Militia question 1

[CFLarsen]

You haven't answered a single question of mine and you know it, pseudo-skeptic.

If this is your way out of not just one but two tough situations, then so be it.

The more shame on you.

 

[Mercutio]

Please look up the word root/origin of the word "humane"

Let me know when a horse issues a writ, okay?...

Thank you for illustrating my point. I agree, "rights" are a human-constructed concept, not an inherent part of us.

Earlier posts here indicated that the mere act of defending ourselves was indicative of a "right to self-defense" inherent in us. Since horses do defend themselves, the key difference must be, as you say, that we constructed (through compromise and consideration of our different self-interests) something which we could express in the form of a writ.

Once again, though, you dismiss without examining your assumptions. If your assumptions are sound, what is the harm in critically examining them?

 

[crimresearch]

Thank you for illustrating my point. I agree, "rights" are a human-constructed concept, not an inherent part of us.

Earlier posts here indicated that the mere act of defending ourselves was indicative of a "right to self-defense" inherent in us. Since horses do defend themselves, the key difference must be, as you say, that we constructed (through compromise and consideration of our different self-interests) something which we could express in the form of a writ.

Once again, though, you dismiss without examining your assumptions. If your assumptions are sound, what is the harm in critically examining them?

Speaking of critical examination, you've been asked more than once (and very nicely), what *your* assumptions are, and you continue to be nonresponsive.

It remain uncontested that 'rights' do not possess quantifiable physical properties to be measured and broken into elemantal components, like chocolate...

So what is your assumption after that point? Is everything that is qualitative supposed to be rejected by skeptics? There is no such thing as rights, or freedom, or love, or creativity, or honesty, because they are ephemeral?

Do share with the rest of the class...

 

[Kodiak]

Thank you for illustrating my point. I agree, "rights" are a human-constructed concept, not an inherent part of us.

Earlier posts here indicated that the mere act of defending ourselves was indicative of a "right to self-defense" inherent in us. Since horses do defend themselves, the key difference must be, as you say, that we constructed (through compromise and consideration of our different self-interests) something which we could express in the form of a writ.

Once again, though, you dismiss without examining your assumptions. If your assumptions are sound, what is the harm in critically examining them?

Are you being purposefully obtuse?!? You are correct that only humans have been able to conceptualize "rights". You are clearly wrong, however, when you insist that those rights are not inherently part of us.

Hmmm...The only species on earth with inherent rights is also the only species capable of conceptualizing rights! Amazing...

Humane...human. We treat animals as we would treat humans, not as animals treat each other.

You're using a common trick of logic. Using a common word (in this case "defend") and using two differing meanings.

Animals can only defend themselves physically and do not suffer the burden of responsibility, while man can argue and reason and is responsibile for what he does. It is also disingenuous to assume that one possible similarity between man and animal automatically extends to other aspects.

 

[Kodiak]

An excellent link:

Inherent Autonomy


"The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air--it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their existence. For we cannot suppose that some men have a right to be in this world, and others no right.'

Author: Henry George
Source: Progress and Poverty (bk. VII, ch. I)

 

[CFLarsen]

Animals can only defend themselves physically and do not suffer the burden of responsibility, while man can argue and reason and is responsibile for what he does. It is also disingenuous to assume that one possible similarity between man and animal automatically extends to other aspects.

Let me see if I understand you correctly: You are saying that because we humans have all these traits, we have these rights?

It's these traits that does the trick? It isn't because we are humans as a species?

 

[c0rbin]

Let me see if I understand you correctly: You are saying that because we humans have all these traits, we have these rights?

I think that is what the Founding Fathers were saying. We humans have been endowed with these traits/abilities by the natural order of things.

In America, you are free to call that natural order of things "god" if you want to, or "evolution."

And, by extension, since no man gave them to you, no man should have the right to take them away.

 

[Earthborn]

It remain uncontested that 'rights' do not possess quantifiable physical properties to be measured and broken into elemantal components, like chocolate...

I don't think this is true. Some have contested exactly that. Shanek has said that he believes 'rights' are just as objective as anything else. For something to objectively exist, surely it must have physical properties. If it doesn't have those, what does it mean when you say it exists 'objectively' ?

I think this idea that abstract concepts should have objective reality comes from Ayn Rand, who seemed to believe that if things had no objective reality they would be meaningless.

Is everything that is qualitative supposed to be rejected by skeptics? There is no such thing as rights, or freedom, or love, or creativity, or honesty, because they are ephemeral?

I don't think that is what he means. I think what he means is that some things are not inherent or objective, but can still be pretty important. Concepts such as 'rights', 'freedom', 'love', 'creativity' or 'honesty' don't exist without people believing in them, but it does not necessarily make them completely useless. They are defined socially and inter-subjectively, making them more than just subjective experiences, but also subject to change in time and subject to confusion on what they mean exactly.

