Absolute Human Rights

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;49584 wrote:

Welcome to the forum. There are some here that can argue the mystical, believe it or not

Or, at least they try...(My custom title is fitting, in this respect)

I am not claiming that you cannot go through the motions of argument.conclusion[/b], you won't find one. It really depends, I suppose, on what I mean by "argument." You'll certainly disagree with each other. But morality is about which model is best, not which one is factual or contradictory. If we judge it to be the best, then we can ignore its contradictory nature.

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

I am not claiming that you cannot go through the motions of argument.conclusion[/b], you won't find one. It really depends, I suppose, on what I mean by "argument." You'll certainly disagree with each other. But morality is about which model is best, not which one is factual or contradictory. If we judge it to be the best, then we can ignore its contradictory nature.

I'm not arguing for anything regarding "Absolute Rights". All I'm doing is explaining my interpretation of, "Absolute Rights", trying to make sense of this whole thread. The whole idea that click cannot grasp. This is not a belief of mine, nor do I even fully understand what "Absolute Rights" may encompass; It was an absolutely new concept to me upon coming into this thread. All I've done is try to make sense of it, shedding some light on what I thought was the intention of the term being spouted. It appears it hasn't helped you.

In linguistics, things don't always make the *perfect* sense you desire. There is ambiguity, and no it isn't always meaningless rambling.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;49588 wrote:

I'm not arguing for anything regarding "Absolute Rights". All I'm doing is explaining my interpretation of, "Absolute Rights", trying to make sense of this whole thread. The whole idea that click cannot grasp. This is not a belief of mine, nor do I even fully understand what "Absolute Rights" may encompass; It was an absolutely new concept to me upon coming into this thread. All I've done is try to make sense of it, shedding some light on what I thought was the intention of the term being spouted. It appears it hasn't helped you.

In linguistics, things don't always make the *perfect* sense you desire. There is ambiguity, and no it isn't always meaningless rambling.

I would not think it meaningless rambling. But at a certain point, I realize that I am doing a philosophical background check...rather than continuing an "argument." That certainly is not meaningless, and the viewpoint I obtain is certainly not meaningless. The argument itself, however, certainly is meaningless.

My goal is to learn what your (general "you") (interpretative) model consists of, not to argue with it.

You've shed light on your model, your methodology, not on the problem, for I have rejected that there is a problem.

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

I would not think it meaningless rambling. But at a certain point, I realize that I am doing a philosophical background check...rather than continuing an "argument." That certainly is not meaningless, and the viewpoint I obtain is certainly not meaningless. The argument itself, however, certainly is meaningless.

My goal is to learn what your (general "you") (interpretative) model consists of, not to argue with it.

You've shed light on your model, your methodology, not on the problem, for I have rejected that there is a problem.

What exactly were you arguing? That, in that sole example, Absolute Morality did not contradict Absolute Rights? Well, obviously, depending on how someone defines "Absolute Rights", it could be the case. I've presented an interpretation that could lead to be contradictory (I don't really know how else to articulate it -- all I can say is go read again my post on the last page)

Is this what Mr. FTP implied? I'm not exactly sure as he hasn't posted again yet. I can infer, however, that there is a mystical notion regarding his interpretation because he states, and I quote:

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I believe there is a natural essence to humanity. From this natural essence I think certain moral rules can be derived.

I'm assuming that whatever essence he's eluding to derives the moral rules which then construct, from a broader angle, these Absolute Rights. I could be misinterpreting him, but this was what I was trying to make sense of.

@click here,

click here wrote:

So if something that is derived is violated then is it absolutely wrong?

If it is derived by man and violated then it only violated mans derivation.

If it violates a valid "derivation", then it also violates the principles that the the rule was derived from.

When one violates these, he must either admit that he is immoral, and therefore wrong and deserving of blame, or admit that he is amoral, and therefore does not have the essence of a person.

nerdfiles wrote:

Are we talking about moral rights or legal rights?

