God given rights?

[Charles Kozierok]

Obviously, there's no evidence our "ancestors" had any moral code, so I can safely assume they didn't.

I find this amusing, because it's the exact argument that atheists make about Christianity that you constantly reject. Apparently you only require evidence for some things, and not for others.

Even worse, we actually do have evidence for societal moral codes. As just one obvious example, the Code of Hammurabi predates modern monotheistic mythology by centuries. And it would not only be "unsafe" to assume that the Code only wrote down common laws already in practice for centuries before that, it would be highly irrational.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm saying that without natural rights, morality does not exist, period. If there is no natural right to life, then murder cannot be morally wrong, period, regardless of whether or not we prohibit it. If there is no natural right to liberty, then slavery cannot be morally wrong, period, regardless of whether or not we prohibit it. Depriving someone of life or liberty cannot be said to be wrong, merely against the whim of the majority or those in power. Without natural rights, morality cannot exist, any more than height can exist without a plane of reference. In both situations, any direction and magnitude we give must be arbitrary.

I'm sorry, but this argument is just obviously false. Whether something is morally right or morally wrong is not dependent on whether or not a 'natural right' was violated. Not only is morality not confined by natural rights, as shown obviously from moral codes around the world, but yes, morality is determined by the majority as it always has been.

You continue to argue that you think the consequences of not having natural rights are bad, but you have not put forth any argument that shows that natural rights do in fact exist. If you have any evidence for this, provide it. If you can't, just say that you have no evidence for their existence.

Your world is a pleasant fantasy, but that's all it is... a fantasy.

Throughout most of human history, natural rights were not recognized or even conceived of by most people. Slavery was not a moral problem because there was considered to be no natural right to be free. Murder was not a moral problem; although society still discouraged murder when convenient, a noble or just someone powerful enough to get away with it) faced no sanctions for killing someone. Mostly murder was handled by requiring a payment, a weregild, for the loss of that person's labor. The rise of organized religion and the humanist Age of Enlightenment took on this viewpoint, arguing that there are natural rights, that people have inherent value. You choose to dismantle the Age of Enlightenment, to argue that since these rights were not recognized (or worse, simply not well protected) they did not exist. But without natural rights, our imposed morality has no logical basis.

You are inadvertently providing evidence that these rights are in fact determined by men.

 

[Moonbeam]

Perhaps we can approach this question of the existence of truth from a different angle. What are the modalities of human experience in which knowledge can reside? In traditional systems of knowledge the answer is allegorically represented by the notion of the horse the cart and the driver, the physical, the emotional, and the intellectual centers of the brain. These can also be said to be the reptilian, the mammalian, and the human brain that is our heritage via evolution.

The gateways to the development of knowledge via each modality is represented by a spiritual practice suited to each kind or combinations of them. Thus we have three kinds of yoga to begin., mastery of the body through physical practices, the way of the fakir, mastery of the emotions via religion, the way of the monk, and mastery of the intellect via as in meditative yoga. There are forms of yoga for the other two ways also and combinations. One might say that the door to the infinite may be opened via the body, the emotions, the mind or the other 4 permutations.

Assuming, then, for a moment, that some abiding higher truth has animated human aspirations since the dawn of the human brain, something we innately seek to discover, the means by which we would approach doing so would depend, then, on our temperament, on the methodology that might be most natural to our brain. Thus we might say there are seven different schools or paths we could take even if we are not aware that a methodology for our particular temperament may have been elucidated by some seeker thousands of years in the past.

My suggestion then on this matter is that the way truth is derived via the emotional and intellectual man, the two approached I see mostly in this thread, will not fit, one with the other, although ultimate realization would be the same.

In short, different types of knowledge seeking are incompatible with one another. The path of feeling, the faith in the existence of something higher, is not a suitable path for the intellectual because he does not have faith in emotional certainty. His faith is derived from the logic provided by the acquisition of data. One mind is seeking and the other accepts but what is sought, what drives or motivates, is the same thing.

So what we see is that those who believe in a higher power believe that morality resides there, and those who believe in the rational derive morality as the result of reason but further that both are ultimately the same thing. The realized monk and the realized yoga arrive at the same understanding via different paths. The argument between the intellectual and the emotional as a proper modality of perception is only relevant to the question of suitability of type, down which path a person should proceed. The intention should be to proceed down the path, not to argue which path is the best. Of course I guess this perspective may make any sense only to whatever type I might be.

 

[Wardawg1001]

This is basically the whole point of my questions. Many say God didn't do it, but when asked even if our "ancestors" had any morals outside of "God", I can't get anything but guesswork and "assumptions". No written record simply means we can just "make stuff up based on our general assumptions" which you admittedly just did.. and what's always been done regarding them.

Obviously, there's no evidence our "ancestors" had any moral code, so I can safely assume they didn't. So as far as I am concerned, we didn't get our sense of morality and justice from them, nor am I saying God gave them to us either... just saying we're assuming evolution gave them to us, which sounds more credulous than reasonable.

I don't really know what your point is. You say that you don't believe that our ancestors had any moral code at all, you don't believe it developed on its own over time, and you don't believe it was God. Do you have a stance or theory at all?

I'm afraid if you are looking for irrefutable and documented proof of the exact time and place that the first moral values were developed, you will long be unsatisfied by the answers to this type of debate. It doesn't exist, it never will, unless somehow scientists manage to isolate a 'morality' gene in our DNA (seems quite unlikely to me, but who knows). So if there is no way to provide empirical proof of the origination of moral values, what exactly do you expect people to do? I've thought on this question many times, and I've come up with my own answer that makes sense to me, and I've shared that here. How do you propose we explore this question if not by using the knowledge and experiences that we have at our disposal?

 

[kia75]

But if there are no natural rights, on what basis can you "use reason and logic" to condemn North Korea? It makes zero difference if or why you condemn them or how you come to that conclusion; if there is no absolute right or wrong, then by definition your condemnation is meaningless because there is literally no possibility of your reasoned, logical rejection of their vision of society being any better than their basis for accepting their vision of society. If there is no inherent basis for right and wrong, then all actions are inherently equal and nothing matters beyond whether or not we have the might to enforce our own preferences.

