nastiness abounds

[Xray]

I don't see the absolute all-the-time necessity for rationality. All men (and women) created equal merely refers to their equal at birth tabula rasa moral status respecting all other men (and women).

But doesn't "tabula rasa moral status" mean an 'a-moral' status like in a newborn child who has not yet developed the capacity to perform thinking operations on moral issues?

but the idea of God is much more powerful and epistemological genius.

The idea of a god is an epistemological fallacy where X (God) is claimed to exist without there existing a scintilla of evidence to support the claim.

The ingeniousness of the god idea lies somewhere else, and I think this is what you really meant:

What Jefferson did in The Declaration of Independence was use "Creator" to bitch-slap the King of England and the English parliament and rally the troops, so to say. Insofar as he really thought they were endowed rather than invented he was wrong, but he used the right words the right way for American rebellion purposes.

The idea of God having created all men equal was a powerful weapon against the doctrine of the "divine right of kings".

From the US Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

But how would the Founding Fathers have reacted if the slaves demanded that the above listed "self-evident truths" be applied to them as well?

Edited July 23, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

I don't see the absolute all-the-time necessity for rationality. All men (and women) created equal merely refers to their equal at birth tabula rasa moral status respecting all other men (and women).

But doesn't "tabula rasa moral status" mean an 'a-moral' status like in a newborn child who has not yet developed the capacity to perform thinking operations on moral issues?

Rights in law are applied to all sentient human beings at whichever end of life they occupy regardless if they can be rational or not. Otherwise you'll end up with horrible and arbitrary equivocations. In the case of the baby he has all his rights but cannot yet use them so he is protected as he starts to use one and the other as part of growing up. In the case of the senile oldster he puts down his rights as his rights-using ability declines over time, but this doesn't mean someone else thereby acquires some right to initiate force against him. There is no right to initiate force.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

But how would the Founding Fathers have reacted if the slaves demanded that the above listed "self-evident truths" be applied to them as well?

There certainly was a reason for keeping slaves illiterate. The contradiction built into the Constitution resulted eventually in the Civil War. Abolishing slavery should have been part and parcel of admission to the Union. That would have resulted in a smaller United States initially but slavery could then have died out over time for economic and moral reasons and industrialized agriculture. A better way, probably, would have been no United States replacing the Articles of Confederation. Jefferson did his best to keep his slaves out of sight. He had no economical way for freeing them even if he had wanted to. The War of Independence drove him into perpetual indebtedness as well as his taste for good and varied living. The most moral hypocrites of all were the British who were at the heart of abolishing the slave trade while using Southern cotton to the extent they almost went to war against the North during the Civil War.

--Brant

[sjw]

What is patently irrational is to be claiming that "X doesn't exist" when you don't even know what "X" is in the first place.

I gave you a link to the definition in post # 90.

Political theorists since the time of the ancient Greeks have argued in support of the existence of natural rights, meaning those rights that men possessed as a gift from nature (or God) prior to the formation of governments. It is generally held that those rights belong equally to all men at birth and cannot be taken away.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1206.html

On what grounds should a reasonable person accept your preferred definition of natural rights?

Shayne

[Xray]

What is patently irrational is to be claiming that "X doesn't exist" when you don't even know what "X" is in the first place.

I gave you a link to the definition in post # 90.

Political theorists since the time of the ancient Greeks have argued in support of the existence of natural rights, meaning those rights that men possessed as a gift from nature (or God) prior to the formation of governments. It is generally held that those rights belong equally to all men at birth and cannot be taken away.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1206.html

On what grounds should a reasonable person accept your preferred definition of natural rights?

Shayne

It is not my "preferred" definition. The source of the definiton is quite reliable, that's why I posted it.

I what way does "your" definition of natural rights differ from the above?

[Brant Gaede]

What is patently irrational is to be claiming that "X doesn't exist" when you don't even know what "X" is in the first place.