If someone who is absolutist about morality (which is the general category) is at the same time non-absolutist about a particular sub-class of morality (moral rights), then of course you have a contradiction.

I am not a moral absolutist. I am a projectivist and a quasi-realist.

I believe morality is a byproduct of social evolution and that manifests in our conscious wrangling of social interaction. I don't believe moral statements are a reflection on reality, but a reflection on the mind of the speaker. Yet, I do believe that there can be meaningful statements about morality between minds.

My position all along is that, while morality may be a reflection on the mind and not on reality, all human minds, by their biology, do not possess unlimited plasticity. There are basic properties to the human mind that guide our understanding, including moral concepts.

So while not all morals are absolute, some simply cannot be disputed.

Zetherin wrote:

This makes absolutely no sense to me. A plethora of actions can violate free agency in some way, and of course they can be justified. Let us remember that violation of free agency does not necessarily imply a negative connotation, nor does it imply something complex. If someone was about to walk home and you influenced them to stay with a cookie, this could be considered a violation of free agency. If you want to speak of physical force, what if you hugged them, influencing them to stay? Could this not be deemed a violation of free agency? Though we understand that humans have free agency and we need to justify in order to *make sense* of our actions, why does this mean they shouldn't be allowed justification.

If one is "convinced", one has acted as a free rational agent.

What definition of free agency are you operating from? To me, without being convinced to act, one acts randomly.

Quote:

Also, what in the world does this mean?

Please be specific, not only in the "natural essence", but also the process from which moral rules are derived. I'm assuming you're speaking of something that transcends human thought, so please remember to be as specific as possible, including an example to support this claim.

I am speaking of the nature of human thought. I believe the advent of language and complex communication coincided with the development of a complex consciousness in which one begins to understand him/herself in a system of terms and rules that can be communicated to others. Within this system are rules of rationality (both deduction and induction), rules of grammar, rules of discourse, rules of justification and belief (as a an unrelated note but one I find very interesting, we even have loose, unconscious rules that associate spoken sounds with shapes and similar qualities).

nerdfiles wrote:

If we cannot even speak of our own minds, then perhaps we shouldn't have the ability at all.

If we cannot even speak of our own minds, then perhaps we shouldn't have the ability at all.

R.Danneskjold wrote:

Absolute Human Rights are not possible, all propositions in morality are normative statements that affirm how things ought to be. Normative statements cannot be confirmed or falisfied. There is no way to verify the statement 'Humans ought to have Right A or Right B and so on'. So we are thrown into the realm of subjectivity. And once we enter Subjective disscussions we can no longer talk of human rights being absolute. This is no criticism of the important role that human rights have within our civilised society.

But only Positive statements can be said to be absolute, as only statements made in Positive language can be proved in this very all or nothing way. Even when we try to prove Positive statements in a Objective or absolute way, we run into all kinds of epistemological problems.

When we try to prove positive statements, we run into the same epistemological problems as normative ones. No matter what we are referring to, we cannot escape the fact that men are the measure of all things. Distinguishing between ought and is isn't a matter of some categorical difference, but a matter of degrees.

We verify both on the assumption that all men interpret and rationalize sensations in the same manner.

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

Are we talking about moral rights or legal rights?

If someone who is absolutist about morality (which is the general category) is at the same time non-absolutist about a particular sub-class of morality (moral rights), then of course you have a contradiction.

I am not a moral absolutist. I am a projectivist and a quasi-realist.

I believe morality is a byproduct of social evolution and that manifests in our conscious wrangling of social interaction. I don't believe moral statements are a reflection on reality, but a reflection on the mind of the speaker. Yet, I do believe that there can be meaningful statements about morality between minds.

My position all along is that, while morality may be a reflection on the mind and not on reality, all human minds, by their biology, do not possess unlimited plasticity. There are basic properties to the human mind that guide our understanding, including moral concepts.

