And because rights exist, there must be Someone to give them -- namely, God. So, by acknowledging that rights are fundamental, you've proved the existence of God. Well-done.
Major Copyright Judgement
- Thread starter lionking
- Start date
And because rights exist, there must be Someone to give them -- namely, God. So, by acknowledging that rights are fundamental, you've proved the existence of God. Well-done.
Nonsense. As you saw, the rights appeared in your supposition that social utility was the defining right - social utility became maximized if laws were applied 'across the board' and therefore, there became artifacts in the code of law that would reduce social utility in a specific situation, due to an overarching goal - a right.
This doesn't require God. But hey, atheists always talk about the illogical hoops theists jump through. As you would say, well-done.
BobTheDonkey
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 4,501
Exactly. The point is that you're trying to pull a bait-and-switch on terminology in order to invalidate Kevin's view.
What Kevin's view disagrees with is that there is a fundamental, underlying moral principle called a "right" -- something people are entitled to because it exists. For clarity, I'll use the term moral right -- defined as something you have the right to because of your nature or the nature of the world. Personally, I believe in moral rights, but I also believe that you can only derive moral rights from God, and I think Kevin's view that doesn't include them is perfectly consistent.
Denying the existence of moral rights doesn't negate the possibility that, in determining a set of rules that maximize social utility, we will prohibit people from doing things to other people, and that these prohibitions will be universalized. For clarity, I'll use the term functional right -- defined as a rule or law that gives people a certain benefit or privilege that the rules or laws normally do not allow others to take away.
Using social utility as the underlying moral principle may deny the existence of any moral rights while still including some functional rights as being optimal. But the existence of a functional right does not necessitate that it is also a moral right.
The fact that even if we accept the absurdly flawed premise that maximizing social utility is a good basis for a legal system, we end up with things that appear functionally identical to inalienable rights?
"But functionally identical isn't identical?"
Sure.
The problem is when you try to then imply that you can use the morality of the rights as a basis to extend them.
GreyICE: A implies B. A also implies B'.
Kevin: I disagree with A. Instead, I believe C. C also implies B.
GreyICE: Aha! Since C implies B, then A! Therefore B'!
Logic: *facepalm*
(For those keeping score, A is using moral rights as a basis for laws, B is the existence of functional rights in personal property, B' is the existence of functional rights in intellectual property, and C is using social utility as a basis for laws.)
And to give a non-syllogistic explanation:
If we accept social utility as a good basis for a legal system, we end up with some things that appear functionally identical to some inalienable rights as they are applied in some contexts.
Doing so does NOT imply that we can "backdoor" in the other inalienable rights, as if we were accepting the premise of rights all along.
Your reasoning is that same as implying that we should adopt the Ten Commandments because, after all, we include "Do not murder" in our laws, and that's in the Ten Commandments.
Last edited:
I know your thinking is crippled by religion, but this is not hard.
C implies B
A implies B
If A then not C, if C then not A
If B is true then B is true (something you've denied here)
If B is true, that does not imply A is true, and that certainly does not imply C.R.A.Z.Y. is true
(For those keeping score: C.R.A.Z.Y. is the existence of God).
Okay, see that strawman? You made him. Lets consider what I said.
I said assume two of Kevin's arguments are true. Let us take that social utility is the basis for laws, and that rights do not exist.
Together we just showed that despite the fact that social utility was used as the basis of laws, rights popped right back up as part of the system.
That strongly implies rights exist, neh? As you have conceded in your post here.
Since one of Kevin's premises is that rights do not exist, then his entire line of logic is flawed, neh? (You're the one doing logical syllogisms, lets assume that the case "If A, and If Not B" ends up with "If A then B." Logical system is pretty screwed, neh?).
So you've descended from this reasonably simple argument that I think almost anyone could grasp into making stuff that I said up and lying.
I'm glad we're in agreement. Stop trying to argue that C implies A.
And I have never disagreed with B implies B. You were arguing that B implies A. It doesn't.
Let me fix this for you.
Wrong. With the fix, the bait-and-switch is clear.
Wrong. With the fix, the bait-and-switch is clear.
Edited to highlight parts of the quote that were changed. While we allow editing of posts within quote boxes, it must be very clear what was edited. The best way to do this is to quote the original and then post the changes you have made, but if the edits stand out clearly, then it will probably slide. While the changes were underlined, I don't think it was clear enough what was changed. Please be careful about this because "putting words into someone's mouth" is considered uncivil.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Tricky
Last edited by a moderator:
If the only way you can make your point is lying about what I said and changing my words, you're not worth talking to.