Have you actually read Kant, Locke, or any of the other enlightened thinkers? They write treatise after treatise after treatise answering this question. John Locke even answers this question several times in different treatises.

The truth of the matter is that it's better for society if everyone behaves ethically then for me to try and strong-arm my way into sex\food. If I don't have to worry about bandits I can spend my time and money on better things like programming, working, etc. It's called the social contract.

Natural Rights are what John Locke think are the most important part of the Social contract, but he is still using the social contract to justify those rights. John Locke condemning North Korea for their lack of Life Liberty and Property is just as valid as me condemning North Korea for their lack of education. I just have the benefit of 200 years of additional books and debate regarding the issue


But, rather then reading stuff that was written over a hundred years ago by people who couldn't imagine a computer, or the internet why don't you try reading something a little bit more modern? NonZero answers the question better then I could and was written in the late 90's.

You obviously do not understand intellectual property rights at all, because they are not at all a contradiction to, but rather are an extension of, property rights. They flow from exactly the same logic, one's inherent right to one's own labor. Even though the two forms of property rights may be in conflict, that is true of any two property rights. That you own a baseball bat does not give you the right to strike my car with it; my right to my car is in conflict with your right to do as you wish with your baseball bat.

I believe you are also a little confused about the conflict between Locke and Kant. If memory serves, the conflict is not on whether ownership is possible, but specifically only about initial acquisition of real property.

The disagreement between you and me isn't about Locke and Kant, its whether or not property rights are natural rights. By the very nature that we have a disagreement on property rights prove my point. Property rights aren't self-evident and since they're not self-evident they're not "natural rights". What a couple of dead guys who lived a hundred years ago said about property and how it applies to the internet isn't interesting to me, but I'll answer your question regarding the two.

Kant and Locke both agree ownership is possible and necessary in a modern society because everyone agrees ownership is necessary in a modern society. They disagree about almost everything else.

The conflicts between Locke and Kant are myriad, not only did Kant not believe property rights were natural rights, he only thought property included land, i.e. estate. Under Kant nobody could own an apple, but they could own the land where the apple came from. Kant also believed that ownership came from society, ie government. The land only became yours when society agreed it was yours. Under Kant ownership is whatever society believes ownership is. Since property rights come from society, under Kant, property can't be a natural right. Property is whatever we decide property is.

Locke on the other hand was almost completely opposite. Locke believed that land and estate couldn't be owned because nature by itself was worthless. It was only the work that made it valuable and the person who did the work owned the result. Under Locke its the migrant workers that own the field, not the landowner. If Locke was here he'd say that it's the little Asian girl that put the Iphone together who owns the Iphone, not Apple, or you or Sony. Furthermore, ownership of what you produce is an inherent right, the government can't come in and make a law saying the "owner" of the field gets the fruits of everyone's labor. By plowing that field, the plowed crop becomes yours. He also believes you can't own more then you need. He mentions that if you pick more apples then you can use and the apples go bad, then the extra apples you picked weren't really yours in the first place. Sound a bit communistic to you? There's a reason that Marx was a big fan of Locke, and his whole "workers own the means of production" is based on Locke's theory of Property rights.



There's more to it I'd recommend you actually read Locke's 2nd Treatise on Civil Government or at the very least the Sparksnotes to understand Locke's theory of ownership better.

But you have to remember, these works are literally hundred years old, created before the internet, computers, television or even factories were around. Locke's theory of ownership breaks down as soon as anything is created by more then 1 person. Kant's theory breaks down with anything that doesn't have a deed on it. Not only that but ALL the enlightened philosophers disagreed about the specifics of property rights. Jefferson didn't fully agree with Locke, who didn't agree with Kant, who didn't agree with Hobbes, etc. In the end what the law is regarding property and what we currently believe is just regarding property rights is more important then what a bunch of old dead guys said a few hundred years ago.

 

[Wardawg1001]

Perhaps we can approach this question of the existence of truth from a different angle. What are the modalities of human experience in which knowledge can reside? In traditional systems of knowledge the answer is allegorically represented by the notion of the horse the cart and the driver, the physical, the emotional, and the intellectual centers of the brain. These can also be said to be the reptilian, the mammalian, and the human brain that is our heritage via evolution.

The gateways to the development of knowledge via each modality is represented by a spiritual practice suited to each kind or combinations of them. Thus we have three kinds of yoga to begin., mastery of the body through physical practices, the way of the fakir, mastery of the emotions via religion, the way of the monk, and mastery of the intellect via as in meditative yoga. There are forms of yoga for the other two ways also and combinations. One might say that the door to the infinite may be opened via the body, the emotions, the mind or the other 4 permutations.

Assuming, then, for a moment, that some abiding higher truth has animated human aspirations since the dawn of the human brain, something we innately seek to discover, the means by which we would approach doing so would depend, then, on our temperament, on the methodology that might be most natural to our brain. Thus we might say there are seven different schools or paths we could take even if we are not aware that a methodology for our particular temperament may have been elucidated by some seeker thousands of years in the past.

My suggestion then on this matter is that the way truth is derived via the emotional and intellectual man, the two approached I see mostly in this thread, will not fit, one with the other, although ultimate realization would be the same.

In short, different types of knowledge seeking are incompatible with one another. The path of feeling, the faith in the existence of something higher, is not a suitable path for the intellectual because he does not have faith in emotional certainty. His faith is derived from the logic provided by the acquisition of data. One mind is seeking and the other accepts but what is sought, what drives or motivates, is the same thing.

So what we see is that those who believe in a higher power believe that morality resides there, and those who believe in the rational derive morality as the result of reason but further that both are ultimately the same thing. The realized monk and the realized yoga arrive at the same understanding via different paths. The argument between the intellectual and the emotional as a proper modality of perception is only relevant to the question of suitability of type, down which path a person should proceed. The intention should be to proceed down the path, not to argue which path is the best. Of course I guess this perspective may make any sense only to whatever type I might be.

I don't think you are wrong about how different people arrive at their conclusion to this question of where does morality come from. However I do think it has significant impact. If one believes God handed down all of our moral values and that they are His Word and cannot ever be changed regardless of how society may view them in modern times, then we can have problems. God says homosexuality is wrong, therefore it always has been wrong and it always will be wrong and we should continue to oppress gay people.

