Bitcoin Forum

People say a man is entitled to free speech when he does not have such. He is shunned and imprisoned when he pushes his so-called "right" to ends not preferred by his government and the powers that be.  

People say a man is entitled to food when he refuses to collect it himself and the system and people that provide it can fail at anytime.

Isn't the only thing that defines a "right" is the strength and power of oneself to obtain said entitlement? Isn't a "right" void once the means to enforce it are gone?

What good is a list of human rights when the power to enforce them is easily corrupted and dissolved?

Can one only truly guarantee himself his "rights" by his own self-liberation, strength and ensured means?

To me the concept of "rights" is a spook. If one has the strength to obtain something, they are entitled to it. If they are too weak to obtain an end, then it is not their right. To claim otherwise, is only a plea of faith: pure religion and dogma.

The reality seems to be that men will have power of varying capacities and that no moral dogma can make it otherwise: One can only continue to be vigilant. There are no guarantees or inherent entitlements besides the basic organic powers we are born with.

By your logic, if the big bad government has the power to obtain tax money and make sure everyone gets food and water, then they are entitled to do so. If they are too weak to do so, then it is not their right.

Yes, yes. Very good. Now you understand why I would prefer the government weaker. You prefer it stronger.

It's all preferences.

I guess what would be helpful is if you define "objective", and "rights", and go from there.

If there is isn't a concise universal understanding of those two words and their usage, then everyone will differ in their application. Start with an axiom and go from there is what I'd suggest.

Right - an entitlement of power or good.

Objective - Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Applies to a universal human goal, that is in fact universal across all humans.

Objective rights don't exist.  Rights are legal constructs to enable society to run more efficiently. 

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

Read up on this guy - he does it better :)

Wow, you finally get it.  Congratulations.

So there is nothing inherently righteous about the law? It doesn't apply to you if you do not wish to follow it (assuming you have the might to evade its purported consequences)?

I am glad this is going smoothly.

An author's opinion or your opinion that objective rights do not exist is subjective.  There are two ways of really looking at the world and the cosmos--man is a product of chance and natural selection or man was made in the image of God. 

If you believe rights are a legal construct only, then rights are government given and can be government taken, at any time.  If you believe in Natural Law or unalienable rights, then governments are established to safeguard those rights. 

Many classical writers and even some of the Enlightenment saw objective rights no different than the laws of the universe, mathematics, and other laws that exist whether man recognizes them or not. 

I may be ignorant of gravity but it is there; I may not want 2+2 to equal 4 but it is so...universally. 

In Orwell's 1984 the state may have convinced the populace that 2+2 can equal 6 but it does little in the way of truth. 

Think about it. 

 

At a syntactic level, subject and object are fundamentally the same.

Any two relands, x and y, must always share a common medium.  If, suppose, you were to say "x and y are absolutely different from each other," then they would still share the common medium of "absolute difference."

So, if subject and object are fundamentally the same, reaching an objective conclusion about the distribution of human rights (or lack thereof) must also include a subjective component.

If someone thinks people objectively have certain rights, then they do.  But if someone else thinks people objectively do not have rights, then they don't.  It's not either/or; it's both/and, either/or, and neither/nor (depending on who is determining).  In other words, people figure out for themselves.  Neat eh?  The principle distributes to everyone (syntactically and objectively) in that they get to choose.  And, they have their own subjective opinions about the matter.

And, if it's a computational Universe, then at the highest level I would expect a sum determination, though not necessarily a utilitarian one.

You should use "Ragnar Redbeard" as your next user name.

See above bolded areas for subjective words.

He already had Ragnar as his last last last username.

Consider that vast majority of countries approved this:

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

You probably consider Newtonian physics "proven" because most physicists and a lot of other people agree it is reasonable approximation of reality. Similarly, I can easily consider universal human rights "proven" because most people agree that everyone should have these rights. IMHO it's silly to argue beyond this point, we should argue about the soundness of the human rights concept itself.

Have you ever lived in totalitarian society? From my experience, I must strongly disagree with you that the rights depend on means to enforce it! I was born in Czechoslovakia, literally few kilometers from iron curtain. It was plainly impossible to use strength and power of oneself to obtain entitlements like freedom of speech, except trying to flee West and risk being shot or imprisoned plus having caused problems to whole family for the attempt. It was very important for us to have illegal broadcasts and other means of support from the West, to know that someone somewhere believes that we have these rights despite our government and law prevents us to exercise them. Radio Free Europe wasn't at all force that could enforce anything. But it accelerated the decay of communist regime to the extent that when the opportunity came, nobody wanted to defend the regime. Otherwise, whole Eastern Europe could have ended in civil war like Yugoslavia or Libya.

If I had slaves, I wouldn't want them without the freedom to live lives with some leisure. Otherwise, they aren't very productive.

Nobody's interests are served in a totalitarian society unless you want the majority of the human masses gradually made extinct. Heh, which might be an inevitable scenario.

My only point is awareness and avoiding blind trust.

wrong! as long the totalitarian society 'protect' the people, and the people feel that they achieve something, the society goes happily on.

The Soviet Union...

the people was not protected, or happy. Stalin was suffering from paranoia. Soviet was not the only totalitarian system:
Italy.

Italy is a very small state. It's hardly collateral worth controlling.

just because its small it didn't mean that it didn't work, your logic is failing.

+1

The Orwell example is sloppy thinking.  Ethics are not material items.  Laws are not material items.  Morality is not a set of eternal laws - it changes from generation to generation.  For example, 1000 years ago, slavery was normal and abortion a heinous offence.  Today abortion is normal and slavery is a heinous offence.  What's changed?  Our idea about morals.  Meanwhile, 2 + 2 = 4 has been true for the entire 1000 years and will remain so.

Laws, including the subsection of laws that are called rights, are government made and can be changed and taken away at any time.  For example, break the wrong law and they can hang you as your right to life is contingent on obeying that law.  

I think the sloppiness of thinking is on your side...

  This is your opinion.  Neither you nor anyone else can prove with objective certainty that eternal laws do not exist.  You cannot make absolute statements if there is no absolute. 

.  Yes and no.  But you are missing the whole point.  Eternal laws--whether moral, scientific, or mathematics-- do not depend on man recognizing them or abiding by them.  They exist independent of man knowing them or not knowing them. 


Your argument is very childish.  No one disputes such things.  But this does not mean there is no absolute laws or objective rights.  The absolute exists irrespective of man or society knowing them or not knowing them. 

I see order in the cosmos--kosmos, a Greek word, which means "order, beauty."  There is a perfect law in mathematics and the sciences--these laws existed before man and are not dependent on man recognizing them or knowing them.  They are there.  It is up to man to study and to learn and understand that there is order and absolutes in the universe. 