So while not all morals are absolute, some simply cannot be disputed.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

This makes absolutely no sense to me. A plethora of actions can violate free agency in some way, and of course they can be justified. Let us remember that violation of free agency does not necessarily imply a negative connotation, nor does it imply something complex. If someone was about to walk home and you influenced them to stay with a cookie, this could be considered a violation of free agency. If you want to speak of physical force, what if you hugged them, influencing them to stay? Could this not be deemed a violation of free agency? Though we understand that humans have free agency and we need to justify in order to *make sense* of our actions, why does this mean they shouldn't be allowed justification.

If one is "convinced", one has acted as a free rational agent.

What definition of free agency are you operating from? To me, without being convinced to act, one acts randomly.

Quote:

Also, what in the world does this mean?

Please be specific, not only in the "natural essence", but also the process from which moral rules are derived. I'm assuming you're speaking of something that transcends human thought, so please remember to be as specific as possible, including an example to support this claim.

I am speaking of the nature of human thought. I believe the advent of language and complex communication coincided with the development of a complex consciousness in which one begins to understand him/herself in a system of terms and rules that can be communicated to others. Within this system are rules of rationality (both deduction and induction), rules of grammar, rules of discourse, rules of justification and belief (as a an unrelated note but one I find very interesting, we even have loose, unconscious rules that associate spoken sounds with shapes and similar qualities).

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

How can we argue with the mystical?

But I'll be cheesy and quote it:

"Whereof one cannot speak, one must pass over in silence."

If we cannot even speak of our own minds, then perhaps we shouldn't have the ability at all.

@Mr Fight the Power,

nerdfiles wrote:

The link between "the general case" of rights and "the particular case" of rights is not built on the ground of "figurative language." You absolutely cannot establish such a connection by metaphor or poetic device. You need argument, not a flagrant misuse of language (a mere cop-out).

nerdfiles wrote:

Whether or not there is an "absolute" reason is not my concern. My concern is the idea that "being forced to jump off a bridge" is comparable to "being coerced by law." They are not comparable.

I have already told you why they are comparable. Both are commands issued by something (person, law, law official etc...) It doesn't matter what the situation is or what the law is or who said it. In all situations no matter what you have no absolute obligation to follow the commanders wishes.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
If it violates a valid "derivation", then it also violates the principles that the the rule was derived from.

You say 'valid derivation' which means it is 'valid' by opinion of the person that derived it so even then it is a subjective derivation.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

When one violates these, he must either admit that he is immoral, and therefore wrong and deserving of blame, or admit that he is amoral, and therefore does not have the essence of a person.

When one violates these he is merely violating what some person viewed to be 'valid' yet their opinion of validation is completely subjective. So they are neither immoral nor amoral as those would only be subjective opinions labeling him by the person who derived the 'rights' or morals.

You state:

"So while not all morals are absolute, some simply cannot be disputed."

Absolute morals simply can not be argued for. Nothing can be justified outside of opinion. Nothing.

@click here,

Quote:

I have already told you why they are comparable. Both are commands issued by something (person, law, law official etc...) It doesn't matter what the situation is or what the law is or who said it. In all situations no matter what you have no absolute obligation to follow the commanders wishes.

And as said, in the particular case (of being coerced by a person with a gun), it is not that you do or do not have an obligation. The concept of obligation is not present.

To approach this in the staple, dry, analytic, boring philosophical manner: What do you mean by obligation?

My position is that it makes no sense to say "you have no absolute obligation" if by obligation or duty you mean these concepts in their legal sense. By "legal sense" I mean that these concepts exists if and only if there exists a corresponding rule.

There is no rule to speak of in the bridge-jumping example. But you brought in this term "commander," which leads me to believe you in fact are talking about rules.

But nevertheless, a command that follows from a rule is nothing like a command that follows from a particular or applies to the particular.

Whether we have absolute obligation or not is not illuminated or exposed by your example for all senses of the term obligation. It might be true for cases similar in kind to your "particular case" example, but this example says nothing about obligations or duties as following from rules; that is, obligations or duties in the legal sense.

@click here,

click here wrote:

You say 'valid derivation' which means it is 'valid' by opinion of the person that derived it so even then it is a subjective derivation.

