Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 08:17:08 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Prove to me objective "rights" exist.  (Read 8625 times)
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2012, 11:09:59 PM
 #121

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.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
1481012228
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481012228

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481012228
Reply with quote  #2

1481012228
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481012228
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481012228

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481012228
Reply with quote  #2

1481012228
Report to moderator
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


View Profile
March 30, 2012, 04:37:43 AM
 #122

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

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.

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
March 30, 2012, 04:44:40 AM
 #123

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.

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

Activity: 812


View Profile
March 30, 2012, 04:45:34 AM
 #124

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

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.

Huh?
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
March 30, 2012, 02:30:30 PM
 #125

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

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.
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
March 30, 2012, 05:57:36 PM
 #126

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

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 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.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
senbonzakura
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602


View Profile
March 31, 2012, 04:43:42 AM
 #127

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.  
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

-------------------------------------------------------------
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
March 31, 2012, 04:56:21 AM
 #128

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 am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
March 31, 2012, 06:30:34 AM
 #129

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 am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
March 31, 2012, 07:45:28 AM
 #130

It is true that domesticated European honey bees only eat nectar and sugar water. But given a chance and the opportunity you will find bees and wasps and hornets eating soft fruits and some over ripe fruits such as over ripe pears and plums. If you ever have had any experience with wild African Honey Bees (Killer bees) you will find they not only eat fruit, but also carrion. The European Honey bee that you are familiar with is only one species of bee and is not found on the Arabian Peninsula or in Africa."
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?

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
March 31, 2012, 08:10:10 AM
 #131

This verse is compatible with science, yes bees don't generally eat fruit, but sometimes they do.
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.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
March 31, 2012, 09:16:48 AM
 #132

...snip...
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?

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. 

JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
March 31, 2012, 09:41:57 AM
 #133

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.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
Xenland
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


I'm not just any shaman, I'm a Sha256man


View Profile
March 31, 2012, 09:45:47 AM
 #134

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.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
March 31, 2012, 12:07:54 PM
 #135

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.

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 Smiley

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.

cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
March 31, 2012, 01:42:18 PM
 #136

yes, thanks I havent noticed. but I give this reply:-

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover-islam/134275057-can-someone-clarify-16-59-me-regarding-bees-eating-fruits.html
post #2
"Bees don't eat fruits? All I can say is you never had a fig, persimmon or date tree.
It is true that domesticated European honey bees only eat nectar and sugar water. But given a chance and the opportunity you will find bees and wasps and hornets eating soft fruits and some over ripe fruits such as over ripe pears and plums..."
Overripe fruit turns to alcohol. Stay away from drunken bees!

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
April 01, 2012, 03:30:59 AM
 #137

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.




Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
April 01, 2012, 04:28:16 AM
 #138

Oh god.

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

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
April 01, 2012, 06:09:20 AM
 #139

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.

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 Smiley

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.

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!
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
April 01, 2012, 06:50:16 AM
 #140

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.

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 Smiley

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.

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.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!