It is not logical to assume that man is in a world, in the cosmos, where universal laws exist, yet he himself exists outside of those things.  Man is bound to the Eternal Laws of God, a moral code, which exist everywhere, irrespective of whether they acknowledge it or not. 

Don't you just love religious retards who claim to be "objective?"  I'm looking at you, luke-jr...

which religion do you believe in?

Lets look at your logic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


Its an error of logic to say that the inability to prove that eternal laws and fairies don't exist proves that eternal laws and fairies do exist.

Think it through and make a better post please.

In civil society or in a forum, it is important to have good decorum and to act responsibly.  Calling people religious retards is inappropriate. 

 

sure it is, but that doesn't make it less true.

are you religious?

You obviously do not understand an appeal to ignorance.  You cannot make absolute statements if there are no absolutes.  No absolutes means there are no absolutes.  To state absolutely there are no absolutes is contrary to reason and to linguistics.  This is not as assertion that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false; rather, it is a recognition that two contrary statements are an impossibility in linguistics.  

The original statement was not that eternal laws exist because you cannot disprove them; rather, you cannot make an absolute statement that absolutes do not exist, since you would be making an absolute statement.  

We live in a rational universe.  Human intellect, via reason, is able to learn of the laws of the universe and of nature; it is not only able to learn them and study them, it is able to use them for the behoof of humanity.  

The same Legislator that created the universal laws of science and mathematics, also created moral laws.  They flow from the same foundation head.  

This is your opinion.  It is not an objective statement.  Moreover, calling people religious retards does not facilitate discourse but negate it. 

Whether I am "religious" or not, is irrelevant. 

For the record, however, I am a Christian and would be happy to debate anyone on this forum.

I come from a background where people I respect share your belief in a rational creator, intelligent design and god given rights and laws that never change.  My ex-in-laws (is that the word for what were in-laws before a divorce) are very active in Turkish politics and put a lot of store by restoring Sharia based laws.

Personally I don't buy it.  I don't think that your Creator, the Muslim Allah and the Hindu Krishna are all the same universal deity that espouses the same laws.  But if it works for you, that's fine.  Like you, I also can't prove a negative :)

it's not irrelevant when your personal opinion about God shine through is a discussion about objectivity and moral. leave god out of it, please.

Religious people are suffering from the paranoid delusion that there exist a superior being, that will send them to hell if they does not do what he/she/it expects . Therefor they are mentally ill.

Personal abuse isn't logic.  If you can't best his arguments with reason, what makes you think that calling him names will do the job?

nothing, its just more fun.

Sovereign Investor,

You'll have to provide a theory on your ideas. A theory will make predictions which can then be tested. Otherwise, stop bringing up math and physics as analogies.

I wouldn't discredit Sovereign Investor so fast...

I think it is important that we learn to respect freedom of speech and to engage in a civil discourse.  We may not agree but I respect your right to express yourself.  You should afford others the same right.  Name calling is counterproductive.  

Isaac Newton, arguably one of the greatest scientists ever, was a devout believer.  He studied astrology, metaphysics, the Bible, and other various occult beliefs.  In fact, his biblical writings are more voluminous than his scientific papers.  While I may not agree with Sir Isaac Newton's interpretation into some of those things, I would hardly classify him as a retard or mentally ill.  

Sir Isaac Newton, John Locke, Sir Francis Bacon, and a wide variety of important Enlightenment thinkers believed in an orderly, rational universe.  They were not mentally ill or retards.

Indeed, the most celebrated thinkers in Western Civilization, before and after Plato and Aristotle, all believed in reason, natural law, and a rational, orderly universe.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II

If we start with the premise that there used to be nothing--and that out of nothing the big bang originated billions of years ago.  And that this capricious explosion, without any order or purpose, formed the starts, the planets, the moons, and the various suns of the universe, seems far fetched.  And that, after this, so called simple cells, which magically appear, with the perfect proportions of amino acids and DNA, emerged out of the oceans, and over time, through a blind and unguided natural selection, produced over billions of years, all the various species of life on this planet, including vegetation, may make for a good fairy tale, but it is not science.  

DNA is more complicated than the most complicated supercomputers and computer programs--yet we are to believe that pure blind chance and a row of the dice produced such intelligence that our most sophisticated computers and human minds cannot begin to understand all the mysteries of life and the universe.  Perhaps if the human race becomes extinct, a new race of humans will evolve and will draw the conclusion that all the computers, smart phones, airplanes, and other technology was also a product of a blind process--who knows?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III

The natural world clearly evinces design and order. It can be studied and analyzed; it is not capricious.  There is a natural order in the universe--the precise distant of the planets, the ratio of the sun and moon to the earth, the laws of astronomy, biology, chemistry, linguistics, physics, and mathematics all suggest that some Supreme Being is the author of life.  Do you really believe that wild and blind explosions out of nothing can possibly create rational existence?  If so, how?


I agree; the Muslim Creator, the Hindu Creator, the Christian Creator, and other religions Creators are not the same being.  Clearly, all religions, with some exceptions, contradict each other.  It is true that most religions agree on some moral precepts; but theologically speaking, they all have different representations of who God is, his nature, his purpose; heaven and hell; reincarnation; divination; et al.  

In fact, most religions are polytheistic, with male and female gods and goddesses.  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Part IV

Two theses

1.  The natural world and the cosmos clearly evince a Supreme Being
2.  Only Scripture can reveal who this Supreme Being is--his name, his nature, his purpose, our purpose, his salvation plan.  

Lets say I grant that your 2 theses are valid for you.

How does that give you the right to determine that there are "natural laws" that bind me?  It may be that I have beliefs that clash with your laws.

And science-oriented people are suffering from the bizarre delusion that a future exists in which to make scientific predictions when there is not, nor has there ever been, any evidence of a future whatsoever...

...not to mention that any definition of anything is essentially a miniature theory of it, and without a comprehensive Theory of Theories, every single scientific experiment conducted in the history of mankind is fundamentally flawed due to the assumed infallibility of human perception and interpretation.  Forget all those operational definitions for your variables -- it's all a load of unfounded assumptions.  And then you get other scientists claiming things like "evolution is scientifically proven" when it's not even a scientific theory in the first place.

I think you guys should listen a little more to what Sovereign Investor was saying about absolutes...you might learn something.

I think it is important to consider two things. 

1.    It is not the purpose of government to force religion or atheism on its population.  People and their rights to free exercise of religion and speech should be  protected.  Religious expressions have their limits, however.  The free exercise of religion cannot be used as a cloak to hurt others.
2.   Natural Law, whether moral or scientific, is binding on all people.  To go against it, is to bring injury to oneself. 