I'm not actually taking that stance, I don't really know what the Bible says about homosexuality, but I think this is an example we are all familiar with, that highlights the problems of believing in an immutable set of moral values handed down from a celestial being who has not bothered to contact us in 2000 years, and cannot be expected to contact us ever again.

That isn't to say that humans are necessarily any better at coming up with their own set of moral codes to follow. Theres plenty of examples throughout history of where we have failed in this regard. But in recognizing that we are the masters of our moral code, that our actions and beliefs dictate the overall moral code of humans in general, allows for us to move forward more freely.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't think you are wrong about how different people arrive at their conclusion to this question of where does morality come from. However I do think it has significant impact. If one believes God handed down all of our moral values and that they are His Word and cannot ever be changed regardless of how society may view them in modern times, then we can have problems. God says homosexuality is wrong, therefore it always has been wrong and it always will be wrong and we should continue to oppress gay people.

I'm not actually taking that stance, I don't really know what the Bible says about homosexuality, but I think this is an example we are all familiar with, that highlights the problems of believing in an immutable set of moral values handed down from a celestial being who has not bothered to contact us in 2000 years, and cannot be expected to contact us ever again.

That isn't to say that humans are necessarily any better at coming up with their own set of moral codes to follow. Theres plenty of examples throughout history of where we have failed in this regard. But in recognizing that we are the masters of our moral code, that our actions and beliefs dictate the overall moral code of humans in general, allows for us to move forward more freely.

On the plus side for the absolutists is that there are millions of only truths and new ones every day.

 

[werepossum]

I'm sorry, but this argument is just obviously false. Whether something is morally right or morally wrong is not dependent on whether or not a 'natural right' was violated. Not only is morality not confined by natural rights, as shown obviously from moral codes around the world, but yes, morality is determined by the majority as it always has been.

You continue to argue that you think the consequences of not having natural rights are bad, but you have not put forth any argument that shows that natural rights do in fact exist. If you have any evidence for this, provide it. If you can't, just say that you have no evidence for their existence.

Your world is a pleasant fantasy, but that's all it is... a fantasy.

You are inadvertently providing evidence that these rights are in fact determined by men.

If morality is determined by the majority as it always has been, then 50.1% of the population deciding to rape, enslave and murder 49.9% of the population and take their stuff is equally as moral as any other system, because the basis for determining morality must always be arbitrary. For that matter, on what basis can you declare that morality is determined by the majority rather than by those few with the most power? Throughout the vast majority of human existence that has been the case; on what basis do you change from one arbitrary definition to another?

You feel that by acknowledging the absence of the concept of natural rights over most of human history I am "inadvertently providing evidence that these rights are in fact determined by men". Over most of human history we had no knowledge of Neptune's existence, yet even the most quantum-mechanically minded knows that Neptune existed during that time period because its existence was first calculated, providing evidence of its existence before its actual observance. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; it can also be evidence of limited perception and understanding.

Locke and others put forth logical evidence of natural rights; I can do no better. You can argue that this is not proof, but natural rights are intangible, as are rights granted by man. You may show that these rights are written down, you may show why you think these rights exist, and you may show evidence of their protection, but of the actual rights you can show nothing. The only difference between the two is that everyone who believes in natural rights believe they are immutable, whether or not they agree on exactly what they are; man-made rights are inherently mutable, being arbitrarily defined, but are equally intangible.

 

[fskimospy]

If morality is determined by the majority as it always has been, then 50.1% of the population deciding to rape, enslave and murder 49.9% of the population and take their stuff is equally as moral as any other system, because the basis for determining morality must always be arbitrary.

This is clearly wrong; morality most certainly does not need to be arbitrary if it is made by people, it is usually anything but arbitrary. Arbitrary is defined as something done on a whim or without a good reason, but the moral objections to rape, murder, etc serve a perfectly good purpose in acting to deter such actions.

So no, morality is in no way arbitrary. If anything, I would say that a set of cosmically poofed up rights would be far more arbitrary than a collective work to structure morality in a way that benefits society.

For that matter, on what basis can you declare that morality is determined by the majority rather than by those few with the most power? Throughout the vast majority of human existence that has been the case; on what basis do you change from one arbitrary definition to another?

It can also be determined that way, although since morality is a cultural concept that people need to buy into it would probably have to be through indirect influence. Regardless, once again neither one of these arguments says anything about the existence or nonexistence of natural rights, just that you think the world would be worse if they didn't exist. The merits of natural rights have no bearing on whether or not they exist. None whatsoever.

Like both wolfe and I have said, the world would be a better place if such rights existed, but wanting the world to be a certain way doesn't make it so.

You feel that by acknowledging the absence of the concept of natural rights over most of human history I am "inadvertently providing evidence that these rights are in fact determined by men". Over most of human history we had no knowledge of Neptune's existence, yet even the most quantum-mechanically minded knows that Neptune existed during that time period because its existence was first calculated, providing evidence of its existence before its actual observance. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; it can also be evidence of limited perception and understanding.

Locke and others put forth logical evidence of natural rights; I can do no better. You can argue that this is not proof, but natural rights are intangible, as are rights granted by man. You may show that these rights are written down, you may show why you think these rights exist, and you may show evidence of their protection, but of the actual rights you can show nothing. The only difference between the two is that everyone who believes in natural rights believe they are immutable, whether or not they agree on exactly what they are; man-made rights are inherently mutable, being arbitrarily defined, but are equally intangible.

What 'evidence' do you think they put forth? Considering that Locke and others don't even list the same set of 'natural rights', which ones are right and why are they the right ones? You would think that eternal, immutable rights for all of mankind would be somewhat easier to pinpoint.

 

[werepossum]

Have you actually read Kant, Locke, or any of the other enlightened thinkers? They write treatise after treatise after treatise answering this question. John Locke even answers this question several times in different treatises.

The truth of the matter is that it's better for society if everyone behaves ethically then for me to try and strong-arm my way into sex\food. If I don't have to worry about bandits I can spend my time and money on better things like programming, working, etc. It's called the social contract.