 

[Earthborn]

Animals can only defend themselves physically and do not suffer the burden of responsibility

Animals don't 'suffer the burden of responsibility' because people don't hold them responsible. People do hold eachother responsible so they do 'suffer the burden of responsibility'. The rights people have come from their burden of responsibility according to you, so we can only conclude that people have rights because people hold eachother responsible. This means that those rights are socially defined and not inherent. There have been societies that did hold animals responsible, and it is not difficult to imagine a society where people no longer hold eachother responsible but instead treat those who exhibit unwanted behaviour as victims of circumstance and illness.

while man can argue and reason and is responsibile for what he does

Animals can argue and reason too. Humans appear to be particularly good at it, but this does not mean all other animals are incapable of doing things that are very similar.

One can only argue that humans are the only ones capable of argument and reasoning if one were to define them as exclusively human traits, which would make the terms meaningless in any biological sense.

It is also disingenuous to assume that one possible similarity between man and animal automatically extends to other aspects.

True, but there are a lot of similarities between human and animal behaviour. It is therefore equally disingenuous to assume one small difference between humans and other animals makes all the difference in the world.

Hmmm...The only species on earth with inherent rights is also the only species capable of conceptualizing rights! Amazing...

It may not be so amazing if you assume that the only species on earth to conceptualize rights has invented 'rights' through social interaction.

 

[crimresearch]

I don't think this is true. Some have contested exactly that. Shanek has said that he believes 'rights' are just as objective as anything else. For something to objectively exist, surely it must have physical properties. If it doesn't have those, what does it mean when you say it exists 'objectively' ?

I think this idea that abstract concepts should have objective reality comes from Ayn Rand, who seemed to believe that if things had no objective reality they would be meaningless.I don't think that is what he means. I think what he means is that some things are not inherent or objective, but can still be pretty important. Concepts such as 'rights', 'freedom', 'love', 'creativity' or 'honesty' don't exist without people believing in them, but it does not necessarily make them completely useless. They are defined socially and inter-subjectively, making them more than just subjective experiences, but also subject to change in time and subject to confusion on what they mean exactly.

Well, I think, as mentioned above, that we are getting caught up in multiple definitions of words...when I say quantifiable, I haven't ruled out an objective view of rights. And I strongly suspect that Mercutio and I mean two different things by 'inherent'.

Good point about Rand, and there are those who carry that sort of view to a variety of extremes, some of which I mentioned,( to see if that is where Mercutio is going with his questions about the nature of rights).

As far as this thread goes, rights, like the milita, and the bearing of arms, are what they are, as a result of the passage of time, and the actions of humans...word play isn't going to provide any concrete basis for undoing that.

 

[Mercutio]

Are you being purposefully obtuse?!? You are correct that only humans have been able to conceptualize "rights". You are clearly wrong, however, when you insist that those rights are not inherently part of us.
[snip]
Animals can only defend themselves physically and do not suffer the burden of responsibility, while man can argue and reason and is responsibile for what he does. It is also disingenuous to assume that one possible similarity between man and animal automatically extends to other aspects.

Deliberately obtuse? I am deliberately challenging assumptions which you seem to take as bedrock; I can see where you might think that obtuse. I am a behaviorist; in psychology, when we challenged the assumption of free will, and proposed that our behavior is determined by our environment, it opened the door to tremendous progress. Sure, it tossed aside a cherished belief held by the vast majority of people, but in questioning that belief we found it untenable. There are any number of characteristics which we humans believe we possess but which behaviorists call into question as explanatory fictions. (BTW, I don't expect you to necessarily see this point of view--I merely state it to explain where it is that I come from.) So anyway, it is a hazard of my job that I see humans as one other species...

and Crimresearch, I apologize, I thought that I had answered any questions put to me. Perhaps I had interpreted something as a comment which you meant as a question. If so, please point it out again, and I will gladly answer.

I do not seek to "reject", but to examine, the assumptions behind these rights. I had agreed with you earlier about their social construction--I had said that I do not think this makes them any better or worse than any other possible origin to rights...My assumptions, I suppose (and again, as I said before, I am not politically savvy and my foray in here was a genuine attempt to understand a concept--"rights"--which puzzled me), are that our rules should be open to examination, whether we express these rules as "laws" or as "rights". To say that some things are beyond examination, for whatever reason, seems...well, silly, to me. "They just exist" sounds too much like "goddidit", and is not a satisfying answer; so why not critically examine that assumption? If indeed they simply do exist, what harm is there in verifying that through critical examination?

Things such as rights, or freedom, or love, or creativity, or honesty, are important and worthwhile no matter what their origin is--if we have constructed them socially, they are no less worthwhile than if they were chiseled into gold tablets by Ed himself. I do not see why you think (or appear to) that examining the origin of something is tantamount to denying its importance.

Anyway...again, if you will point out the unanswered questions, I'll do my best.

 

[Globert]

One need no boon to breathe, One needs no permission for the security of their own skin.

please may I defend myself?

I think not.