I gave you a link to the definition in post # 90.

Political theorists since the time of the ancient Greeks have argued in support of the existence of natural rights, meaning those rights that men possessed as a gift from nature (or God) prior to the formation of governments. It is generally held that those rights belong equally to all men at birth and cannot be taken away.

http://www.u-s-histo...ages/h1206.html

On what grounds should a reasonable person accept your preferred definition of natural rights?

Shayne

It is not my "preferred" definition. The source of the definiton is quite reliable, that's why I posted it.

I what way does "your" definition of natural rights differ from the above?

"Definition?" What definition?

--Brant

we don't need no stinkin' definitions!

[Selene]

"Definition?" What definition?

--Brant

we don't need no stinkin' definitions!

<<Instrumental London Symphony

<<Phenomenal live performance of Another Brick in the Wall - crank up the speakers for this one!

[sjw]

It is not my "preferred" definition. The source of the definiton is quite reliable, that's why I posted it.

I what way does "your" definition of natural rights differ from the above?

So let me get this straight. You've just spent several posts trying to nail Brant and me to the wall over our belief in natural rights, and you don't even know what each of us mean by the term?

Shayne

[Xray]

It is not my "preferred" definition. The source of the definiton is quite reliable, that's why I posted it.

I what way does "your" definition of natural rights differ from the above?

So let me get this straight. You've just spent several posts trying to nail Brant and me to the wall over our belief in natural rights, and you don't even know what each of us mean by the term?

My focus was on the definition I gave in the link (a definition which btw is a widely accepted one).

So in case "your" definition should substantially differ from the one in my link, feel free to point out the differences.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Xray

[sjw]

It is not my "preferred" definition. The source of the definiton is quite reliable, that's why I posted it.

I what way does "your" definition of natural rights differ from the above?

So let me get this straight. You've just spent several posts trying to nail Brant and me to the wall over our belief in natural rights, and you don't even know what each of us mean by the term?

My focus was on the definition I gave in the link (a definition which btw is a widely accepted one).

So in case "your" definition should substantially differ from the one in my link, feel free to point out the differences.

Why do you posture as if you're arguing with Brant and me, when in fact you're arguing with some long dead guys?

Shayne

[Xray]

It is not my "preferred" definition. The source of the definiton is quite reliable, that's why I posted it.

I what way does "your" definition of natural rights differ from the above?

So let me get this straight. You've just spent several posts trying to nail Brant and me to the wall over our belief in natural rights, and you don't even know what each of us mean by the term?

My focus was on the definition I gave in the link (a definition which btw is a widely accepted one).

So in case "your" definition should substantially differ from the one in my link, feel free to point out the differences.

Why do you posture as if you're arguing with Brant and me, when in fact you're arguing with some long dead guys?

Shayne

Well, the idea of natural rights was created by some "long dead guys". It is not a new invention. It is about examining whether the premises an idea is based on stand up to scrutiny.

As for arguing with Brant, I see this as a discussion because Brant does elaborate and comment and thus gives the discussion partner something to hang his/her hat on.

So again, feel free to present your definition of natural rights here for examination.

Also, let us not lose focus of the talk Steven Pinker gave and whom you critized.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Xray

[sjw]

Well, the idea of natural rights was created by some "long dead guys". It is not a new invention. It is about examining whether the premises an idea is based on stand up to scrutiny.

Here we are again. "The idea" is what the definition refers to. Brant's idea is not my idea is not these old guys' idea.

You aren't answering the question. Deeper than that, your mode of thinking is wrong. You presume that when someone uses the phrase "natural rights", that they are referring to the concept you had in your head before you started talking to them. You don't allow for the fact that they may have done their own thinking and have something quite different in mind than what you had imagined. So then you start arguing with your own imagination. And then I point this out and the best you can do is say "it's not a new invention", completely failing to take responsibility for your irrational, presumptuous mode of interaction. And that's dishonest.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Well, the idea of natural rights was created by some "long dead guys". It is not a new invention. It is about examining whether the premises an idea is based on stand up to scrutiny.