Natural Rights are what John Locke think are the most important part of the Social contract, but he is still using the social contract to justify those rights. John Locke condemning North Korea for their lack of Life Liberty and Property is just as valid as me condemning North Korea for their lack of education. I just have the benefit of 200 years of additional books and debate regarding the issue


But, rather then reading stuff that was written over a hundred years ago by people who couldn't imagine a computer, or the internet why don't you try reading something a little bit more modern? NonZero answers the question better then I could and was written in the late 90's.

The disagreement between you and me isn't about Locke and Kant, its whether or not property rights are natural rights. By the very nature that we have a disagreement on property rights prove my point. Property rights aren't self-evident and since they're not self-evident they're not "natural rights". What a couple of dead guys who lived a hundred years ago said about property and how it applies to the internet isn't interesting to me, but I'll answer your question regarding the two.

Kant and Locke both agree ownership is possible and necessary in a modern society because everyone agrees ownership is necessary in a modern society. They disagree about almost everything else.

The conflicts between Locke and Kant are myriad, not only did Kant not believe property rights were natural rights, he only thought property included land, i.e. estate. Under Kant nobody could own an apple, but they could own the land where the apple came from. Kant also believed that ownership came from society, ie government. The land only became yours when society agreed it was yours. Under Kant ownership is whatever society believes ownership is. Since property rights come from society, under Kant, property can't be a natural right. Property is whatever we decide property is.

Locke on the other hand was almost completely opposite. Locke believed that land and estate couldn't be owned because nature by itself was worthless. It was only the work that made it valuable and the person who did the work owned the result. Under Locke its the migrant workers that own the field, not the landowner. If Locke was here he'd say that it's the little Asian girl that put the Iphone together who owns the Iphone, not Apple, or you or Sony. Furthermore, ownership of what you produce is an inherent right, the government can't come in and make a law saying the "owner" of the field gets the fruits of everyone's labor. By plowing that field, the plowed crop becomes yours. He also believes you can't own more then you need. He mentions that if you pick more apples then you can use and the apples go bad, then the extra apples you picked weren't really yours in the first place. Sound a bit communistic to you? There's a reason that Marx was a big fan of Locke, and his whole "workers own the means of production" is based on Locke's theory of Property rights.

There's more to it I'd recommend you actually read Locke's 2nd Treatise on Civil Government or at the very least the Sparksnotes to understand Locke's theory of ownership better.

But you have to remember, these works are literally hundred years old, created before the internet, computers, television or even factories were around. Locke's theory of ownership breaks down as soon as anything is created by more then 1 person. Kant's theory breaks down with anything that doesn't have a deed on it. Not only that but ALL the enlightened philosophers disagreed about the specifics of property rights. Jefferson didn't fully agree with Locke, who didn't agree with Kant, who didn't agree with Hobbes, etc. In the end what the law is regarding property and what we currently believe is just regarding property rights is more important then what a bunch of old dead guys said a few hundred years ago.

It's been over thirty years since I've read Kant and Locke, but I believe you have them backward. Under Kant, you could not own the land unless everyone else agreed you owned the land, but assuming you owned the land (even provisionally) anything you grew on that land, you owned. Under Locke, working the land established ownership because you had created something of value as your work product. Under both theories one absolutely has a natural right to the product of one's labor; the essential conflict between the two is that Kant believed that since land is limited, one person owning it harmed the freedom of everyone else by removing their freedom to own it. Only if everyone agreed that you owned the land, freely giving up their claim to the land, would Kant consider the land to be yours. Obviously this is unworkable in any significant society, so Kant also deduced that provisional ownership must exist.

I also believe that you are in error regarding Locke's views on property. He was attempting to explain how property rights come about in the absence of government, discussing taking land (or apples) from nature's bounty, unclaimed, not taking land (or apples) that others owned. Marx may have used Locke's reasoning in furtherance of his own views, but many who were adamantly opposed to Marxism revere Locke as one of the fathers of bourgeois capitalism. The distinction may seem faint to you, but to most people the concept that no one can own anything except the state is a direct refutation of the natural rights that Locke espoused.

From Locke's Second Treatise:

"CHAPTER. II.

OF THE STATE OF NATURE.


Sect. 4. To understand political power right, and derive it from its
original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and
that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose
of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds
of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will
of any other man.

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is
reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more
evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously
born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same
faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without
subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all
should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another,
and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted
right to dominion and sovereignty."

CHAPTER. IX.

OF THE ENDS OF POLITICAL SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENT.

Sect. 123. IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said;
if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the
greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why
will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and
controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that
though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of
it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others:
for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater
part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the
property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes
him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears
and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out,
and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united,
or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives,
liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.

Sect. 124. The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into
commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the
preservation of their property. To which in the state of nature there
are many things wanting.

First, There wants an established, settled, known law, received and
allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the
common measure to decide all controversies between them: for though the
law of nature be plain and intelligible to all rational creatures; yet
men being biassed by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of
study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the
application of it to their particular cases.

Locke is beyond clear here. Man has inherent natural rights; man gives up some portion of these rights to government to protect the larger part. Locke is absolutely NOT using the social contract to justify these natural rights. On the contrary, Locke is doing the exact opposite; he is using these natural rights to justify the social contract. The social contract exists not to provide these rights, but to protect them. We need a common, mutually agreed upon standard of right and wrong, and although "the
law of nature be plain and intelligible to all rational creatures", because men are biassed by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases." Natural law is plain and intelligible to all rational creatures, but because some men are ignorant of it (from lack of studying the issue to perceive the plain and intelligible natural law) and some men will ignore it for their own gain, we establish this social contract for mutual protection of our natural rights. NOT to establish our rights, but to protect them.

Remember also that in Locke's First Treatise he specifically rejected divine right to rule for any government or ruler. By accepting the natural rights of freedom, liberty and property, no government or ruler could possibly have a divine or otherwise inherent right over another. The only legitimate government was one in which men voluntarily loaned their natural rights to government. Without natural rights, a government in which the majority or the strongest took power would be equally legitimate.

