Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Do human rights evolve?

MC1R
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 1:27:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If people are born with these basic rights:
- the right to live
- to be happy
- to your body
do they change according to generation/time? We as a culture, because of how far the human race has progressed, are now experiencing new dilemmas in ethical fields regarding human rights. For example, medical technology has created a way to expand the human life past what it would have been naturally due to machinery. This can, however, leave a person incapacitated beyond their comfort and keep a heart beating in a body that potentially has no mind or conscious thought. So a new question must be debated; do we have a right to die?

So do human rights stay static and withstand the test of time regardless, or do they change according to the common good and the development of the human race?
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 7:07:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/29/2013 1:27:56 PM, MC1R wrote:
If people are born with these basic rights:
- the right to live
- to be happy
- to your body
do they change according to generation/time? We as a culture, because of how far the human race has progressed, are now experiencing new dilemmas in ethical fields regarding human rights. For example, medical technology has created a way to expand the human life past what it would have been naturally due to machinery. This can, however, leave a person incapacitated beyond their comfort and keep a heart beating in a body that potentially has no mind or conscious thought. So a new question must be debated; do we have a right to die?

So do human rights stay static and withstand the test of time regardless, or do they change according to the common good and the development of the human race?

Is the question do they? Or should they?

Clearly they do, the rights we recognise today are not the same as the rights recognised a thousand years ago. As to whether they should, that depends on where you stand on objectivism and moral realism.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 8:10:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
For example, medical technology has created a way to expand the human life past what it would have been naturally due to machinery. This can, however, leave a person incapacitated beyond their comfort and keep a heart beating in a body that potentially has no mind or conscious thought.

So a new question must be debated; do we have a right to die?
So do human rights stay static and withstand the test of time regardless, or do they change according to the common good and the development of the human race?

The Fool: Do you actually Believe that we are Born with Human Rights. FOR REAL!.. To know the answer. You need only ask yourself where do they exist in you? We can trust ourselves that much I think. Although are not allowed.

They are modern Noble Myths with a good intention, at best, but they are in themselves "lies", not actual properties people. There is not even attempt to explain what sense they exist. Their dogmatic religious entities. Based off absolutely nothing.

Ethics is like a really slow progressing science, but as we move up that ladder, myths are created for the Greater Population, to give them something simple and immediate, to believe in, in the meantime.. Like we create Santa for children, but the adult version. In fact this is how most religions start off. Possibly all of them.. The Problem is that over time the entire population forgets. That they are in fact merely myths, and then starts treating them as "things" themselves and then it back fires in so many ways. They either end up causing moral skepticism, nonsensical reasoning, immorality, Suffering, death, and wars, and a distrust of others. A lie is, on its own attempt to control the minds of others by making them think something which is not true.

The rights themselves, originally come from God given rights in Christianity, they are supposedly God made laws. but when, supposedly, the church was separated from state, they changed the name to "Natural Rights" to give it a more unbiased appeal. When people complained that they were artificial, they renamed them Human Right. However, changing the name of something doesn't make it more true, or come into existence, or make sense.

We do not realize how nonsensical there because they are embedded in our minds since kindergarten. They are part of the education curriculum, and mass mental tyranny.

People don't really have a chance to even know if they make sense or not. The system is set up in a way that you'd be socially punished for asking too many questions about them, whether it be by the population or authorities.

There are good reasons to be moral, and many of the rational reasons as opposed to ideological would give some similar results, but not the same . One of the problems, is that it is politicians who create policy, not moral philosophers who actually specialized in ethical reasoning. And the politicians are motivated by doing or saying whatever is easiest to get into office, not necessarily what is moral or beneficial, or just. And most voters vote for people who are like themselves, and/or for whatever will benefit themselves. Thus it follows that the voting majority, which consist of the composite minority, (minorities plus women) indirectly, controls the laws, and Rights, to create for themselves, whatever themselves desire.
In addition, the population majority, controls the language, and thus what can be said and communicated, and partially what can be taught and thought.