Valid in deductively valid, or do you not buy into rules of logic?

@nerdfiles,

Let's all be clear here, is this the definition of "Obligation" we wish to use?

"An obligation is a requirement to take some course of action, whether legal or moral."

It must be noted click is using "coercion", or "influence" as a synonym for "obligation". The gun, in this sense, would be the item obliging the victim to jump off the cliff (according to click). But, this makes absolutely no sense (according to the definition above) since the gun is not requiring the person to do anything, and there is no ruleset present behind the requirement. Noone is being obliged (according to the definition above), and at best we can say they're influenced (which may not always hold true either). If all you're saying is noone has "Absolute Influence" to do anything, aren't you just reaffirming free will? Think about this thoroughly before responding.

Click, I think this makes sense in your head, but you're confusing everyone else. "No one has to jump off the bridge if they don't want to" [which is basically all you're doing upon picking this apart], is a tautology. I think you've overcomplicated this hypothetical in your mind, you're making things more abstract than need be.

Here's an example of your overcomplexity:

Click wrote:

You say 'valid derivation' which means it is 'valid' by opinion of the person that derived it so even then it is a subjective derivation.

When is the notion "valid" not derived? When is any notion not derived? Again, you've constructed some kind of objective *thought process* that transcends human thought. This doesn't make any sense at all.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;49713 wrote:

Let's all be clear here, is this the definition of "Obligation" we wish to use?

"An obligation is a requirement to take some course of action, whether legal or moral."

It must be noted click is using "coercion", or "influence" as a synonym for "obligation". The gun, in this sense, would be the item obliging the victim to jump off the cliff (according to click). But, this makes absolutely no sense (according to the definition above) since the gun is not requiring the person to do anything, and there is no ruleset present behind the requirement. Noone is being obliged (according to the definition above), and at best we can say they're influenced (which may not always hold true either). If all you're saying is noone has "Absolute Influence" to do anything, aren't you just reaffirming free will? Think about this thoroughly before responding.

Click, I think this makes sense in your head, but you're confusing everyone else. "No one has to jump off the bridge if they don't want to" [which is basically all you're doing upon picking this apart], is a tautology. I think you've overcomplicated this hypothetical in your mind, you're making things more abstract than need be.

Here's an example of your overcomplexity:

When is the notion "valid" not derived? When is any notion not derived? Again, you've constructed some kind of objective *thought process* that transcends human thought. This doesn't make any sense at all.

Aha! This is what I'm getting at! Thank you!

HLA Hart points this distinction out in The Concept of Law.

In fact, he uses the exact same example, called "The Gunman Case."

HLA Hart points out that you might be obliged to jump or do what the Gunman demands or commands, but "obligation" is not present. To be obliged or to be influenced or coerced is not what we mean by obligation. Rights sit on the same level as duties and obligation, or are derivative from things like laws.

Rules > Laws > Duties
Rules > Laws > Obligations
Rules > Laws > Rights

However, what I wish to establish is that

Rules > Rights

Legality and morality are best understood as manifestations of certain kinds of rules. For me, language games.

To speak of "validity" is to presuppose the notion of a language game. "Rights" in the general sense are of a different language game from "rights" in the particular sense; for the latter correspond to a different kind of language game (that of some schmuck threatening you).

"Schmuck" is not equal to "Rules of Law" or "Rules of Society" or "Rules of Morality"

A schmuck is not a rule, and is not analogous to one. The Gunman situation uses a different sense of "obligation," one that we might say uses "obligation" in its non-relevant, non-traditional, figurative sense.

@click here,

click here wrote:

In an effort to eliminate confusion over my last thread I have created a new one which hopefully will be much clearer.

Note: This thread has nothing to do with souls or other intangible essences. I am not looking for responses that justify absolute human rights with the argument for a soul. This thread and everything discussed in this thread is under the assumption that there is no existence of a soul or intangible essence.

