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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Really? Is there scientific evidence for another explanation?

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

Exactly. So every single absolute universal human right is a man made convention.

I'm going to create my new thread now as further clarification etc... is a waste of time.