What was "stealing" becomes called "what was Owed" , what was borrowed becomes "what is deserved". All differences become equal; The "individualist" becomes "the bully", the "free" into the "Communist" and "collectivist", but it's now called, "Socialist". In this kind of system, appearance and images of justice or morality becomes more important than being just or moral. For we can lie, in each other's faces, just don't ask for justification, speak truly about it, nor call them out on being liars , because that is the new "immoral." Or rather, the more popular use of the term at the time.

But what good is a fools words? Take it for what it's worth. Perhaps nothing.. Perhaps..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 9:39:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 8:10:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Their dogmatic religious entities. Based off absolutely nothing.

Indeed, the very notion of human rights as conceived by the West is rooted in Christianity (as is modern Liberalism, and much of contemporary political thought) but the assertion that those rights have a basis in nothing is at once an intellectually precarious statement to make, and one which doesn't actually account for the genealogy of that conception. To say that human rights are nothing, that they are a noble lie, is disingenuous to that end.

Granted, I can't sit here and make a normative argument for a normative belief and present it to you an any terms other than normative terms because any notion of rights is necessarily contingent upon what people at a given time think they ought to be. Right, by necessity then, is something that is inseparable from the context in which the demand for the right emerges. On the one hand you might frame that increasing tendency of people to demand rights as progress, but on the other hand you might call that demanding proclivity modern man's moral deterioration. It just depends on who you ask.

I think, though, that ultimately while rights do evolve in the sense that they change in time and so in response to given circumstances in which rights are demanded, human rights' evolution is itself a problem for those who claim, or would attempt to assert any objective validity to rights in any meaningful sense.

But alas, I don't think that we have to perfectly justify natural rights in any philosophical sense, because of the very nature of rights' evolution -that is, because rights do change in time, it stands to reason that the only real grounding they need to be useful -and I think we can agree that they are useful- is for a lot of people to buy into the idea of them. The vindication that stems from human rights' utility is, in my view at least, sufficient. Attempting to prove them in any objective sense would be as futile as trying to fvck an oak tree.

Ethics is like a really slow progressing science

That is an exceedingly bold claim.

The rights themselves, originally come from God given rights in Christianity, they are supposedly God made laws. but when, supposedly, the church was separated from state, they changed the name to "Natural Rights" to give it a more unbiased appeal. When people complained that they were artificial, they renamed them Human Right. However, changing the name of something doesn't make it more true, or come into existence, or make sense.

I'll agree with you that your account of right's origin (at least in the west) is accurate, but I'll add that natural law -as it is conceived by most of the theologian/philosophers of yesteryear- is nothing less than intellectual smoke in mirrors. The neo-Straussites (those loons in California) seem to have an absolute fetish for natural law, and it's immeasurably irritating, but I digress. There's you're big lie, though.

We do not realize how nonsensical there because they are embedded in our minds since kindergarten. They are part of the education curriculum, and mass mental tyranny.

Would, then, it be your claim that human rights need not be taught? At the risk of sounding inexcusably platonic, do you not accept the real, tangible utility of indoctrinating people to hold certain principles and not others?

People don't really have a chance to even know if they make sense or not. The system is set up in a way that you'd be socially punished for asking too many questions about them, whether it be by the population or authorities.

Oh bullsh!t. People absolutely have the chance to see rights for what it is; because they have the intellectual latitude to question what they're told -although if they don't have the capacity to recognize that opportunity, perhaps it's best they believe the noble lie.

There are good reasons to be moral, and many of the rational reasons as opposed to ideological would give some similar results, but not the same .

Reason and ideology are not necessarily antagonistic.

One of the problems, is that it is politicians who create policy, not moral philosophers who actually specialized in ethical reasoning. And the politicians are motivated by doing or saying whatever is easiest to get into office, not necessarily what is moral or beneficial, or just.

Damn right.