I'm looking for someone to justify how humans have 'a right to their lives' in an absolute sense. I argue that all human rights are not absolute they are all conventions of man to create a civil society.

Maybe human privaleges would more appropriate. Hmmmm. That word doesn't look like its spelled correctly.

@Elmud,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Valid in deductively valid, or do you not buy into rules of logic?

Sure if you wish to use logic to prove to me absolute human rights by all means try and do so.

nerdfiles wrote:

Aha! This is what I'm getting at! Thank you!

HLA Hart points this distinction out in The Concept of Law.

In fact, he uses the exact same example, called "The Gunman Case."

HLA Hart points out that you might be obliged to jump or do what the Gunman demands or commands, but "obligation" is not present. To be obliged or to be influenced or coerced is not what we mean by obligation. Rights sit on the same level as duties and obligation, or are derivative from things like laws.

Rules > Laws > Duties
Rules > Laws > Obligations
Rules > Laws > Rights

However, what I wish to establish is that

Rules > Rights

Legality and morality are best understood as manifestations of certain kinds of rules. For me, language games.

To speak of "validity" is to presuppose the notion of a language game. "Rights" in the general sense are of a different language game from "rights" in the particular sense; for the latter correspond to a different kind of language game (that of some schmuck threatening you).

"Schmuck" is not equal to "Rules of Law" or "Rules of Society" or "Rules of Morality"

A schmuck is not a rule, and is not analogous to one. The Gunman situation uses a different sense of "obligation," one that we might say uses "obligation" in its non-relevant, non-traditional, figurative sense.

Rules in the sense that I speak of are not greater then rights. Again and again you keep on mixing things up. Rules are a contruct of man. The rights that I am saying do not exist are by definition not a construct of man. The rights that you speak of are a construct of man. When you are referring to rights in a particular or general sense you are only speaking of the rights that our defined by man.

When you say that 'schmuck' is not equal to 'rules of law/society/morality'.
I say that you can't even use that word in comparison as to whether or not they are 'equal' outside of a subjective sense.

nerdfiles wrote:

And as said, in the particular case (of being coerced by a person with a gun), it is not that you do or do not have an obligation. The concept of obligation is not present.

To approach this in the staple, dry, analytic, boring philosophical manner: What do you mean by obligation?

My position is that it makes no sense to say "you have no absolute obligation" if by obligation or duty you mean these concepts in their legal sense. By "legal sense" I mean that these concepts exists if and only if there exists a corresponding rule.

I do not mean obligation in the legal sense I mean obligation in the natural sense. Meaning other then the law their is no obligation.

The rule that the obligation (in the natural sense) would be following would be the absolute universal truth of human rights which is what I am saying does not exist!

My example from the beginning was perfectly valid, I said over and over again that you had either misinterpretted or were using an impropper definition. You still don't understand that I am not speaking of obligations in the legal sense.

Take this example. If absolute human rights exist then absolute human obligations to those rights also exist. Yet I am stating that absolute human rights do not exist and since they do not exist there is no natural absolute (non law related) obligation to abide by something that does not exist.

So if you believe that all obligations (excluding nature/innate/absolute) are contructs of man then you can not say that there is an absolute obligation to respect someones life outside of the construct of man. So, you can not prove that your life should be respected by me other then a legal sense created by man. Since legal obligations are subjective by defintion there are no absolute human rights.

@click here,

IMHO,

There are only rights, socially speaking, when we consider the opposite of right which is wrong.

Privilege simply cannot be granted to all without taking it away from someone.

This is why the great so called melting pot of western society is falling apart.

How can we appease the fast food socialite without offending their Hindu brother across the street?

Democracy is supposed to be a freedom of the people when in reality it is nothing more than an acknowledgment of the majority of the populace. The civil rights of the minority cannot deter the rights of the majority, but they can certainly create great social pangs for those who try to promote equal rights for all.

I think equal rights is nothing more than an appeasement of the minority aspect of any society just to quiet the protest of that portion of their society.

Philosophy Forum

Absolute Human Rights

Quick Links

My Account

able2know