Here we are again. "The idea" is what the definition refers to. Brant's idea is not my idea is not these old guys' idea.

You aren't answering the question. Deeper than that, your mode of thinking is wrong. You presume that when someone uses the phrase "natural rights", that they are referring to the concept you had in your head before you started talking to them. You don't allow for the fact that they may have done their own thinking and have something quite different in mind than what you had imagined. So then you start arguing with your own imagination. And then I point this out and the best you can do is say "it's not a new invention", completely failing to take responsibility for your irrational, presumptuous mode of interaction. And that's dishonest.

Shayne

Bullseye!

--Brant

[Xray]

Well, the idea of natural rights was created by some "long dead guys". It is not a new invention. It is about examining whether the premises an idea is based on stand up to scrutiny.

Here we are again. "The idea" is what the definition refers to. Brant's idea is not my idea is not these old guys' idea.

Examing premises applies to all ideas. So let's examine yours too if they are really that different.

You aren't answering the question. Deeper than that, your mode of thinking is wrong. You presume that when someone uses the phrase "natural rights", that they are referring to the concept you had in your head before you started talking to them. You don't allow for the fact that they may have done their own thinking and have something quite different in mind than what you had imagined.

How many more times do you want to be asked here to offer "your" definition of natural rights? If your idea of natural rights is that different from the definition I linked to, all you need to do is point out the difference(s). All it takes is a short post where you give "your" definition. Why then the hesitance on your part?

For if you're that unwilling to put 'your' natural rights definition cards on the table, this could lead me to believe that the definition from the link I gave may not really be different from yours.

Or to suspect that you may not really have worked out one yourself where you have thought things through enough. That it may all be a bit vague and diffuse.

I'm willing to stand corrected of course. Just provide your definition.

So then you start arguing with your own imagination. And then I point this out and the best you can do is say "it's not a new invention", completely failing to take responsibility for your irrational, presumptuous mode of interaction. And that's dishonest.

C'mon Shayne, you know exactly that my comment "It is not a new invention" was in response to your "long dead guys" comment.

I'd like to go through Steven Pinker's talk in detail in the next few days. Keep in mind that if you take part and, in the discussion, mention "natural rights" without pointing out in what way your definition is different from the widely accepted definition, guest readers of the thread will think you refer to the widely accepted definition, like e. g. from this link:

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1206.html

Political theorists since the time of the ancient Greeks have argued in support of the existence of natural rights, meaning those rights that men possessed as a gift from nature (or God) prior to the formation of governments. It is generally held that those rights belong equally to all men at birth and cannot be taken away.

So it is in your own interest to be as clear as possible.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Rand, VOS p. 110 pb: A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning man's freedom of action in a social context.

This is okay as far as it goes but it hardly goes far enough or deep enough. She fleshes out the description in her essay, but I don't think any definition holds enough water as a definition. In this case it's a mostly empty box to put things into.

--Brant

[Xray]

My basic thought was that it [the Pinker video, link in # 43] doesn't take into account the fact that we are more domesticated than civilized.

We are definitely more civilized than our ancestors. Civilization is the result of a cultural process which has evolved and will keep evolving.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

My basic thought was that it [the Pinker video, link in # 43] doesn't take into account the fact that we are more domesticated than civilized.

We are definitely more civilized than our ancestors. Civilization is the result of a cultural process which has evolved and will keep evolving.

One of these days we humans may learn not to fart in crowded elevators.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

My basic thought was that it [the Pinker video, link in # 43] doesn't take into account the fact that we are more domesticated than civilized.

We are definitely more civilized than our ancestors. Civilization is the result of a cultural process which has evolved and will keep evolving.

How do you define "civilized"? I'm quite sure it's contrary to the implied definition I'd give to it.