And most voters vote for people who are like themselves, and/or for whatever will benefit themselves. Thus it follows that the voting majority, which consist of the composite minority, (minorities plus women) indirectly, controls the laws, and Rights, to create for themselves, whatever themselves desire.

Damn right.

In addition, the population majority, controls the language, and thus what can be said and communicated, and partially what can be taught and thought.

I'll not comment on this for now.

What was "stealing" becomes called "what was Owed" , what was borrowed becomes "what is deserved". All differences become equal; The "individualist" becomes "the bully", the "free" into the "Communist" and "collectivist", but it's now called, "Socialist". In this kind of system, appearance and images of justice or morality becomes more important than being just or moral. For we can lie, in each other's faces, just don't ask for justification, speak truly about it, nor call them out on being liars , because that is the new "immoral." Or rather, the more popular use of the term at the time.

Oh, you platonist. lol

But what good is a fools words? Take it for what it's worth. Perhaps nothing.. Perhaps..
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 10:12:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
They are baseless

The Fool: If the religious explanation of God is abandoned as a moral theory and the rights are nothing but God's laws which were part of that theory, then they are to be abandoned just as well, they should been gone a long time ago..

Irrational mythologies instead of rational morals, are harmful because it causes people to come to absurd conclusions, which result in stupidity and harm, and when people find out that their nonsensical it backfires into moral skepticism and distrust for others, to find out they were lying , or that they did not know themselves what they were talking about.

It makes people immoral, because they don't do anything moral for the sake of morality but as they are fooled into thinking that there exist these entities, or there exist a God who will hurt them, or they are being threatened by the state.

The more people have committed to absurd assumptions, by action or by long-term belief, the harder it is to for them to let go of them, it has been demonstrated throughout history that people will the quite deceptive do horrible things, even to themselves to keep illusions alive, Anything to avoid being the fool.
<(86)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 10:14:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
On normatively
YWW: "Granted, I can't sit here and make a normative argument for a normative belief and present it to you an any terms other than normative terms because any notion of rights is necessarily contingent upon what people at a given time think they ought to be."

The Fool: What is a normative argument really, other than an argument from popularity? A fallacy, and popularly one. It renders the term" Argument" Meaningless.

Normative is a derivative of normal and likeness.. And what is popular is what is normal. What is normal in one time and place is not what is normal or popular?

Just like Objective, was derived from object LIKE and Subjective from subject, Derived from Substance,

Is like saying it's moral because it's normal, which should sound absurd to you, especially?

Western values are not normal around the world?

And synonymously, It was normal in Germany in a certain time to be a Nazi with Nazi, values.

Therefore it can go BACKWARDs, and does not necessary evolve. As Germany was morally superior to themselves, before Nazi Regime.
That is a refutation, against any normative argument,( unless you have another meaning of normative) and against the lazy claim that they evolve.
Normative Morals will not evolve and unless there are those foolish enough to push, question and challenge every nonsense assertion that comes by.

That is the only way they evolve.
<(86)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 10:17:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
YWW:"At the risk of sounding inexcusably platonic, do you not accept the real, tangible utility of indoctrinating people to hold certain principles and not others?"

The Fool:, That's heavily loaded, and I thought it would be obvious that I am claiming that rational morals are to be taught. As opposed to that which we do not know. Or anything that could not in practice be justified.

YWW. Right, by necessity then, is something that is inseparable from the context in which the demand for the right emerges.
"On the one hand you might frame that increasing tendency of people to demand rights as progress, but on the other hand you might call that demanding proclivity modern man's moral deterioration. "

The Fool: Your backpedaling; and it's circular, and post hoc. In the bad way.

What is "the thing," which is "Rights"?

Which people are you talking about?

The people who've have a mythology brutally branded on their brains from birth, without the possibility of thinking freely, and at the same time, think that they are given a right to their own mind. By the very same branding. Nonsense!

What about those who demand truth, and true Morality.