You insist on this strawman false dichotomy where 'moral' rights must descend from God, but 'functional' rights can exist independent of God, but never bother to define the difference between the two, as if it's obvious. False dichotomy is false.
This sort of stupid is why I avoid R&P.
You insist on this strawman false dichotomy where 'moral' rights must descend from God, but 'functional' rights can exist independent of God, but never bother to define the difference between the two, as if it's obvious. False dichotomy is false.
This sort of stupid is why I avoid R&P.
Last edited:
You just said it again! You keep arguing that if B, then A! You argued it in your very last post!
If you concede that B does not imply A, then how can you continue to make an argument that relies on the fact that it does?
If the only way you can make your point is by assuming that the person believes that exact opposite of what they've clearly said, you're too dishonest to talk to.
Seriously, you just admitted to altering my words, then insisted I said it?
As Bob would say, Ignore list updated. This is obvious trolling. Lying about what I said, altering my words, insisting that the alterations are true - not game. I don't mind if you insist on playing stupid 'gotcha' games that aren't even gotchas, but when you descend into altering my words, that's the tactics of slime.
As Bob would say, Ignore list updated. This is obvious trolling. Lying about what I said, altering my words, insisting that the alterations are true - not game. I don't mind if you insist on playing stupid 'gotcha' games that aren't even gotchas, but when you descend into altering my words, that's the tactics of slime.
Last edited:
You feel that my definition for a moral right (a basic, inherent, right that is a right morally by itself) isn't distinct from my definition of a functional right (something that we call a right because of how we treat it in the law, irrespective of where we believe it comes from morally)?
You're using the same word to mean two different things. When I clarify that they mean two different things, you put me on ignore. Good riddance.
Last edited:
Right, so now that GreyICE is done trolling, back to the point.
Basing the law on social utility may produce some laws that are the same as the laws that we get when we base the law on a concept of moral rights. The difference is in extending them.
Where the law is based on a concept of moral rights, some extensions may occur that would be rejected if the law is based on a concept of social utility.
One can argue that personal and real property laws are socially optimal, and should be upheld because of their social utility (not because of a belief in a moral right to property). Similarly, once can argue that copyright law is NOT socially optimal, and so should be overturned (in contravention to a belief in a moral right to property). This is internally consistent.
Basing the law on social utility may produce some laws that are the same as the laws that we get when we base the law on a concept of moral rights. The difference is in extending them.
Where the law is based on a concept of moral rights, some extensions may occur that would be rejected if the law is based on a concept of social utility.
One can argue that personal and real property laws are socially optimal, and should be upheld because of their social utility (not because of a belief in a moral right to property). Similarly, once can argue that copyright law is NOT socially optimal, and so should be overturned (in contravention to a belief in a moral right to property). This is internally consistent.
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
This is simply woolly thinking. The concepts are intertwined in your head, so you conclude that nobody else is able to tease them apart.
It turns out in practise that it's socially beneficial to extend some privileges to all citizens without exceptions. You can call those privileges rights if you like. However even if you call them that, they are rights only because they are socially beneficial.
The minute it turns out that a "right" does more harm than good to society when you take everything into account we should abolish that "right".
Since rights only exist in the first place if they further social utility, the idea that rights can trump social utility is an absurdity.
Sure it can. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the Libertarian.
This is you doing exactly the intellectual face-plant AvalonXQ accused you of.
You missed the point when AvalonXQ explained it so I'll make it even more obvious for you.
GreyICE: Magical Inalienable Transcendental Rights exist, by magic!
Kevin: No. Social utility exists, and for reasons of social utility it's convenient to give some legal privileges to all citizens.
GreyICE: But those legal privileges are the same as my Magical Inalienable Transcendental Rights, which exist by magic. How can you explain this, unless they really are magic? Therefore Magical Inalienable Transcendental Rights exist and are magic and you are just incapable of basic reasoning!
I think this may be the one time AvalonXQ and I have agreed about anything, but AvalonXQ is precisely on the money in this instance.
Feel free to put me on ignore too, if you put people on ignore whenever you get caught in a really basic logical error.
Where do these Magical Inalienable Transcendental Rights you believe in come from? How do you know what is a Magical Inalienable Transcendental Right and what is not? Did God tell you they exist, or was it a mystical revelation that came to you after hours of navel-gazing?