You are dead wrong about Kant and Locke predating factories. The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in particular were a transitional time when many factories were established, some using hand power but many using mechanical power derived from water wheels and transmitted via shafts, transmissions and pulleys. This was particularly prevalent in metal working, where hard and repetitive physical labor became first a bit easier (the Oliver) and then much easier (the water hammer), to the point that many tasks such as the manufacture of nails or pins devolved to lower paid, semi-skilled labor. Contemporary drawings and paintings of rivers in major cities show floating mills anchored to practically every bridge, legislation (and lawsuits) over rights of weigh were common, and comparatively few of these mills were used for grinding corn. Paper mills flourished. Flanders in particular was ripped apart socially by the advent of knitting and textile factories where rich men and investor groups brought machinery (hand-operated looms at that time) and owner-furnished raw materials together with employees, employees (who were paid by the piece and owned neither their equipment, nor the raw material, nor the finished product) replacing craftsmen. Similarly, factories for mechanically fulling wool using water-driven hammers idled thousands of fullers. These factories predate interchangeable part manufacturing, obviously, but the social stresses were already maturing in the fourteenth century. What traditionally had been craftsmen who bought the tools and materials, crafted the goods, and sold the finished product, retaining a great deal of autonomy despite the influence of guild and lord, became employees who did not own the tools and materials or the finished product, but rather were paid a relatively wage. This imbalance between the relatively powerful resource owner and the relatively powerless employee began the thinking that lead to the Age of Enlightenment.

And that we can have a discussion about the existence of natural rights in no way indicates that natural rights do not exist, any more than a discussion about the existence of Higgs bosons indicates that Higgs bosons do not exist.

 

[werepossum]

I don't think you are wrong about how different people arrive at their conclusion to this question of where does morality come from. However I do think it has significant impact. If one believes God handed down all of our moral values and that they are His Word and cannot ever be changed regardless of how society may view them in modern times, then we can have problems. God says homosexuality is wrong, therefore it always has been wrong and it always will be wrong and we should continue to oppress gay people.

I'm not actually taking that stance, I don't really know what the Bible says about homosexuality, but I think this is an example we are all familiar with, that highlights the problems of believing in an immutable set of moral values handed down from a celestial being who has not bothered to contact us in 2000 years, and cannot be expected to contact us ever again.

That isn't to say that humans are necessarily any better at coming up with their own set of moral codes to follow. Theres plenty of examples throughout history of where we have failed in this regard. But in recognizing that we are the masters of our moral code, that our actions and beliefs dictate the overall moral code of humans in general, allows for us to move forward more freely.

I'll address the problems of believing in an immutable set of moral values handed down from a celestial being who has not bothered to contact us in 2000 years, and cannot be expected to contact us ever again, in two ways. First, circumstances change. When a mother warns her child "Don't touch the stove!" she does not literally mean do not ever touch the stove. She means that right now the stove is hot and will burn you, with the understanding that at some future time the child will have the maturity to determine whether the stove can be safely touched. Homosexuality during the Old Testament days presented serious health risks, including some that were transmissible to others, as well as reducing the number of children born to sustain the society. Today, absent some specialized subgroups exercising promiscuous unsafe sex there is little inherent danger in homosexuality, and we're certainly not lacking for people - and even if we were, the safety of a tribe or nation is no longer dependent on the number of strong arms it can supply. G-d gave us brains; therefore we should each use them to analyze His laws to see which are still applicable and which are not. As long as we resist the temptation to interpret those laws to our own maximum benefit, we're probably okay morally.

Second, natural rights were derived rationally during the Age of Enlightenment, not handed down from G-d. To some degree they are aligned with religion's commonality, but the basic difference is that religion is a set of restrictions of freedom, not a set of rights. Natural rights establishes what should not be done to you; religion establishes what you should not do. Whether one believes that natural rights are set down by G-d or must naturally exist are quite separate matters.

 

[Moonbeam]

Second, natural rights were derived rationally during the Age of Enlightenment, not handed down from G-d. To some degree they are aligned with religion's commonality, but the basic difference is that religion is a set of restrictions of freedom, not a set of rights. Natural rights establishes what should not be done to you; religion establishes what you should not do. Whether one believes that natural rights are set down by G-d or must naturally exist are quite separate matters.

I think the intuition that natural rights exist was given rational expression in the age of enlightenment, that enlightenment was expressed as reason rather than simply as dogma or faith, that intellect was used to express what our being has always known, the West discovering that truth can be apprehended not just by faith but through the mind. It still could be, however, that you have to have the right kind of mind for the appeal to take.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I simply said that we get our values and objective moral values from somewhere.

An "objective moral value" is an oxymoron. Objective things are those that are independent of any particular person, while on the other hand values only exist in the mind of a valuer.

There is a basis on which we judge good and bad, and I will argue that the men who wrote the Bible didn't just pull "you most not steal" clear out of their arses, which has plenty value and meaning today.

The basis is the same basis upon which we judge pain vs. pleasure -- our individual selves.

There is no record or proof that our ancestors had any values -- we just know we do.

There is no record or proof that anyone but yourself has values, because the only values a person can access are his own.

So, where did they come from? How did they originate? From them?

Why not?

If values must come from somewhere external to the valuer, where do God's values come from?

As far as we know, they had none.

As far as I know, you have none.

 

[Moonbeam]

Rob M.: I simply said that we get our values and objective moral values from somewhere.

CT: An "objective moral value" is an oxymoron. Objective things are those that are independent of any particular person, while on the other hand values only exist in the mind of a valuer.

M: I can't really follow this and need some help. I have two problems understanding this. Is what is objective something that is real independent of all consciousness of that reality or does some mind have to exist for said objectivity to exist. Secondly, if moral values are genetically coded, that is to say if the properties of mind that create the potential for language, comparative analysis, and reason are all in the genes then is the inevitable result of the phenotype the product of the genotype. Wouldn't the inevitable appearance of morality out of objectively factual genes indicate the objectivity of morality. And if not, what of logic and reason? Why would we extend conclusions drawn from them any credence since they are also products of our genes?

RM: There is a basis on which we judge good and bad, and I will argue that the men who wrote the Bible didn't just pull "you most not steal" clear out of their arses, which has plenty value and meaning today.

CT: The basis is the same basis upon which we judge pain vs. pleasure -- our individual selves.

M: But those abilities are the result of our genes, they are programmed to exist. Why might those two just be part of a larger moral center also genetically encoded.


RM: There is no record or proof that our ancestors had any values -- we just know we do.

CT: There is no record or proof that anyone but yourself has values, because the only values a person can access are his own.

M: That's not what seems to take place in a court room.

RM: So, where did they come from? How did they originate? From them?

CT: Why not?

If values must come from somewhere external to the valuer, where do God's values come from?

M: Obviously God gets His values from the same place we do, the experience of love.

This is why the atheist can be morally superior to the believer or the other way around, depending only on how conscious one is of love. And one doesn't even have to be conscious that one loves, all one needs is to feel it. This is why a dog can be closer to God than some people.

RM: As far as we know, they had none.

CT: As far as I know, you have none.

Loving the beloved should shine some light on this, I think.

 

[woolfe9998]

But under your example, if morality is based on self-interest then murder should absolutely be moral as long as the murderer benefits and there is no real chance of being caught.

If you read my prior posts carefully, you'll note that I said morality springs from both self-interest and the instinct toward altruism. Meaning some is genuine, and some is merely pragmatic. That said, this is precisely why we have cops, courts and jails, because presumably many more people would commit crimes if they thought they couldn't be punished.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

M: I can't really follow this and need some help. I have two problems understanding this. Is what is objective something that is real independent of all consciousness of that reality or does some mind have to exist for said objectivity to exist. Secondly, if moral values are genetically coded, that is to say if the properties of mind that create the potential for language, comparative analysis, and reason are all in the genes then is the inevitable result of the phenotype the product of the genotype. Wouldn't the inevitable appearance of morality out of objectively factual genes indicate the objectivity of morality. And if not, what of logic and reason? Why would we extend conclusions drawn from them any credence since they are also products of our genes?

All of these questions boil down to whether you accept materialistic reductionism or not. I do not. YMMV.

M: But those abilities are the result of our genes, they are programmed to exist. Why might those two just be part of a larger moral center also genetically encoded.

Are those abilities the result of our genes? Or are our genes the result of those abilities?

RM: There is no record or proof that our ancestors had any values -- we just know we do.

CT: There is no record or proof that anyone but yourself has values, because the only values a person can access are his own.

M: That's not what seems to take place in a court room.

Court rooms deal with laws, not values.

RM: So, where did they come from? How did they originate? From them?

CT: Why not?

If values must come from somewhere external to the valuer, where do God's values come from?

M: Obviously God gets His values from the same place we do, the experience of love.

This is why the atheist can be morally superior to the believer or the other way around, depending only on how conscious one is of love. And one doesn't even have to be conscious that one loves, all one needs is to feel it. This is why a dog can be closer to God than some people.

Other than the fact that I don't think God exists, I don't have a problem accepting that love is the basis of emotion.

 

[werepossum]

I wasn't trying to imply that your stance was that it is impossible to act on anything without natural rights, I was questioning your stance that I need to believe in natural rights to be able to hold a valid opinion on the morality of another persons actions.

My point wasn't that your opinion isn't valid, but that without some baseline, your opinion is exactly as valid as any other. You could argue that yours is more popular, but if there are no natural rights, depriving someone of life, liberty and property is just as valid as protecting someone's life, liberty and property. At that point, society must establish some arbiter of right and wrong, whether that be hereditary power based on strength of arms, majority rule, or whatever. But that arbiter's valuation must needs be arbitrarily defined if there is nothing larger than he, nothing outside himself, on which to base it.

Regardless, I understand your position a little better now, though I still disagree with it. I don't think there is a problem with morality being based on 'nothing larger than man's constructs'. In fact I don't think morality ever has or ever will exist in any other context. I believe basic moral values developed from a basic human desire to live. They evolved over time, they have evolved even very recently (slavery), and they will evolve in the future. I don't see the need to classify the right to life and liberty as a 'natural right' or give it any special designation at all, and frankly I still don't quite understand why you do. Maybe I don't understand your definition of 'natural right'.

If there are no natural rights, on what basis do we object to slavery and why would we not evolve our way back to slavery? This may seem to be self-evident, but it isn't, not at all. Of the USA's two major parties, the Republicans are in favor of infringing on some people's right to marry and the Democrats are in favor of infringing on some people's right to do, well, almost anything else. If there is no natural right to freedom and liberty, then my only object to such infringement would be its potential to affect me because gay people have no inherent right to marry whom they choose and no one has any right to the product of their own labor, or to choose what to eat for lunch.

If we have no natural rights, then we can only define morality by how we define morality. It becomes circular reasoning - this is moral because we say it is moral.

Because I have been hungry before (not starving necessarily, at least not to the point that I was in any serious danger), and so I can feel empathy for the pain that those people are experiencing. That should honestly be enough, but I'll go further. As a rational and intelligent human being with a wealth of knowledge, I know that there is no benevolent motive for starving an entire population of people for decades. Thus I condemn those who are responsible. I don't need to believe in any sacred rights, I just need base human emotion, and maybe a little logic.

The leadership of North Korea would disagree, saying that having the enlightened leadership of Kim Jong-Un is much more beneficial than is having freedom, food or life. If there is no natural right to life, liberty, and property, on what basis do we argue that being deprived of these things is wrong, much less that they are more valuable than the divine leadership they gain in return?

Similarly, empathy is valuable as motivation to protect someone's natural rights, but worthless in replacing those natural rights. One could just as easily empathize with someone who does not know the glory of Sharia, thus justifying the imposition of Sharia on those who do not have it. "I remember how lost I was before I began to follow Muhammad, and I'm going to force you to follow him too so you don't experience that." Empathy, like knowledge, is value neutral.

I disagree, but I think my above arguments are sufficient explanation as to why.

 

[werepossum]

I think the intuition that natural rights exist was given rational expression in the age of enlightenment, that enlightenment was expressed as reason rather than simply as dogma or faith, that intellect was used to express what our being has always known, the West discovering that truth can be apprehended not just by faith but through the mind. It still could be, however, that you have to have the right kind of mind for the appeal to take.