I may decide that gravity is not binding on me…but if I jump off a bridge or a mountain without a parachute I will soon discover that gravity is binding whether I acknowledge it or not.  My beliefs may clash with gravity but in the end the objective reality of gravity supersedes my subjective belief. 

The Supreme Legislator created the law we know as gravity…when violated, there are ramifications. 

Moral natural law is similar.  We understand that in a civil society, where natural laws are not binding on everyone, there will be chaos. 

I may determine that murder and stealing are contrary to my beliefs but if I commit one or the other or both, if caught, I will face the consequences for those actions.  Why?  Because I have broken the social contract and injured others. 

The Supreme Legislator created the laws prohibiting murder and stealing…when violated, there are consequences. 

All religions believe in these notions or in some varieties of these notions. 

1000 years ago, slavery was normal and abortion a heinous offence.  Today abortion is normal and slavery is a heinous offence.

If there is a natural law, it appears the natural law been hidden to all who came before us including Moses (a slave owner), Jesus (spoke approvingly of torturing disobedient slaves in the parable of 10000 talents) and Mohammed (a slave owner).

What changed? How come we now have "natural" rights like the right to abortion in the US that are new and the right to own a slave has been lost?

I'll tell you what changed. Religion obeys the natural law of Darwinian evolution and evolves to survive within the environment which fosters it, which in this case, is human culture.

Technically, what changed was that humanity ran out of undeveloped land into which to expand.  Morally Ethically, neither abortion nor slavery have ever been rights.  It's just that rights are violated every day, and the choices we make regarding which violations to suffer and ignore changes over time and place.

Um, slavery certainly was a moral right.  Read the bible.

"But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. "

Women, kids, cattle, all much the same thing.  That's slavery.

Now go find a quote from there about abortion... there are a bunch of passages indicating abortion was commonly accepted. In fact, if there was an unwanted pregnancy back then, they would usually just kill the mother as well.

The priests would poison the fetus somehow? Really who knows though. Multiple translations, etc.

Interesting reply...

1. There is a difference between "natural law" and "biblical law."  Natural law is a law that has been interpreted throughout the ages as a law discernible by the light of reason alone; and that such a law is writ on the hearts of men, though flawed because of sin. 

2.  Biblical law is "revealed law," wherein the Supreme Legislator reveals to his prophets the laws of God.  In this "revealed law," there is a moral and ceremonial law.  Although the moral law is applicable to all, the ceremonial law was only applicable to a certain people for a certain time. 

3.  Old Testament Biblical law was based on a theocratic state.  In the New Testament, the Mosaic law (the law of Moses) is understood as a law of compromise, a law establishing the sinfulness of all men, and as a shadow of the coming things.  The ceremonial law in particular is seen as a shadow of the coming things...i.e. pictures of Christ.  In fact, the Mosaic law is called a "schoolmaster." 

4. Jesus' parable of the talents is misrepresented by you.  The Greek word "doulos," which means "servant," can also mean "slave."  However, the parable of the ten talents (not 10000) does not mention anything about torturing or approving torture of any disobedient slaves. 

You have to take this parable in context.  Two thousand years, there was a system of commerce established where a husbandmen would hire servants to work on his land and be profitable.  One of the servants was not profitable.  Rather than being rewarded, he was punished by forcing him to relinquish his talents.  The story concludes by saying the servant was fired and because of this, he was weeping and gnashing his teeth (out of anger and rejection). 

Please show all of us on this forum where Jesus approved this man's torture? 

Slavery in the Old Testament must be looked at in its cultural, historic, and symbolic context. 

You are mistaken about the natural law being hidden to all who came before us...natural law does not mean that human beings can not err.  Human beings are imperfect and often times violate the laws of nature.  This does not mean that natural law does not exist...it means that humans beings are sinners and struggle to keep the laws of nature.  The temptation of sin is very strong...

This is an interesting, albeit silly theory.  Darwinian evolution is not only a chimeric fancy of the atheists, but an impossibility of nature.  Although no one would dispute micro evolution (changes within specifies), to suggest that macro evolution (changes from one specie to another) explains why "natural rights" evolve to survive is pure rubbish. 

Owning a slave and abortion are not natural rights...they were and are positive laws---in other words, laws established by parliaments. 

No such passages exist.  Your ignorance on this subject is profound.  Rachel, the wife of Jacob, died giving birth. 

Please cite your passages for proof. 

This passage has nothing to do with abortion.  This was a test of marital fidelity...to establish whether a woman committed adultery. 

I see. How did it work?

Look, I see your point.  Any modern person reading this passage or in fact, many of the passages in the Old Testament, may think to themselves that they are profoundly illogical and superstitious.  The Old Testament sacrificial system of slaughtering animals, human slavery, certain customs (such as the passover), and many other things, at face value, are "illogical" and "stupid." 

It is in many ways a primitive form of writing by a primitive people...some of the laws are seemingly barbaric and primitive, with weird and often illogical superstitions. 

However, one must interpret these writings in their societal and historic contexts; and more importantly, they must be viewed in the light of the New Testament.  Apart from interpreting the Old Testament via the New Testament, there is little of any sense in the Old Testament at face value. 

It is the prophecies of the Old Testament, both hidden and public, that reveal to us that it is God breathed. 

Only 43 posts and already wasting your entire day preaching religion are we?

Welcome to hell.

Well my original point was that there is always a bible passage that can be taken to support whatever point you want to make. Much like you can watch four historical documentaries about the same subject and get four different versions of history. I don't really think it is productive to argue about it.


Let me ask you this:
Can God move an immovable object?

Sorry to feed the trolls, but this guy keeps posting the same goddamn thing in every thread. IS != OUGHT, HAWKER. The bible was morally wrong about slavery then and it still is now, regardless of who voted on it and who was in charge at whatever time.

Is it too hard for you to perform ANY moral reasoning on your own? Must local opinion shape every single thing you believe is right and wrong?

The Bible has never been wrong on anything, it is 100% accurate.  The Bible did not create slavery; the Old Testament must be understood in the light of the cultural practices of the time, like polygamy.

You have your opinion and I have mine.  I leave it at that. 

This can be true with any written book or oral tradition.  This proves nothing except that people interpret information differently.  However, this does not mean a certain piece of information cannot have one true meaning.  The bible is misunderstood by a great deal because they do not peruse it carefully.  Your original post about Numbers and abortion cannot be interpreted to mean abortion.  The context plainly states it is about marital infidelity. 


Nothing is impossible with God--God can do all things.  However, I think I know where you are going with this but I will be reticent until you explain your meaning. 

Either way, we can agree to disagree. 

You believe in macro evolution and that rights are a social construct; I believe in creation and God given laws.

Fair enough about the bible, you are probably right about that quote. It was just on the first page I found googling.