-Globe

 

[Mercutio]

I don't think that is what he means. I think what he means is that some things are not inherent or objective, but can still be pretty important. Concepts such as 'rights', 'freedom', 'love', 'creativity' or 'honesty' don't exist without people believing in them, but it does not necessarily make them completely useless. They are defined socially and inter-subjectively, making them more than just subjective experiences, but also subject to change in time and subject to confusion on what they mean exactly.

Thanks, Earthborn--I was called away while composing my response, and did not see yours until after I posted; you have expressed my meaning much better than I did.

 

[Kodiak]

Animals don't 'suffer the burden of responsibility' because people don't hold them responsible. People do hold eachother responsible so they do 'suffer the burden of responsibility'. The rights people have come from their burden of responsibility according to you, so we can only conclude that people have rights because people hold eachother responsible. This means that those rights are socially defined and not inherent. There have been societies that did hold animals responsible, and it is not difficult to imagine a society where people no longer hold each other responsible but instead treat those who exhibit unwanted behaviour as victims of circumstance and illness.

It is not difficult to imagine such a society, but it wouldn't be human...

If humans treat animals responsible, we are back to the word "humane", thrusting human qualities and standards on animals. What is telling is how animals behave with each other.

I've never heard of a gazelle or antelope charging a cheetah or lion with attempted murder, or any other encroachment on their supposed "rights". I've never seen a herd of wildebeasts protesting outside a lion pride, or requesting UN peacekeepers when crossing a crocodile laden stream...

Animals can argue and reason too.

Evidence, please...

One can only argue that humans are the only ones capable of argument and reasoning if one were to define them as exclusively human traits...

All evidence suggests they are.

It is therefore equally disingenuous to assume one small difference between humans and other animals makes all the difference in the world.

"One small difference"?!?!? Are you serious?!?!?!?

...

It may not be so amazing if you assume that the only species on earth to conceptualize rights has invented 'rights' through social interaction.

In a vacuum they exist and are absolute! No interaction is necessary! Only through "social interaction" are they affected, limited and infringed.

 

[Kodiak]

Inherent human rights

From the link: "Human rights are those rights that belong to every individual - man or woman, girl or boy, infant or elder - simply because she or he is a human being. They embody the basic standards without which people cannot realize their inherent human dignity.

Human rights are universal: they are the birthright of every member of the human family. No one has to earn or deserve human rights.

Human rights are inalienable: you cannot lose these rights any more than you can cease to be a human being. Human rights are indivisible: you cannot be denied a right because someone decides that it is "less important" or "non-essential". Human rights are interdependent: all human rights are part of a complementary framework."

 

[c0rbin]

Thanks, Earthborn--I was called away while composing my response, and did not see yours until after I posted; you have expressed my meaning much better than I did.

I don;t know. One may not believe that I have the right to speak freely inherently, but that does not make it true.

If that person merely "believed" I had no such right, I would still speak freely.

If that person was not around to forcefully stop my free speech, I would speak freely.

The only thing to stop me from speaking freely is that person's use of force.

If I am alone on a desert island and speak freely, which society constructed that concept? The human abilty to name or lable it "free speech" is not what made it.

I think the social construct you are referring to is the language itself, rather than the proclivity.

 

[Globert]

We are the dominate predator on this planet, evolved and capable. Exemplified in the modern handgun, Powerful and portible. I see no credible argument against them.
Whatever Utopia may exist in some platitude latitude, it does not exist in my neihborhood. I refuse to fawn off my obligation to continue breathing to somebody else.
Further, society owes nothing to an individuals protection, it serves to protect society in general. No amount of Universal Disarmament will Suffice. Why suffer the old and weak to the whims of the Strong? So Peace can have a chance? Guns equalize, and as all are inherently equal, all should be able to have equality personified in a gun.

That one may choose not to be armed should never proclude another the same choice.

-Globe

Edit for Caps and commas

 

[CFLarsen]

Inherent human rights

From the link: "Human rights are those rights that belong to every individual - man or woman, girl or boy, infant or elder - simply because she or he is a human being. They embody the basic standards without which people cannot realize their inherent human dignity.

Human rights are universal: they are the birthright of every member of the human family. No one has to earn or deserve human rights.

Human rights are inalienable: you cannot lose these rights any more than you can cease to be a human being. Human rights are indivisible: you cannot be denied a right because someone decides that it is "less important" or "non-essential". Human rights are interdependent: all human rights are part of a complementary framework."

Why is this not a human construct?

 

[shanek]

For something to objectively exist, surely it must have physical properties.

Not so. Musical ability objectively exists, but has no physical properties. Love objectively exists, but has no physical properties. Logic objectively exists (if it doesn't exist, nothing objectively exists!) but has no physical properties.

 

[shanek]

Animals don't 'suffer the burden of responsibility' because people don't hold them responsible.

This statement is only relevant if it is possible for people to hold them responsible. How is it possible to do so?