Exactly right, and well said.

If you read my prior posts carefully, you'll note that I said morality springs from both self-interest and the instinct toward altruism. Meaning some is genuine, and some is merely pragmatic. That said, this is precisely why we have cops, courts and jails, because presumably many more people would commit crimes if they thought they couldn't be punished.

But what does "the instinct toward altruism" even mean if it does not reference some higher value? Perhaps more importantly, how do we balance the two? If there is no absolute right and wrong, then the concept that it's right for me to take from others (based on self-interest) but wrong for others to take from me (because of instinct toward altruism) has no internal contradiction, because there is nothing beyond my own desires against which to measure my valuation of each in any particular instance. You cannot rationally devolve this power up to the majority either, because then you're back to slavery. I.e. it's good for we the majority to have freedom because that's best for society, but it's good for those over there to be unfree because that's best for society.

 

[werepossum]

This is clearly wrong; morality most certainly does not need to be arbitrary if it is made by people, it is usually anything but arbitrary. Arbitrary is defined as something done on a whim or without a good reason, but the moral objections to rape, murder, etc serve a perfectly good purpose in acting to deter such actions.

So no, morality is in no way arbitrary. If anything, I would say that a set of cosmically poofed up rights would be far more arbitrary than a collective work to structure morality in a way that benefits society.
SNIP

At Point A in time, society believes that slavery is just and good.
At Point B in time, society believes that slavery is unjust and bad.

How on Earth can this not be considered arbitrary? People didn't change, slavery didn't change, people merely recognized that keeping people as property is inherently wrong - but unless there is some reason for slavery to be inherently wrong, that change must be arbitrary. When society believed that slavery was just and good, opposing slavery served no good purpose by society's extant definition of morality. One could even argue that opposing slavery went against good (again, as defined by that extant definition of morality) by introducing strife and conflict into society.

By contrast, if there are natural rights to life, liberty and property - rights bestowed to each person by his/her Creator, OR rights inherent to any thinking being - then opposing slavery is always good by definition, because slavery is by definition an infringement of the natural rights to liberty - a natural right higher than the natural right of property. One has a moral imperative to oppose slavery, regardless of whether that slavery is in the best interests of society or of the individual.

 

[fskimospy]

At Point A in time, society believes that slavery is just and good.
At Point B in time, society believes that slavery is unjust and bad.

How on Earth can this not be considered arbitrary? People didn't change, slavery didn't change, people merely recognized that keeping people as property is inherently wrong - but unless there is some reason for slavery to be inherently wrong, that change must be arbitrary. When society believed that slavery was just and good, opposing slavery served no good purpose by society's extant definition of morality. One could even argue that opposing slavery went against good (again, as defined by that extant definition of morality) by introducing strife and conflict into society.

By contrast, if there are natural rights to life, liberty and property - rights bestowed to each person by his/her Creator, OR rights inherent to any thinking being - then opposing slavery is always good by definition, because slavery is by definition an infringement of the natural rights to liberty - a natural right higher than the natural right of property. One has a moral imperative to oppose slavery, regardless of whether that slavery is in the best interests of society or of the individual.

I already explained how it isn't arbitrary? By the way, it is no coincidence that although the entire country was founded on the idea of these natural rights that only the half that had no use for slaves recognized it. Morality is there because we find it useful to be there. Your idea of natural rights is far more arbitrary than a moral code derived from social utility.

Again, if these natural rights exist, why do different people claim different rights are in fact the true natural rights?

 

[Moonbeam]

Cerpin Taxt: All of these questions boil down to whether you accept materialistic reductionism or not. I do not. YMMV.

M: Well I had to look up YMMV and materialistic reductionism but only understood what the first meant so to my great regret I can make no comment. I don't like to think. It hurts my head. My reaction to your first post was that you seemed so sure of what you stated, while I had no idea. Now that I know my mileage may vary, I feel a bit better. But I would enjoy hearing in plain old everyday words what it is you don't believe in.


CT: Are those abilities the result of our genes? Or are our genes the result of those abilities?

M: I would favor the notion that the genes express the abilities and because they are abilities are selected for.

CT: Court rooms deal with laws, not values.

M: Laws are meant to reflect what we believe is right and wrong, our values, I think

DT: Other than the fact that I don't think God exists, I don't have a problem accepting that love is the basis of emotion.

M: Good news in my opinion. The notion to me has interesting implications, some of which I've expressed. The mystics have for thousands of years, in my opinion, expressed the possible existence of an altered state in which love is all there is. Sometimes this is called God Consciousness, or the manifestation of the inalienable true self, the state of realization, a peak state in which one gets the best miles per gallon. I suspect that such a state may exist.

So while I don't believe in God either, I believe there is a conscious state in which the question of whether He does or doesn't disappears. I think that if you know who you are you know who God is. Religious folk are lucky in my opinion. They can believe so hard and love so much He becomes as real as their reflection.

The Christian mystic, Meister Eckhart, for example said, 'The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which He sees me. My guess is that it's pretty hard to tell who is what in a state of unity. Oh my Beloved, wherever I look it appears to be Thou, as Mulla Nasrudin says.

 

[Moonbeam]

I already explained how it isn't arbitrary? By the way, it is no coincidence that although the entire country was founded on the idea of these natural rights that only the half that had no use for slaves recognized it. Morality is there because we find it useful to be there. Your idea of natural rights is far more arbitrary than a moral code derived from social utility.

Again, if these natural rights exist, why do different people claim different rights are in fact the true natural rights?

Because different folk are at different levels of self awareness.

 

[woolfe9998]

Kudos to all the participants in this thread. This is the very type of discussion that I wish they had more of over on P&N. I appreciate that this has remained reasonably non-partisan and has been a thoughtful discussion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Cerpin Taxt: All of these questions boil down to whether you accept materialistic reductionism or not. I do not. YMMV.

M: Well I had to look up YMMV and materialistic reductionism but only understood what the first meant so to my great regret I can make no comment. I don't like to think. It hurts my head. My reaction to your first post was that you seemed so sure of what you stated, while I had no idea. Now that I know my mileage may vary, I feel a bit better. But I would enjoy hearing in plain old everyday words what it is you don't believe in.