First off, I don't believe in macro evolution. I find it believable or, more aptly put, plausible. Even better is the phrase more plausible than any alternative explanations.

Anyway, would you describe "moving an immovable object" as a logical impossibility?

Fair enough.  You are entitled to your position.  


For man, I would say it most probably is.  For God, however, no.  God is the author of life and the creator of all things, movable or immovable.  However, what exactly would you define as an immovable object?  And what is the point of your argument?  

Immovable object = Object that cannot be moved

It's not an argument so much as a question. I am trying to discover if you can reason about abstract concepts or will just repeat platitudes.

From Wikipedia:
"Just because we can string words together to form what looks like a coherent sentence does not mean the sentence really makes any sense."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

You are not thinking correctly or deep enough.  Throughout history, there have been many feats that have been deemed impossible--which are now possible.  Immovable objects are no different.  What was once considered immovable is now movable; what is now considered immovable may soon be movable.  If you start with the premise that God is the author of life and the creator of the universe, it does not stand to reason that he cannot move a so called immovable object.

But I would like to ask you a question--do you believe in prophecy?  

"Can God move an immoveable object?"

This is an easy question with an easy answer.

If one defines God as "omnipotent," then obviously yes, God can move an immoveable object.

I've heard the question phrased differently:

"Can God create a rock he cannot lift?"

Also an easy question with an easy answer; yes.

"But if he creates the rock and can't lift it, then he's not omnipotent!  And if he can't create the rock, he's still not omnipotent!"

Clearly, whoever asked this question to begin with doesn't know what omnipotent means.  Omnipotence, or infinitely boundless power, implies that an omnipotent being can also place constraints upon himself such that he is both omnipotent and not omnipotent simultaneously (e.g. constraining his ability to lift a rock).

Easy peazy.

I don't think that is really your first premise. At least these three points must come first:

1) I exist
2) The universe exists
3) Other things like me (that move around and grow and such) that I will call "life" exist

The word belief/believe has a different meaning for you than it does for me. We should avoid it. I have never come across a scenario for which prophecy was the most plausible explanation for what I observed.

think of it more like a koan

And here I've been, spending hours flapping my wrist in the air and drawing conclusions.

This devolving into theology is the last thing I wanted.

You're right, I should have said "ethically".

Anything that would necessarily be able to do the impossible must necessarily *be* impossible.

What, now we have legal rights, moral rights and ethical rights?

Surely moral rights and ethical rights are the same thing?

Please read: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-18-34/ and the whole chapter around it.

Generally, being counted as godlike behaviour is a sign of approval in the Gospels.  Jesus has the just master doing things like selling the slave's wife and children separately from him to raise money and later on when the slave displeases the master, "... his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him."  In simple terms, he sent him to be whipped and burnt as was the custom back then.  In this context, Jesus has the slave owner as a symbol of God.  You asked me to show where Jesus approved of the torture - that chapter is very clear.  Jesus was absolutely OK with slavery, with breaking up slave families and torture of slaves.  In this regard, he was very much a man of his age.


If your argument is that slavery was OK for biblical law but not for natural law, how come humanity has existed for 10s of 1000s of years, only in the last 300 has the idea that its bad to own a slave been become current.  It used be the natural order of things that men could be bought and sold.  Now it isn't.  Or is it?  Do you think that the natural laws that allowed slavery are still in force?

No, moral "rights" and legal "rights" are the same thing, since they are not based on reason or objective truth but on the values, or "mores" of a particular culture.  Ethical rights are the same as natural rights, which are independently derived from man's relation to man.

The bible is orthogonal to the concept of objective rights -- just yet another bloated, inconsistent legal code for a long-dead society.  You might as well be quoting Napoleonic code or the code of Hammurabi.

This is called selection bias.  You are selectively citing the written legal codes of ancient societies large enough to have developed such a thing, while ignoring the ones that didn't.

Can you think of a reason why societies that tolerated slavery might have been more likely to have developed written legal codes?

My question was "Surely moral rights and ethical rights are the same thing?"

All societies treated slavery as normal until 300 years ago.  So any society that developed writing prior to 300 years ago would of course have "tolerated" slavery much the same way they "tolerated" sex.  It was normal - the variations were only in the rules that surrounded it.

And my answer was,


But you seem like kind of an idiot, so I can see how you might have missed that.

I did - I guess you feel like a winner for spotting that.  Gratz.

Your answer raises the same question in a different wording.  What is it about man's relation to man that abhors slavery for the last 300 years but approved of it for 10s of 1000s of years.

It's not a competition, Hawker.


Rights are not a "subsection" of laws.  You appear to be thinking of privileges, though these are often incorrectly termed legal "rights" for somewhat obvious reasons.

Natural rights are superior to law, and laws are subject to them.  Your right to life is only contingent upon respecting the rights of others.

Most societies accepted slavery of those outside of their societies.  Typically this went along with the belief that outsiders were somehow less than human.  Slavery was never generally held as a universal human right.

Actually, natural rights don't exist. What is a "right" anyway, outside the context of a "right" being declared? What are the requirements for something to be "declared"?

Natural rights are derived from egalitarianism and the non-aggression principle, but ultimately all that is required is the latter.

Ahhh. NAP! How is it that NAP exists without it being declared? And again, what are the requirements for something to be declared?

Honestly, it kind of sounds like you would argue that gravity didn't exist before Isaac Newton "declared" it.

Is there some other point to this line of reasoning?  For whose benefit does the concept of natural rights need to be "declared"?

Quote from Wikipedia:


Egalitarianism is:

1. A trend of thought. That does not make it objective.
2. Is either a political doctrine or a social philosophy which advocates... Again, that does not make it objective.

Newton didn't declare gravity. He proposed a theory which makes testable predictions.

I'm still waiting for your theory which makes predictions which can be tested.

Anyone who wishes to benefit from them. For example, slaves.

That's isn't true.  In fact, I don't know of any ancient society of which you could assert that.  Can you point to one?

In fact, I can say categorically that English slavery and Biblical slavery were based within their own societies.

You have to accept, your natural law included a right to own slaves.

You can't have your cake and eat it to.

Natural laws are the laws of the Universe. They exist as theories. Theories make predictions and are then validated through testing. This continues for the life of the theory. Show us your testable theory.

If you don't have a theory, then what you have is something declared by a body of people. An example is a constitution. Constitutions are man made laws.

Let me repeat myself just so I make myself clear.

Natural laws are the laws of the Universe. They exist as theories. Theories make predictions and are then validated through testing. This continues for the life of the theory. Show us your testable theory.

If you don't have a theory, then what you have is something declared by a body of people. An example is a constitution. Constitutions are man made laws.