Shayne

[Xray]

My basic thought was that it [the Pinker video, link in # 43] doesn't take into account the fact that we are more domesticated than civilized.

We are definitely more civilized than our ancestors. Civilization is the result of a cultural process which has evolved and will keep evolving.

How do you define "civilized"? I'm quite sure it's contrary to the implied definition I'd give to it.

The definition given in 1. of this link works well for me:

civ·i·lized

1. having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilized

Edited July 31, 2011 by Xray

[sjw]

How do you define "civilized"? I'm quite sure it's contrary to the implied definition I'd give to it.

The definition given in 1. of this link works well for me:

Useless in this context. I can use a dictionary.

The central dogma of our "civilized" world is to use coercion to force people to belong to centralized systems. This is closer to a totalitarian dystopia in its methodology (and sometimes even in its outcomes) than it is to how "civilization" really ought to work, where no individual's right to choose for himself is violated.

Shayne

[anthony]

How do you define "civilized"? I'm quite sure it's contrary to the implied definition I'd give to it.

The definition given in 1. of this link works well for me:

Useless in this context. I can use a dictionary.

The central dogma of our "civilized" world is to use coercion to force people to belong to centralized systems. This is closer to a totalitarian dystopia in its methodology (and sometimes even in its outcomes) than it is to how "civilization" really ought to work, where no individual's right to choose for himself is violated.

Shayne

That visionary Ben Franklin would say today that we have long ago given up a little liberty to gain a little security - and as a result " ...you deserved neither, and you lost both."

This is the 'civilization' I think Xray is referring to: security, the perfectly risk-free society.

Totalitarian dystopia, as you say.

[Xray]

How do you define "civilized"? I'm quite sure it's contrary to the implied definition I'd give to it.

The definition given in 1. of this link works well for me:

Useless in this context. I can use a dictionary.

You asked me about a definition, which I provided.

The central dogma of our "civilized" world is to use coercion to force people to belong to centralized systems. This is closer to a totalitarian dystopia in its methodology (and sometimes even in its outcomes) than it is to how "civilization" really ought to work, where no individual's right to choose for himself is violated.

What you wrote here has nothing to do with any definition. Instead, it is a personal rant about what you think is done 'in the name of civilization'. Which is something else altogether.

Before we proceed, it's your turn now to provide 'your' definion of civility.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

How do you define "civilized"? I'm quite sure it's contrary to the implied definition I'd give to it.

The definition given in 1. of this link works well for me:

Useless in this context. I can use a dictionary.

You asked me about a definition, which I provided.

The central dogma of our "civilized" world is to use coercion to force people to belong to centralized systems. This is closer to a totalitarian dystopia in its methodology (and sometimes even in its outcomes) than it is to how "civilization" really ought to work, where no individual's right to choose for himself is violated.

What you wrote here has nothing to do with any definition. Instead, it is a personal rant about what you think is done 'in the name of civilization'. Which is something else altogether.

Before we proceed, it's your turn now to provide 'your' definion of civility.

To some extent rights' violations work like vaccinations against tyranny. Hence, the best governments' will still violate rights to some extent and piss people off to some extent but How About That As the Best Argument for MINARCHY?!!

--Brant

so much for anarchy

[sjw]

To some extent rights' violations work like vaccinations against tyranny. Hence, the best governments' will still violate rights to some extent and piss people off to some extent but How About That As the Best Argument for MINARCHY?!!

--Brant

so much for anarchy

So the moral isn't the practical?

Shayne

so much for Ayn Rand?

[Selene]

To some extent rights' violations work like vaccinations against tyranny. Hence, the best governments' will still violate rights to some extent and piss people off to some extent but How About That As the Best Argument for MINARCHY?!!

--Brant

so much for anarchy

So the moral isn't the practical?

Shayne

so much for Ayn Rand?

Shayne:

What it isn't, "the moral," is a magic wand that makes the practical automatically clear as the best path.

Adam