Fair enough. I don't accept that a complete description of the material condition of a human being can explain the real qualitative phenomena of human experience. In simpler terms still, you can't know how a person feels by knowing how a human body functions.

CT: Are those abilities the result of our genes? Or are our genes the result of those abilities?

M: I would favor the notion that the genes express the abilities and because they are abilities are selected for.

The truth is likely a little of both, as there is a recursive effect on the selection pressures that select for certain genetic traits.

CT: Court rooms deal with laws, not values.

M: Laws are meant to reflect what we believe is right and wrong, our values, I think.

Yes, but that isn't "accessing a person's values." What I mean to say is that solipsism is unfalsifiable, so the only consciousness a person can be sure to exist is his own. We grant eachother the courtesy of assuming that they are not mindless robots/zombies.

DT: Other than the fact that I don't think God exists, I don't have a problem accepting that love is the basis of emotion.

M: Good news in my opinion. The notion to me has interesting implications, some of which I've expressed. The mystics have for thousands of years, in my opinion, expressed the possible existence of an altered state in which love is all there is. Sometimes this is called God Consciousness, or the manifestation of the inalienable true self, the state of realization, a peak state in which one gets the best miles per gallon. I suspect that such a state may exist.

So while I don't believe in God either, I believe there is a conscious state in which the question of whether He does or doesn't disappears. I think that if you know who you are you know who God is. Religious folk are lucky in my opinion. They can believe so hard and love so much He becomes as real as their reflection.

The Christian mystic, Meister Eckhart, for example said, 'The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which He sees me. My guess is that it's pretty hard to tell who is what in a state of unity. Oh my Beloved, wherever I look it appears to be Thou, as Mulla Nasrudin says.

I like pantheism, and while I don't believe there to be a great deal of convincing reasons to believe it is true, it seems like if any kind of theism were to be true, it would be pantheism.

 

[Wardawg1001]

My point wasn't that your opinion isn't valid, but that without some baseline, your opinion is exactly as valid as any other. You could argue that yours is more popular, but if there are no natural rights, depriving someone of life, liberty and property is just as valid as protecting someone's life, liberty and property. At that point, society must establish some arbiter of right and wrong, whether that be hereditary power based on strength of arms, majority rule, or whatever. But that arbiter's valuation must needs be arbitrarily defined if there is nothing larger than he, nothing outside himself, on which to base it.

Okay, I get what you are saying, and I agree with your assessment. I guess I just don't think this is a bad thing. Is it a dysfunctional system in some ways and open to abuse and exploit? Yes it is, one need only look at our own history to see why. With rational and intelligent people leading the way though, I believe we will continue to move in an overall positive direction, and I think history shows this to be true as well.

If there are no natural rights, on what basis do we object to slavery and why would we not evolve our way back to slavery? This may seem to be self-evident, but it isn't, not at all. Of the USA's two major parties, the Republicans are in favor of infringing on some people's right to marry and the Democrats are in favor of infringing on some people's right to do, well, almost anything else. If there is no natural right to freedom and liberty, then my only object to such infringement would be its potential to affect me because gay people have no inherent right to marry whom they choose and no one has any right to the product of their own labor, or to choose what to eat for lunch.

There is no guarantee that we will not evolve back to slavery, and I don't think I ever implied that (not saying you are accusing me of that, just clarifying that this has not been my stance ever). It is up to us, human society collectively, to keep that from happening, through the realization and understanding that we ARE responsible for the development and enforcement of our societies moral code. Our moral code isn't handed down by God, it is not a set of values that exists out in the ether, it is the product of our own actions and beliefs, and we should strive for and fight for what we believe to be moral and right at every turn.

But its important to note that we shouldn't do so blindly. Just deciding to believe that slavery is moral is not a valid reason for it to be moral. What makes it moral? What would make murder or theft moral? I think most people, if they sat down and tried to morally justify most of the things we consider immoral today, would be very hard pressed to come up with very many ways to justify them that did not rely purely on personal gain or selfishness, and even fewer of those justifications would take into consideration how those moral values might affect themselves in the long term, or society at large.

If we have no natural rights, then we can only define morality by how we define morality. It becomes circular reasoning - this is moral because we say it is moral.

In a sense you are correct. But I believe moral values are created for a reason (improve chances of survival, quality of life, and in some instances influenced by basic human emotion). Those reasons must be reached logically, and thus their merit can be argued, it can be quantified (to some extent), and it can reasonably be demonstrated to be beneficial or not. Thus it is still moral because we say it is, but there must be some reasoning or justification behind it, it must stand up to scrutiny, and it must be agreed upon.

The leadership of North Korea would disagree, saying that having the enlightened leadership of Kim Jong-Un is much more beneficial than is having freedom, food or life. If there is no natural right to life, liberty, and property, on what basis do we argue that being deprived of these things is wrong, much less that they are more valuable than the divine leadership they gain in return?

What is Kim Jong-Un's divine leadership doing for his people that could not be done under any other form of government? Why does it require that his people starve? Can he justify his actions in such a way that we can agree he is doing the right thing? Until such time, it does not matter whether he believes what he is doing is moral or not. In much the same way that we would not excuse a man for murder just because he believes it was moral, we do not excuse Kim Jong-Un just because he believes he is moral.

Similarly, empathy is valuable as motivation to protect someone's natural rights, but worthless in replacing those natural rights. One could just as easily empathize with someone who does not know the glory of Sharia, thus justifying the imposition of Sharia on those who do not have it. "I remember how lost I was before I began to follow Muhammad, and I'm going to force you to follow him too so you don't experience that." Empathy, like knowledge, is value neutral.

This is all true, this could happen, it has happened. The justification doesn't really stand up to scrutiny though. Just because it benefited this one man does not provide justification for imposing it on everyone or even any other single person. One man may murder another man and maybe his life is better off for it, this does not provide rational justification for murder being moral. I do not know much about Sharia law, so I can't effectively argue the effects of imposing it on another or imposing it on an entire society, but such things should always be considered when society attempts to determine the value of holding a certain moral value.