Well the obvious testable prediction is that slavery is not a natural right.  The observable evidence is that slavery did not exist in pre-neolithic, hunter-gatherer societies.  It arose along with the growth of agricultural civilization.  And it has since waned with the end of growth and the decreasing relevance of human labor.

The evidence is right there in front of your face.

This can easily be done for natural rights, but first we have to agree on what constitutes a testable theory. For example, before we understood the physical natural of color, what would you consider a testable theory for the existence of color and the ability of human beings to distinguish things on the basis of color? Or would you argue that it was irrational and unscientific to argue that colors exist and that humans had color vision until we understood the physical nature of color?

So you're saying:

1. Slavery didn't exist.
2. Slavery then existed.
3. Slavery now doesn't exist.

I don't follow. That's like saying:

1. Light didn't exceed the speed of c.
2. Light then exceeded the speed of c.
3. Light now doesn't exceed the speed of c.

Therefore, light cannot exceed the speed of c.

Elaborate further on this otherwise I don't know how to answer.

Look, crime exists.  That doesn't invalidate all legal theory.

In order for something to be a crime, it has to be illegal. In order for it to be illegal, a set of laws must be written. This is unlike natural laws, where the laws need not be written for the laws to be followed.

Natural laws are followed one hundred percent, or the natural law does not exist.

Crime exists because the laws are not followed one hundred percent. Hence, it is only a law declared by humanity, rather than a natural law.

Nonsense.  The second law of thermodynamics is not followed one hundred percent, yet it still exists.  Same goes for Newton's gravity.

That's news to me.  Do you have a source for this?

You are confusing context. Newton's law of gravity fails and is not a natural law. It's a law that works within a context. Einstein's General Relativity is more general.

If you look at crime statistics, you'll see how often your idea of natural laws fail.

Let's go back a few hundred years. We didn't know the physical nature of color. But we had color vision. We could distinguish objects reliably based on their color. And we could guess that it was something about the light coming from those objects, but that was about it. In that context, it would certainly be rational to believe that colors actually exist as properties of the real world, right?

But what would count as a testable experiment to prove the existence of colors? Remember, at the time, there was nothing other than human vision that could measure them. And we had no idea what green actually was, other than that people said grass looked green to them.

The situation with natural rights is currently about the same as it was then for color. So what would have convinced you back then that colors actually exist?

If you want, you can assume that you lack color vision. Because even though you don't lack the ability to sense natural rights, you will probably stubbornly insist that you cannot sense them and the fact that almost everyone else agrees that torturing children for pleasure is wrong is just a mysterious coincidence. All I can say to that is what I would say to the person who insists a green cube and a red cube look the same -- you are either lying or you lack a sense the rest of us have.

We sense what is wrong or right, without laws. Agreed. And I see how you're analogizing psychopaths to color blind people. Agreed. I would say that evolution has evolved us that way.

But there is a difference in evolution evolving us to behave a certain way vs. evolution evolving us to sense something that was already there in the first place (wavelengths of photons).

You can alter your behavior and deviate from the norm regardless of what you see, but the colors associated with a wavelength cannot be altered. Behavior does not have to follow what you consider natural laws governing behavior. But the spectrum of light must follow how light works.

There is one huge difference.

People in 1012 saw the same green that we do.  We know this from their literature.

They didn't see the same natural rights that we do.  Their natural rights included the right to own slaves.

So the use of colour analogy doesn't work.

FirstAscent, it seems you are arguing against a strawman of some type of physical manifestation of natural rights which for some reason you claim should exist.  If so, besides pointing out how ridiculous this seems, I would say that the recognition of the existence of other humans is probably the closest you will ever get.  This is the physical manifestation, and the environmental stimulus that prompts humans to evolve the concept of natural rights.  It is a force similar in ways to any other, which responds to stimulus in largely predictable ways, and which exists independent of any law or arbitrary moral code.

I would suggest that perhaps Atlas' solipsism bears some relevance to his rejection of the concept of natural rights.

It works perfectly. Someone could argue that colors aren't real because the sky isn't blue at night. Colors change and people change. Trees are green in the spring but not in the fall. The colors you see when you look at something are due to a complicated combination of factors including the thing you're looking at, the way human vision works, the lighting, and so on. Changes in many things can change colors or the perception of color. The same is true of natural rights.

I'm not talking about behavior. I'm talking about our sense of justice. We can look at a situation and see justice and injustice the same way we can look at the sky and see blue.

This had me thinking for quite a while; something about it seemed off to me, but I couldn't initially figure out what it was.  Then, I came up with the following.  But first, a note about possibility:

If event A happens, and if event B did not happen, then event B was impossible (event A did happen -- it was never a matter of possibility).  Similarly, if events A and B happen simultaneously, and events C and D did not, none of these were possible.  Only C and D were impossible and A and B actually happened.  Possibility is simply a word that stratified beings use to describe events that are plausible but are not interpreted to be presently occurring.  We might say event x is possible in the future, but "future" itself is another word that stratified beings use -- there is no future, only a relative now.  This is what the Theory of Relativity suggests.

Any definition of any monotheistic god that I've ever heard of usually includes the characteristics of omniscience and omnipresence in addition to omnipotence.  Omnipresence transcends the stratified perspective as it implies presence in all locations in all stratified time slices.

But even without the characteristic of omnipresence, omnipotence a priori overrides any argument of impossibility, especially given that omnipotence would also imply the ability to do things like changing the laws that govern the Universe or itself, or simultaneously exhibiting yes/no states (e.g. existing and not existing at the same time).  How can omnipotence a priori override impossibility if the scenario involves a being that transcends time?  Because in this case, a priori simply refers to higher and lower levels of syntax, not a time event.  A higher level syntax will always a priori override a lower level syntax.  Infinite, boundless power, is at the highest level of syntax.

Now, of course, hypotheticals in general are not generally considered logically valid, but I think (dare I say know?) that there is direct evidence of God (for lack of a better word) and its characteristics of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence that is able to be experienced constantly, including right now.

I can't imagine any evidence or experience that could suggest something unbounded. Whatever experience or evidence a finite being could have could only suggest finite knowledge, finite presence, or finite power. If you want to argue that human beings can perceive or experience omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, you have to argue that humans are capable of having unbounded experiences or acquiring unbounded evidence. That seems like self-contradictory nonsense to me, but I suppose that probably doesn't bother you since you reject the very concept that something could actually be impossible.

Hey, all I know is that I'm limited to my experience.  I have no evidence whatsoever that there is any experience outside of my own.  Now I'm not saying I don't believe that you, for example, don't exist -- I think you do exist.  But, my mind (and I'm guessing yours as well) seems to have the characteristics of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence if you consider that there is no possible way to prove any experience outside of my own.  I feel I have little evidence of this now, but I've experienced good evidence of this in meditation.