How can you have justice, without truth?

People, demand what they think makes sense, what they are taught, and they can demand what is false or nonsense. And synonymously what can harm them.

What is good, could never be something people would get rid of if they knew otherwise.
Progress is an increase in something.
And I think I can speak universally in saying nobody would consider progress something which increases suffering and harm. But false reasoning, and false conclusions can lead to harm and suffering, as it has clearly.

Nobody wants to be in a position to intentionally be deceived. For even when people say so, they do so in relation to the worse evil, But never for the sake of deception. And it is the same with suicide, no?

And so a universal good, and synonymously universal morality itself must be synonymously TRUE and Just. That is something we want and would never want to part with, For its own sake. Not to escape the greater evil.

And what are rights for humans if they are not universal to humans. And synonymously not true of humanity..

But they are already called universal now aren't they, and only some people create them, I certainly didn't, I don't know how to do that, perhaps I'm not human, but it nonetheless follows by necessity, without a shadow of a doubt that they are absolutely false, fake, and fraudulent.

Perhaps foolish..

<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 10:21:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: Ethics is like a really slow progressing science

YWW: That is an exceedingly bold claim.

The Fool: I don't make any claims, that I don't already have an argument for, nor do I really keep up opinions , as a treat my opinions or beliefs as temporary and only temporary steppingstones to be refuted for a better one. But never with the intention of keeping it. Ever.

The Fool: I am anti-Physicalism, and use the term Science in its original sense, as Kant would use it, that is "as body or knowledge that can progress through, reasoning, and experience.. Part of my argument was about the control on language, and what can be communicated or said. And one of the tyrannies of language is on the word and expression of "experience". The word experiment is a derivative of Experience+Moment. And empirical is derived from that.

Now, it is obvious to all of us that we experience our dreams emotions and feelings, and not merely smell, touch, hearing, vision, and taste. And no more truly than the other. In fact it is only the five Common senses that can be an error.. As we cannot misfeel a feeling, nor have an illusion that we are feeling as it would either be a feeling or no sensation all. But we can have an illusion of what is allowed and generally spoken of as experience. That is "sense data"..proper. And similarly, I can recognize how I feel in certain situations as opposed to others, in no less of a way, Inductively than any scientific method, proceed to deduce my likelihood, or the causes of my feeling such ways, by comparing one situation with the next. In fact we do it every day, scientific method itself is nothing other than putting down in writing what we do already, without notice, in the most precise and efficient way we can, so we can repeat the very method which we ourselves generate.

Learning language and/or knowing that when you open your door it will open and not be a Worm hole, is known by the very same inductive process. It depends on consistency, consistent uses of the term, with same corresponding Ideas, or effects from the past.

So in so far as we can have knowledge about it and it can progress it's a science..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 11:02:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'll agree with you that your account of right's origin (at least in the west) is accurate, but I'll add that natural law -as it is conceived by most of the theologian/philosophers of yesteryear- is nothing less than intellectual smoke in mirrors.

The Fool: There shouldn't be a mysterious account of the origin, And perhaps it's originally is mysterious, that's all beside the point that we should know what the hell were talking about, when we talk about it.

The right are at best conceptual. A conscious idea.. A concept is simply a fusion of information. In fact, if my foolish memory serves me correctly, it comes right of the Bible from when a man and woman combine to conceive a child. AKA, conception

There Is a Term and its reference.

The only references I know consist of mind or matter.

Matter as in sense data,(smell, touch, sounds, taste, vision. ) and mind as in emotions, ideas( concepts), thoughts, or beliefs. Etc..

So conceiving the Rights differently would be thinking of a different thing altogether, as its absurd to conceive different concepts and have it be the same concepts at the very same time.
And so you cannot misconceived Proper, as many ideologist will claim.
But you can mislabel.

