense. And it's easy to interpret them as such. But certainly do not take their "strong interpretation" or their "logical interpretation" as the only meaningful one and thus commence to attack that. These phrases are not premises to arguments. They're not truth-apt. "Innate right" is a phrase that is not truth-apt. It's literally meaningless, not falsifiable and not demonstrable; so don't treat it as such, especially by bringing in argument against theories about consciousness as your "demonstration" and "evidence."

"Everything consists of homogeneous subatomic particles"--this is literal nonsense and it further has no scientific evidence or demonstration. To think you can compare a human and a house simply because they both exist int he same universe means that you think their particular organization is irrelevant so long as they consist of the same (essentially) physical stuff (their particles). But this is a wrong move. A human being is not just a house with differently arranged particulars. Differently arranged particulars would be everything that makes them so different.

Rights are a product of definitions of law. Claim rights, powers, and immunities are defined in explicit. "Innate right" is a contradiction in terms, so it doesn't mean what you think it means. It isn't a demonstrable claim about human beings. It's a turn-of-phrase, an idiomatic expression, a product of our rich language, figurative, etc. It's not a theory to be confirmed or disconfirmed by evidence.

The same with "the world has order" or "the universe consists of homogeneous particles." It's not a premise to an argument, and if you interpret it too strongly and force it to mean just one thing, you miss the entire point as to why its used in our linguistic practice.
 
relearning
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 07:48 am
@click here,
I'm confused as to how you are using soul. Perhaps, concepts should be clarified before we delve into this. Aristotle and Socrates both define souls in dramatically different manners. For Aristotle, plants have souls. Therefore, for an Aristotelian, human rights are not intrinsic to the soul. Perhaps, I missed an earlier post where this was discussed...
 
hammersklavier
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 07:57 am
@click here,
Click Here redefined his argument in post #122. I'm not the OP (that would be him), but I would suppose that it would be prudent to disregard all posts prior to it.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 08:17 am
@hammersklavier,
Concur.

... humbly suggest Click re-phrase his now-revised question in a new thread since this one has had it's focus changed (which, by the way, I applaud). The existence of the OP, as is, otherwise is likely to continue to confound future readers.

Thanks
 
relearning
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 08:25 am
@hammersklavier,
I, honestly, didn't notice the long string of pages at the bottom of the posting. So, I only read the first one. In the future, I hope to prove less moronic. Smile
 
click here
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 09:45 am
@relearning,
nerdfiles wrote:
Supposing that a house and human being were to not have a soul, it would be a category mistake to compare them as whole entities. Your reductio ad absurdum does not even get off the ground.

Your argument is weak and much rather underscores your insufficient understanding of the conception of rights and property law, and you accept a patently absurdly philosophical position about mind and consciousness.


Even if my arguement is bad it doesn't mean that which I am trying to argue for is wrong.


nerdfiles wrote:

It would be wrong-headed of one to take this challenge since you apparently have an insufficient understanding of various theories of consciousness. No one should accept that a human being is just a collection of molecules, and we typically at least admit that "consciousness" is not itself just some biological thing. It stands in relation to the biological organism. The biological organism must be certain necessary physiological conditions to have consciousness but these are necessary conditions for consciousness. They are by no means sufficient. A house does not meet even the necessary conditions for being conscious; so it is categorically different from a human being.


All you have made is statements. You haven't justified any of them. I'm sure that not every sees consciousness as part of the collection of molecules. I am eager to see how they justify it outside of matter.

nerdfiles wrote:

Scientists hold it is a metaphysical (non-scientific) axiom that the universe is homogeneous. It is absolutely essential that you understand this. This is not a demonstrable belief. It is literal nonsense, but it nevertheless serves some other goal that drives science. It is similar to the notion that "every event has a cause" and "the world has order"--if interpreted to mean some metaphysical thesis, these are nonsense. And it's easy to interpret them as such. But certainly do not take their "strong interpretation" or their "logical interpretation" as the only meaningful one and thus commence to attack that. These phrases are not premises to arguments. They're not truth-apt. "Innate right" is a phrase that is not truth-apt. It's literally meaningless, not falsifiable and not demonstrable; so don't treat it as such, especially by bringing in argument against theories about consciousness as your "demonstration" and "evidence."


As the others have said I redefined what I was saying in another post. I would love to continue discussing this topic though I think I will take the suggestion to start another thread so everyone is on the same page.

nerdfiles wrote:

"Everything consists of homogeneous subatomic particles"--this is literal nonsense and it further has no scientific evidence or demonstration.

Really? Is there scientific evidence for another explanation?

nerdfiles wrote:

To think you can compare a human and a house simply because they both exist int he same universe means that you think their particular organization is irrelevant so long as they consist of the same (essentially) physical stuff (their particles). But this is a wrong move. A human being is not just a house with differently arranged particulars. Differently arranged particulars would be everything that makes them so different.


Again it doesn't matter how differently their molecules are arranged. You can't get from something that 'is' to something that 'ought be'.

I'm definetely starting a new thread. Give me a day.

Khethil wrote:
Concur.

... humbly suggest Click re-phrase his now-revised question in a new thread since this one has had it's focus changed (which, by the way, I applaud). The existence of the OP, as is, otherwise is likely to continue to confound future readers.

Thanks


Agreed.
 
boagie
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 09:46 am
@click here,
"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.[/quote]

Clickhere,Smile

One does not need to consider a soul in order to understand the establishment of human rights, human rights are based upon identifing with other, and thus feeling compassion for other, while at the same time realizing that, to treat others as though they were of your kind, or kin, is in your own self-interest. We are one species, identifing the self in others is basic to the establishment of civilization, rights are not innate, they are an extension of ourselves in the form of an order to establish a reasonable degree of harmony among a given population, and its neighbours. The first act of war in the form of propoganda is to turn other into the enemy into an it, we tend to have no compassion for an it, an it has no relation to us.
 
click here
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 09:49 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:

One does not need to consider a soul in order to understand the establishment of human rights, human rights are based upon identifing with other, and thus feeling compassion for other, while at the same time realizing that, to treat others as though they were of your kind, or kin, is in your own self-interest. We are one species, identifing the self in others is basic to the establishment of civilization, rights are not innate, they are an extension of ourselves in the form of an order to establish a reasonable degree of harmony among a given population, and its neighbours. The first act of war in the form of propoganda is to turn other/enemy into an it, we tend to have no compassion for an it, an it has no relation to us.


Exactly. So every single absolute universal human right is a man made convention.
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 10:36 am
@click here,
If your argument is bad, it's irrelevant whether its "right" or "wrong" or has the "right motivation."

Quote:
All you have made is statements. You haven't justified any of them. I'm sure that not every sees consciousness as part of the collection of molecules. I am eager to see how they justify it outside of matter.


Which statement exactly? It's self-evident that you need necessarily need human being in order to have human capacities.

Having a human brain is a necessary condition for consciousness. But a human brain, on its own, is not sufficient. Thus, a human brain cannot by definition be conscious.

Quote:
Really? Is there scientific evidence for another explanation?


There is in principle no way to demonstrate that the universe homogeneous. Science cannot demonstrate it; there is no scientific evidence for it.

What would "another explanation" be? "The universe is composed of homogeneous particles" is not an explanation. It is a description.

Quote:
Again it doesn't matter how differently their molecules are arranged. You can't get from something that 'is' to something that 'ought be'.


How did we get into the is-ought distinction? Your only request was that we explain, or describe, how human beings are different from houses. You didn't say that we had to justify how one gets from an factual-claim to an obligation-claim.

Rights do not imply obligations. I have the right or power to utilize my freedom of speech; this by no means implies that I ever ought to, or am obligated, to use it.

What exactly are you getting at? Your arguments seem to lack precision and focus.
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 10:39 am
@click here,
click here;48444 wrote:
Exactly. So every single absolute universal human right is a man made convention.


That is a contradiction in terms, and thus it could lead to conceptual confusion. If anything, it is highly figurative and in need of clarification.

No "convention" is literally man-made. A "convention" is not a "contrivance." To contrive involves human volition and reason and deliberation. No one person or set of persons sits down to contrive a convention; so it is confused to think that one can call a convention "man-made." This kind of phrase ("man-made convention") will only lead to quibbles and muddles about concepts that by no justification should or can be considered kosher and meaningful.

You're not wrong because your statement is conceptually entangled. It's got no possibility of being correct or false. It's simply confused.
 
click here
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 11:05 am
@nerdfiles,
I'm going to create my new thread now as further clarification etc... is a waste of time.
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 12:01 pm
@click here,
Its life that makes demands and the higher up the ladder the more demands it makes.Substitute life for soul and it might just make a little sense.A house itself has no rights because it does not live to make those demands.If a soul existed it would have to live by this universes laws not the ethereal from where it sprung.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 01:18 pm
@click here,
click here wrote:
I'm going to create my new thread now as further clarification etc... is a waste of time.


Thanks. I hope you do, the existence of Absolute Human Rights is a worthy subject. But I think we'd agree this one has gotten cattywompus.

Closing thread. Please see the new thread here
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/14/2024 at 06:36:47