Direct experience is the purest form of knowledge.  If this holds true for a number of beings, then those beings are grouped under this common syntax.  This also applies to anything capable of being distinguished from something else -- that is, any and all differences are created under a common syntax of difference.

Assuming you and I both exist and we are different, then we are grouped together under a common syntax.  I personally believe in a holographic Universe.  When you take a piece of holographic film and cut a square from it that has 1/4 the area of the full image, you aren't left holding 1/4 of the image, but 100% of the image at 1/4 size.

I personally believe God is just like you and me, except at the highest level of syntax.  Beings operating at lower levels of syntax would be less free than beings at higher levels of syntax because each level of syntax imposes conditions or constraints upon the ones below it.

I think direct experience is omniscience and thoughts are constraints.  I think direct experience is omnipresence but thoughts are the constraints.  I think direct experience is omnipotence but thoughts are the constraints.  I think God is direct experience but reality is its constraint.

Edit:  And, to be relevant to the thread, this would mean that objective rights exist if the highest level of syntax dictates they exist.

Edit 2:  And I'm not a Christian, but this is also particularly relevant to the idea that "God made man in his image."

That's complete nonsense. You have the observable similarity in behavior, the physical evidence of common origin, and medical evidence of all kinds. This is an absolutely absurd basis for any philosophy and if you really believe it, all sane people can do is point and laugh. (I'm sure you have silly ways to explain away all these things. But similarly silly arguments can maintain *any* belief against *any* evidence.) By the way, we have a term for someone who acts on beliefs like this -- "psychopath".

When you walk outside and you feel the sun on your face, you have a direct experience of a certain feeling.  You might call it warmth.  But the feeling itself is no evidence of being warm.  Warm is a relative characteristic, and ratio (root word of rationale) is the basis for any intellectual understanding of anything.

Direct experience is something different.  Pure, direct experience is a unification of the subject with an object.  Medical evidence, physical evidence, and observable similarities are dependent on ratio, similar to how you would describe feeling the sun on your face as "warm" (because it feels warmer than a time you remember it being cold). 

I have absolutely no evidence for any type of direct experience other than my own and I never will because no ratio can be established.  I can't have an experience other than my own, so what evidence could I possibly have?

What you described is evidence for...physical similarities and a common origin (evident = apparent).  It has never been apparent that there is another experience other than my own.

Why use the word "pure". What is "contaminating" information gained from indirect experience?

So your theory is that even though all the evidence suggests that you and everyone else have a common origin, common characteristics, and similar behavior, you have experiences and nobody else does. What evidence favors this theory over the much more rational theory that people's similar construction explains the similar experiences that explain their similar behavior?

There is no evidence of a reality outside your perception. All else is moot.

Okay, so there's the obvious explanation for perception -- that the rest of reality explains it. And you're saying that there's some alternate explanation that's better justified, and that would be ...

It's not obvious. It's just having faith that what you are perceiving is consistent with whatever means that makes your perception exist.

I say there is no justifiable explanation. I say that believing things can truly be known in regards to our perceptions requires faith.  

It's so obvious, even two year olds understand it. That doesn't mean it's correct, but it sure as hell is obvious.

No, no faith is necessary. It's the simplest and most plausible theory to explain the observations. The observations justify the belief, so no faith is needed.

The justifiable explanation is that there is no alternative. If there is an alternative, please tell me what it is.

No faith is needed because there is no alternative. Whatever the universe is, it does in fact result in the sense perceptions we have. Every sense perception necessarily gives us some valid information about the universe because the universe was in fact such that this sense perception resulted. This must be true because there is no alternative.

But in any event, if your arguments were correct, you would be drawing the conclusion from them. If there weren't sufficient evidence to justify such a belief, then we shouldn't hold such a belief. After all, if there wasn't sufficient evidence to justify that belief, it could be incorrect. If we had faith, we'd risk acting in error for no benefit.

But I'm probably wasting my time. If you genuinely believe that it's an open question whether or not I exist, rational discussion with you is unlikely to be possible.

All of the evidence you described is dependent solely upon your interpretation of it.   I don't know about you, but when I close my eyes, the visible Universe disappears.  I can still smell, touch, taste, and hear, but visible reality is gone completely.  So, when my eyes are closed, I have absolutely no evidence that a visible Universe exists because I am only left with my 4 other bodily senses.

Similarly, my experience is closed.  It is apparent and self-evident that I experience, but it is in no way apparent that others experience.  But, it is apparent (as you said) that there are others with similar physical characteristics, etc.  Those things are observable.  There is no way to observe another experience, and observation is the basis for the scientific method.

Edit:  By the way, even infants know that when you close your eyes, the visible Universe disappears, or that "mommy" disappears when playing peek-a-boo.

What has that to do with proving objective rights do or don't exist?

Rights only exist in relation to others.  If you believe that other people don't exist, then it's probably easy to dismiss the concept of rights as well.

Fortunately in that case it's also easy for the rest of us to dismiss you, as a lunatic.

Could someone unambiguously define a natural right, or an objective right?

Not much better than people could define color three hundred years ago. Just like three hundred years ago about the best we could do with defining a color is, "it's what in the objective world corresponds to when I see something that has an apparent color", about the best we can do with natural rights or objective rights is, "it's what in the outside world corresponds to when I see something violating rights, probably something about the nature of volition". It's circular because we don't know enough about what we're perceiving or how we're perceiving it yet to do more than that. (Fully realizing that things inside us account for the perception as well, of course. See my other post in this thread.)

They are something we sense directly with a sensory mechanism that we don't understand very well yet.

I would add that most of what people say about objective rights is probably bunk. It would be like color blind people writing things about color -- "People tend to call plants green, so perhaps greenness is about plants. People tend to describe water as blue, so that probably has something to do with liquids that are refreshing, but then why don't they call soda blue?" You can see how it's clearly nonsense if you change it from rights to colors.

In short, it is what you have alone on a deserted island, and what another has alone on her own deserted island, and what you both keep when together on the same island.

Sounds very much like discussion on qualia. You might want to read about "Mary in the black and white room". Google it.

Huh?

The main difference being qualia are inherently impossible to define. In that sense, the experience of perceiving color is a quale, but the wavelength of light is not. So it might be impossible to describe what it feels like to have one's rights violated without analogy.

I'm not really making a qualia argument except to argue that the fact that we sense something is conclusive evidence that something exists that accounts for that sensation. The fact that people have similar sensations in similar situations proves almost conclusively that something exists in those situations that accounts for those similar sensations.

I think the more relevant experience would be perceiving that a right, anyone's right, has been violated -- our sense (in the most literal sense of the word "sense") of injustice.

And I should say that doesn't mean "injustice" has to exist in the real world in the same form as we sense it. Just like "black" in human sensation means the absence of specific frequencies of light in the physical world -- but which frequencies those are is determined solely by human vision.

Proverbs 6:6-8 New International Version (NIV)

 6 Go to the ant, you sluggard;
   consider its ways and be wise!
7 It has no commander,
   no overseer or ruler,
8 yet it stores its provisions in summer
   and gathers its food at harvest.

Ants live in colonies and ranks of rulership and authority and they have a queen.
Qur'an
[027:018]  At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it."

Advances in audio technology have enabled scientists to discover that ants routinely talk to each other in their nests.
Most ants have a natural washboard and plectrum built into their abdomens that they can rub together to communicate using sound.
Using miniaturised microphones and speakers that can be inserted unobtrusively into nests, researchers established that the queens can issue instructions to their workers.
The astonished researchers, who managed to make the first recordings of queen ants “speaking”, also discovered that other insects can mimic the ants to make them slaves.
Rebel's large blue butterfly is one of about 10,000 creatures that have a parasitic relationship with ants and has now been found to have learnt to imitate the sounds as well as using chemical signals.
Research several decades ago had shown that ants were able to make alarm calls using sounds, but only now has it been shown that their vocabulary may be much bigger and that they can “talk” to each other.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5672006.ece

"We will show them Our signs in the Universe and inside their selves, until it will become quite clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that He is a witness over all things?  (The Noble Quran, 41:53)"

----------------------------------------------------
2 Samuel 10:18 - David slew 700 and 40,000 horsemen and Shobach the commander.
1 Chronicles 19:18 - David slew 7000 chariots and 40,000 footmen.

2 Chronicles 9:25 - Solomon had 4000 stalls for horses and chariots.
1 Kings 4:26 - Solomon had 40,000 stalls for horses.

Ezra 2:5 -  Arah had 775 sons.
Nehemiah 7:10 - Arah had 652 sons.

2 Samuel 24:13 - SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE.
1 Chronicles 21:11-12 - THREE YEARS OF FAMINE.

Who was Josiah's successor?
Jehoahaz - 2 Chronicle 36:1
Shallum - Jeremiah 22:11
-------------------------------------------------------------

The Qur'an says bees eat fruit:

"And thy Lord taught the Bee to build its cells in hills, on trees, and in human habitations. Then to eat of all the fruits of the earth and find with skill the spacious paths of its Lord."

I'm sorry to break this to you, but those are wasps. See, for example, this link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_wasp_white_bg02.jpg
Look familiar?

I think you're missing the point. The point is that people would read that portion of the Quran and think that bees generally eat fruit and they do not. The issue is not whether it's possible for you to torture language and common sense into some way of making what the Quran says arguably true. Yes, you can twist language to make Allah say whatever you want him to say. But that's not how it's supposed to work. You're supposed to understand what he's saying, not make him say something else.

If I told someone "bees eat all the fruits of the earth", you'd rightfully call me either a liar or an uneducated moron. It matters not that you can find a picture of a bee eating a fruit somewhere.

However, if you want to argue that science and reason come first, and you'll be willing to twist the clear words of the Qu'ran to match, then I have no quarrel with you. I think that's a silly exercise, but at least it will keep you out of trouble. If the Qu'ran says X and you want to believe Y, just find a way to argue X means Y and off you go.

It's better than actually believing that god taught bees to eat all the fruits of the Earth, isn't it?

It's compatible with science only if you change the meaning of the verse. But since you are happy to do that, I have no problem. The Qu'ran is sufficiently vague that you can make it say whatever you want it to say, and so long as you are willing to reinterpret it to conform to common sense and science, it will do you no harm. The problem would be if you say, "The Qu'ran says bees eat fruit, so that's that. If you think otherwise, you are wrong and the Qu'ran is right." You can make the book mean whatever you want to mean, and so long as you are willing to do that, it cannot lead you astray.

I wish more Christians would do that. They tend to say "The Bible said the animals all died in a flood, so they died in a flood". It would be much saner to re-interpret the Bible as a metaphor or say that maybe one or two animals drowned somewhere, just as one or two bees probably occasionally eat a fruit or two. That's how you can be religious and not wind up believing lots of silly nonsense.

As I said, 1000 years ago slavery was morally OK in the eyes of everyone and abortion was a heinous offence.  Now most people are OK with abortion and slavery is a heinous offence.

Morality changed.  Saying the bible was morally wrong is only saying that you want to apply today's morality to people that lived in a different age. 

Slavery was *always* a moral abomination, whether people realized it or not. The Bible clearly condones what we now know is a moral abomination.

In any event, if you accept that morality can change and the Bible can be incorrect as a source of modern moral values, then it's hard to see what good it is as a guide. If we disagree with it, we have to substitute our own judgment, since "morality changed". So if you accept this view, then that condemns the Bible to be useless a source of moral guidance.

TL:DR

The only true and real rights anyone has is those are already in place by the  physical laws of the universe anything. Beyond that is just an illusion of rights.

Again what you are doing is saying that today's morality is absolutely correct and that all preceding version and all the future versions are wrong.  But at least we agree on the Bible :)

It could be that in 1000 years time, factory farming, or mass abortion, or something else we take for granted is seen as a heinous offence.  

I'm not arguing that we should not enforce our moral standards - OP asked for proof objective rights exist.  I genuinely don't think they do - our morals and our rights are part of our culture.

Overripe fruit turns to alcohol. Stay away from drunken bees!

Oh god.

Letting Atlas start a thread is as irresponsible as allowing mentally handicapped children access to a webcam, karaoke machine, and youtube.

He just sets up a divisive topic, throws in a few leading comments and then lets it rip. And yet I can't put him on ignore since I always want to know what the hell Matt's latest Atlas gripe is about.

... and a lot less entertaining.

Where did anyone say that? How did you draw this conclusion?

This is a strawman argument. It even adopts your moral relativist/populist notion of "today's" morality!

Statement 1 by JoelKatz : Slavery was *always* a moral abomination, whether people realized it or not.
Statement 2 by me: What you are doing is saying that today's morality is absolutely correct and that all preceding version and all the future versions are wrong

That's where.  Until 500 years ago, slavery was not a moral abomination.  Morality changed and now it is.  JoelKatz statement that it was always a moral abomination is applying today's morality to an age where it doesn't apply.

Joel Katz has never believed that morals are different in different societies at different times, but that whatever morals we think of as being 'good' right now have always been 'good' even if everyone at the time got it wrong. There'll be a Joel Katz of the distant future that says the same thing about how we treat farm produce, or some other moral judgement that simply doesn't apply right now.

Here's an example of previous arguments on a different topic but that are similar to the ones he provides here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=31400.msg475003#msg475003

There's not much point continuing the discussion. A mere mortal has no chance of changing his ideas on morality.

All you're doing now is repeating yourself, while offering no explanation as to how you bridge this epic gap whatsoever. WTF is "today's morality" if not an extension of YOUR relativist argument, not Joel's?

To break down just a couple of these holes:
* Where do these claims about "future versions" come from?
* How could just being right about slavery make "today's morality" absolutely correct?

This is just like that "immovable object" argument a couple pages back. You're defining everything in your own terms but because your terms are nonsensical, the concept you translate sounds nonsensical.

To adhere solely to "today's morality" is simply amoral - even if you don't believe in a God, there are at least some absolutes within humanity that haven't changed during our history or across cultures.

I don't know what those absolutes are.  Genuinely, if they don't include slavery (and they don't) that's the right to life and to bodily integrity off the list.  What absolute rights are there? 

I can't believe anyone talks about absolute morality/rights anymore.

No. I'm not going to play this silly little game where you snip off the part about you misrepresenting opposing viewpoints, and then explain the obvious as if you're being "genuine". Anything I say will just get translated into Hawkerspeak.

I'm done here. Atlas, either continue reading philosophy or end up like this guy. The answers are out there but you aren't going to learn them from forum rhetoric.

That's not quite precisely correct, or at least it is subject to misunderstanding.

That's entirely possible. Had I lived at a time when the shape of the Earth was not known, I likely would have argued that it was flat because it looked flat. If I lived as the evidence came in that it was round, I would then insist not just that it's round now but that it was always round and that my previous claims were in fact incorrect.

But I'm puzzled what the alternative view is -- that the Earth has no shape and is whatever shape we want it to be? That our conclusion that the Earth is round is no better than our previous belief that the Earth was flat, and hence there's no reason to adjust our beliefs on the basis of new information? That we shouldn't actually believe it's round because for all we know in a hundred years new evidence will come in to suggest it's cubical?

What is your claim exactly -- that it's no better to believe the Earth is round than that it's flat? Or that the Earth really was flat before, because we thought so, and now it's round, because we think so? Or that the possibility that we might change our mind in the future means we don't actually know anything now?

On the contrary, I'm arguing that our ideas can and should change as new evidence comes in and in the process we replace worse ideas with better ones.

(I should point out that nothing I've said about should be understood to mean that morality is not context-dependent. Morality is like addition. Once all the parameters are defined, the result is objectively constrained by the nature of the universe. But the answer to questions like "what do you get when you add 2 to a number?" depends on what number you start with. Just like perceived color depends on ambient light, the nature of human vision, and the actual optical properties of the object whose color we are measuring, so does perceived morality depend on a number of factors other than just the actual properties of the thing assessed.)

That's technically known as an ad hominem argument.  Its logically wrong.  Its often a sign that someone can't find a rational argument so you've done well to quit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery#Slavery_in_the_Qur.27an

I'm not sure why you ask me to Google things for you.

So what?  You surely are not arguing that he didn't own slaves?

Both did own slaves.  Ownership of slaves involves whipping and chaining people.  If there is a God, he is absolutely OK with that.

The topic here is whether or not there are objective rights that are agreed by all people for all time.  My point is that slavery was acceptable for most of human history to everyone who considered ethics.  If any objective rights that are not contravened by slavery exist, I can't think what they would be.

I understand that.  But the Koran does have a lot about slavery in it.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/slavery.htm

Line 1 page 1 says it as well as I can: "Islam institutionalized slavery.  Muhammad began to take slaves after he moved to Medina, and had power. "

This is not the behaviour of a man who sees a moral objection to slavery is it?

http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/023.asp

I googled this for you.  Slavery is OK in the Koran, including sex with female captives.

Fair point.

I think we can agree that slavery is accepted as normal in the Koran.  Whether or not it mentions Mohammed is a different matter and I bow to your superior knowledge.

Mohammed did own slaves.  If you said otherwise, you would be lying. 

Back on topic, Islam and all major religions have approved of slavery up until about 500 years ago.  You don't disagree with that do you?  So any rights that are negated by slavery are not "objective rights."

I've proved that the historical character we call Mohammed did own slaves and that slavery is regulated in the Koran.  If you are saying that there are objective rights and that slavery contravenes these objective rights and that Islam has not allowed slavery, you need to provide some evidence.  Its on topic to the thread so here is the place to post your views.

no you have not. i don't know whatever he did or not, but you have proven nothing.
please stop trolling the religious guy.

All we know of Mohammed is from the historical record.  From that record, we know if he existed, we know he married some of his slaves.  That means that the historical character we call Mohammed did own slaves.

He's trolling me...if he is a Muslim, he believes Mohammed did own slaves.

no this is half-good proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#Ownership_of_slaves, because Wikipedia is a generally trusted source.
quoting the Qur'an is better proof, as muslims believe that its gods word, and therefor is the full truth.

you did not prove anything. you just annoyed the guy.

I put it badly - you are right. And its off topic so I'll stop.

I probably have a lot more experience attacking muslims from a non-muslim perspective than you do. ;) And I don't think that's a terribly effective strategy. The problem is twofold:

First, it's pretty silly for a non-adherent of a religion to try to tell adherents what their own religion means. (For example, when you hear American politicians saying that "real Islam" is a religion of peace, does that make you feel good that they understand your religion correctly? Or do you feel a bit of, "who the hell are they to tell people what real Islam is? How can they know when they don't believe?" In my experience, and justifiably so, it's much more of the latter.)

But second, people who believe in a holy book (whether Muslim, jewish, christian, or otherwise) will always re-interpret the book if it conflicts with what they want to believe. What was once interpreted literally will now be interpreted metaphorically.

To use your example, say I found a section of the Qur'an that said "go kill all non-believers, except for the women which you should take as slaves", what would you do? You have two choices:

1) You can change your beliefs so that you believe you really should do that.

2) You can interpret that metaphorically, so "kill" means "convince" and "slaves" means "friends".

In which scenario is that helpful to me? There's no chance that you'd abandon your belief that the Qur'an is the word of god.

This is effective sometimes when dealing with adherents of other religions though. You can cite, to Christians, sections of the Qur'an that appear to say very bad things and argue "See? Muslims really do believe in an evil religion." It's sometimes very persuasive. But, of course, it's completely dishonest. The Bible says you should kill children who disrespect their parents or farmers who don't rotate their crops properly. Does that make Christianity an evil religion?

this is so way off-topic...

And it's kind of sad too because the discussion about objective rights was getting interesting.

I thought this guy had a good statement saying that if you had any kind of profound experiences found in most common religions that you would be sent to a mental hospital and be considered crazy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE0sDm5ba-4#t=11m10s