So, If you are to communicate with any efficiency you must hold either the Term or the Concept down, you cannot have them both running around on you, "Like statues of Daedalus." (<----Euthyphro plug)
<(8D)
That is,
If you are using the term X to refer to the conception Y. And someone else is using the term X to refer to the conception Z. then you're not communicating.. Your just using the same term with an illusion that you're communicating.

Similarly , we may have two different words(or more) Eg: P and Q to both refer to W. where we may be under the illusion that were in conflict, but are in fact not as we are just using different Terms to refer to the same thing.

Either way you have to ground what "you mean" or it's useless. It doesn't matter what people have meant it doesn't matter where it came from, if you don't know what you mean then you don't know what you're talking about. That's that.

Perhaps you don't say what you mean, or so mean what you say; nobody can mean what you mean for you.
<(89)

I kid, foolishly.

Now I'm not saying you do or don't, but saying something like it's complex, doesn't say anything, because if you are confused it would appear complex the very same way. It's a fallacy anyways, ( it's not black and white).

E.g
The Sophists: Its true

The Fool: why is that?

The Sophists: it's not black or white.

The Fool: ????!!!!???

Besides it shouldn't be complex, if it is supposed to be something that every person is to be following, especially if it is really supposed to be something that is in humans, that is, something we have, it almost seems like it would be impossible to not know.

But if we were to ask people, hardly anybody actually know what they infact are, they refer to someone else, and they think knows, or else they just become hostile, and begin to threaten, like any religion; often in the form of social torture. If anybody knows, they have a tight lock on that knowledge, an esoteric knowledge that only politician seem to possess, to themselves, for themselves. which is somehow supposed to be universal?

The fool say; No F-u-c-k-i-n-g Way! Its malignant monkey man mind rape madness! There's nothing intelligent about it. For they must think as monkeys to believe it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 11:48:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
YWW: I think, though, that ultimately while rights do evolve in the sense that they change in time and so in response to given circumstances in which rights are demanded, human rights' evolution is itself a problem for those who claim, or would attempt to assert any objective validity to rights in any meaningful sense.
Attempting to prove them in any objective sense would be as futile as trying to fvck an oak tree.

The Fool: it's easy just refute subjective relevance, in the matter.
To refute subjective truth, or rather to refute its relevance, all you need to do is ask them what they mean by truth. If they say something else, then we know what they mean. And the notion of subjectivity is irrelevant.

A belief is by nature subjective, the question is what "is" it they believe, That is what is the thing "being believed". For what I believe is not the same as the thing "being believed." or thought to be the case. Whether it is the case that there is a counterpart which I assert with my belief, is not dependent solely on my belief. For I may believe that you are feeling sad, or glad, and this subjective property and by believe can be true or false, and no more true or false, then my belief that there exist a moon. Whether it is objective or subjective is irrelevant to whether it is true.

The Fool's famous (to himself) closet argument.

And what is subjectively the case anyway?

Perhaps subjective is something which can only be known to the person, it's private., "Which is really another word for I don't want you to know..or to know that I don't know"

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. Perhaps at home I have a closet, an impenetrable mystery closet. And I have the key, the only key, it's a mystery key. And only I can open it mysteriously, and only I could know mysteries are in there.

Nonetheless, whatever is in my closet, is in my closet, I can rename what's in there, and call it and define it, for myself, to myself, whatever my self's desire. And even myself..
<(89)

I can believe anything I want, and know what I want, about what's in my mystery closet of subjectivity. But nonetheless, what is in my closet. Is in my closet. That is , regardless what I believe or what I say, or what I know to be in my closet, or what I want, what is in my closet, IS, WHAT IS IN MY CLOSET!

That is, whether it's subjective or objective, it has no bearing on whether it is the case, that is whether it is true or not. So subjective truth is completely trivial and adds nothing nor changes nothing to truth.

Straight from the hill! To and through, The preachers of selfishism; Kierkegaard. His S-h-i-t-t-y reasoning, And his Sophist disciples.

And right back to The Fool.
<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL