Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rights

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:20:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are two main types of Rights; Legal Rights, and Natural Rights... Human Rights is a whole other topic, and may either be natural rights or legally declared rights.

Legal Rights are derived from Human Laws, while Natural Rights are derived from Natural Laws. Human Laws are established by Societal Customs, whereas Natural Laws are established by Human Nature.
http://www.debate.org...

Legal Rights are subjective, as they are ultimately derived from Societal Customs, which are by it's very nature subjective. Natural Rights are objective, as they are ultimately derived from Human Nature, which is objective.

Legal Rights, and of course Human Laws, does not always reinforce Natural Rights and Natural Laws.

Natural Laws are what governed man before the introduction of governments. Natural Laws are derived from human nature, but not every human instinct constitutes a natural law, just as not all natural laws constitute a natural right. Same goes for the source of legal rights; not all human laws establishes a legal right, nor does all societal customs constitute a human law.

Natural Laws do not contradict each other. Humans typically agree murder is unacceptable, as do we agree theft is unacceptable; this comes from human survival instincts, as well as the instinct all humans have to acquire and posses property; thus it is human nature to be against murder and theft, establishing such natural laws. Out of such natural laws, we obtain the natural right to life, and property.
There may be other natural laws which do not constitute rights. It is a natural human instinct to be against cannibalism, although some human cultures have grown to adopt cannibalistic traditions, in order to deal with their deceased, or fallen enemies; instinctively humans are repulsed by cannibalism. This is an example of how human nature, and natural laws, do not always coincide with societal customs and human laws.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:30:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:20:01 PM, DanT wrote:
There are two main types of Rights; Legal Rights, and Natural Rights... Human Rights is a whole other topic, and may either be natural rights or legally declared rights.

Legal Rights are derived from Human Laws, while Natural Rights are derived from Natural Laws. Human Laws are established by Societal Customs, whereas Natural Laws are established by Human Nature.
http://www.debate.org...

1. "Natural Laws" aren't a thing.

2. You're just arbitrarily insisting on the nature/culture, natural life/political life distinction. You can't just assume that fracture as a starting point, though. It's bad ontology.

3. Human rights and natural rights are, historically, the same thing. It's just that "Human rights" are literally the politicized, culturalized version of natural rights. Nature is what's excluded from politics/society, and society is what extricates and separates itself from the natural. But then, when society appropriates the natural for its own use (through subjection to and foundation of state power), you get stuff like "Human rights" which, while being tied to the biological fact of being a living human, are only preserved when they can assume the form of rights belonging to a subject of a particular state.

Legal Rights are subjective, as they are ultimately derived from Societal Customs, which are by it's very nature subjective. Natural Rights are objective, as they are ultimately derived from Human Nature, which is objective.

It turns out you can't derive natural rights from anything.

Legal Rights, and of course Human Laws, does not always reinforce Natural Rights and Natural Laws.

Natural Laws are what governed man before the introduction of governments. Natural Laws are derived from human nature, but not every human instinct constitutes a natural law, just as not all natural laws constitute a natural right. Same goes for the source of legal rights; not all human laws establishes a legal right, nor does all societal customs constitute a human law.

Natural Laws do not contradict each other. Humans typically agree murder is unacceptable, as do we agree theft is unacceptable; this comes from human survival instincts, as well as the instinct all humans have to acquire and posses property; thus it is human nature to be against murder and theft, establishing such natural laws. Out of such natural laws, we obtain the natural right to life, and property.

No you don't.

There may be other natural laws which do not constitute rights. It is a natural human instinct to be against cannibalism, although some human cultures have grown to adopt cannibalistic traditions, in order to deal with their deceased, or fallen enemies; instinctively humans are repulsed by cannibalism. This is an example of how human nature, and natural laws, do not always coincide with societal customs and human laws.

That sounds arbitrary. It's such confirmation bias: use whatever "natural laws" are preserved by social custom to demonstrate your conclusion; dismiss whatever "natural laws" are contradicted or abandoned by social custom. You can't lose.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:40:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You never answered my rebuttal to your earlier claim of deriving natural rights from entitlement. Its relevant to this topic as to the validity of claiming a set of propositions constitute "natural rights" which are defined as true and involving a normative component.

"Conjuring up the operator "entitled" does not free you from Hume's normative constraints.

Let's say one man says "A right exists to kill anyone who has something you want" and a second says "A right exists to maintain freedom of expression." Both claim that they are entitled to said rights.

How do you determine that the first man is "incorrect" and the second man is "correct" in their propositions of what right they are "entitled" to? Essentially, WHY are men entitled to specifically "life, liberty, aquiring/owning property" and not entitled to "killing everyone that has what you want?" It is quite easy to imagine a man who reasons that because he was born/gained the strength needed to overpower others, he is entitled to use that strength as he wishes.

Secondly, let's assume for a moment that a "right to life exists." How do you get from there to "you ought not violate someone's rights" or even "rights ought to be relevant when determining courses of action?"
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:52:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Basically what Wnope and Cody said. Furthermore you never answered my own question from the previous thread on the topic. How do you derive any normative intent of your supposed conception of human nature? How do you go from "People are like this." to "People are entitled to this."? Hume's problem is with any normative statement and the claim of rights clearly is.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:52:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:30:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:20:01 PM, DanT wrote:
There are two main types of Rights; Legal Rights, and Natural Rights... Human Rights is a whole other topic, and may either be natural rights or legally declared rights.

Legal Rights are derived from Human Laws, while Natural Rights are derived from Natural Laws. Human Laws are established by Societal Customs, whereas Natural Laws are established by Human Nature.
http://www.debate.org...

1. "Natural Laws" aren't a thing.

Yes they are. If I said "Legal laws" aren't a thing, I'm not really making an argument, I'm just making an assertion. Please refrain from making assertions.
2. You're just arbitrarily insisting on the nature/culture, natural life/political life distinction. You can't just assume that fracture as a starting point, though. It's bad ontology.

In your opinion. Please explain how your opinion is right, rather than simply asserting it.
3. Human rights and natural rights are, historically, the same thing. It's just that "Human rights" are literally the politicized, culturalized version of natural rights. Nature is what's excluded from politics/society, and society is what extricates and separates itself from the natural. But then, when society appropriates the natural for its own use (through subjection to and foundation of state power), you get stuff like "Human rights" which, while being tied to the biological fact of being a living human, are only preserved when they can assume the form of rights belonging to a subject of a particular state.

China has claimed the US has violated human rights by allowing the possession of fire arms. Consequentially that means we are violating human rights by exercising our natural rights.
Human rights are often based in Natural Rights, but in many cases they are based in legal rights. Likewise many legal rights are based in natural rights, which is the only way governments may enforce natural rights, as governments are only bound to legal rights, even though they are established for the protection of natural rights.

Legal Rights are subjective, as they are ultimately derived from Societal Customs, which are by it's very nature subjective. Natural Rights are objective, as they are ultimately derived from Human Nature, which is objective.

It turns out you can't derive natural rights from anything.

Assertion.
Legal Rights, and of course Human Laws, does not always reinforce Natural Rights and Natural Laws.

Natural Laws are what governed man before the introduction of governments. Natural Laws are derived from human nature, but not every human instinct constitutes a natural law, just as not all natural laws constitute a natural right. Same goes for the source of legal rights; not all human laws establishes a legal right, nor does all societal customs constitute a human law.

Natural Laws do not contradict each other. Humans typically agree murder is unacceptable, as do we agree theft is unacceptable; this comes from human survival instincts, as well as the instinct all humans have to acquire and posses property; thus it is human nature to be against murder and theft, establishing such natural laws. Out of such natural laws, we obtain the natural right to life, and property.

No you don't.

Assertion.
There may be other natural laws which do not constitute rights. It is a natural human instinct to be against cannibalism, although some human cultures have grown to adopt cannibalistic traditions, in order to deal with their deceased, or fallen enemies; instinctively humans are repulsed by cannibalism. This is an example of how human nature, and natural laws, do not always coincide with societal customs and human laws.

That sounds arbitrary. It's such confirmation bias: use whatever "natural laws" are preserved by social custom to demonstrate your conclusion; dismiss whatever "natural laws" are contradicted or abandoned by social custom. You can't lose.

Humans instinctually do not eat other humans. It fills most of us with horror and revulsion. Like incest, cannibalism is something people reject as repugnant but have a hard time giving good reasons why.

"According to instinct and tradition, cannibalism is viewed as morally wrong, even when there are no bad consequences. Instinct and tradition in this case are a reliable guide. Cannibalism is at best highly inappropriate if not universally offensive.

Cannibalism devalues human life. If we regularly ate our dead we might come to see humans as no different than animals. To devalue human life would potentially produce bad long term consequences. It is therefore wrong to eat humans."

"When there are conflicts of rights, responsibilities, or interests between the living and the dead we should privilege the living. Only the living have rights to be respected, interests to be furthered, and happiness that can be increased or decreased. If the only way to avoid starvation is to eat a dead person then it is morally permissible to do so.... Survival cannibalism is generally viewed as regrettable but permissible. Only psychopathological cannibalism and non-consensual consumption of human flesh from a living person are wrong.

If cannibalism means eating the flesh of your own species then many people around the world commonly practice cannibalism when they eat human placentas. If there is nothing intuitively outrageous about eating placentas then there is nothing intuitively outrageous about cannibalism.

Some cultures perform ritualistic cannibalism as a part of burial ceremonies. Others for medicinal purposes. In these cultures, eating dead humans is considered appropriate on some occasions – even the respectful way to honor human dignity.

Eating human muscle tissues grown in cell cultures would neither cause harm nor violate rights. Eating in vitro human meat is morally permissible."

http://www.food.unt.edu...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:54:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:40:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
You never answered my rebuttal to your earlier claim of deriving natural rights from entitlement.

Maybe because I never claimed rights are derived from entitlements, I claimed they are entitlements.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:55:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:52:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Basically what Wnope and Cody said. Furthermore you never answered my own question from the previous thread on the topic. How do you derive any normative intent of your supposed conception of human nature? How do you go from "People are like this." to "People are entitled to this."? Hume's problem is with any normative statement and the claim of rights clearly is.

Actually I did, but you kept asking the same question. I don't like repeating myself. I should only have to say something once.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:59:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:54:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:40:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
You never answered my rebuttal to your earlier claim of deriving natural rights from entitlement.

Maybe because I never claimed rights are derived from entitlements, I claimed they are entitlements.

Then feel free to respond to the post while substituting derived from entitlement to is entitlement.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:03:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:52:37 PM, DanT wrote:

Humans instinctually do not eat other humans. It fills most of us with horror and revulsion. Like incest, cannibalism is something people reject as repugnant but have a hard time giving good reasons why.

"According to instinct and tradition, cannibalism is viewed as morally wrong, even when there are no bad consequences. Instinct and tradition in this case are a reliable guide. Cannibalism is at best highly inappropriate if not universally offensive.

Assertion. Yes it's viewed as wrong but no justification is actually provided for tradition or instinct being correct. You're basing all of this off of subjective feelings towards the subject which can mostly be described by evolution's effects on our behavior.

Cannibalism devalues human life. If we regularly ate our dead we might come to see humans as no different than animals. To devalue human life would potentially produce bad long term consequences. It is therefore wrong to eat humans."

First you're assuming that there's moral differentiation between humans and animals. Second, you assume objective value in human life. Third, you assume consequentialism as an ethical system. Three assumptions and no backing up any of it.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:03:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:55:13 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:52:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Basically what Wnope and Cody said. Furthermore you never answered my own question from the previous thread on the topic. How do you derive any normative intent of your supposed conception of human nature? How do you go from "People are like this." to "People are entitled to this."? Hume's problem is with any normative statement and the claim of rights clearly is.

Actually I did, but you kept asking the same question. I don't like repeating myself. I should only have to say something once.

Oh please humor me at least this once.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:10:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:03:15 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:52:37 PM, DanT wrote:

Humans instinctually do not eat other humans. It fills most of us with horror and revulsion. Like incest, cannibalism is something people reject as repugnant but have a hard time giving good reasons why.

"According to instinct and tradition, cannibalism is viewed as morally wrong, even when there are no bad consequences. Instinct and tradition in this case are a reliable guide. Cannibalism is at best highly inappropriate if not universally offensive.

Assertion. Yes it's viewed as wrong but no justification is actually provided for tradition or instinct being correct. You're basing all of this off of subjective feelings towards the subject which can mostly be described by evolution's effects on our behavior.
Instinct isn't subjective, it's objective. Tradition is subjective. That's why Legal laws are subjective, whereas natural laws are objective.

Cannibalism devalues human life. If we regularly ate our dead we might come to see humans as no different than animals. To devalue human life would potentially produce bad long term consequences. It is therefore wrong to eat humans."

First you're assuming that there's moral differentiation between humans and animals.
No, I'm assuming people instinctively differentiate between animals and humans.
Second, you assume objective value in human life.
Expand on that a bit, as it's too vague for me to accurately respond to.
Third, you assume consequentialism as an ethical system.
I am not arguing ethics, I'm arguing rights. The two are not the same thing; A right is not the same as being right.
Three assumptions and no backing up any of it.

I'm not assuming anything. You are responding to a quote, which I provided a source for. I did not know I had to provide a source for a source; that would create a never ending paradox of sources.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:17:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:54:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:40:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
You never answered my rebuttal to your earlier claim of deriving natural rights from entitlement.

Maybe because I never claimed rights are derived from entitlements, I claimed they are entitlements.

you never responded to my critique in which I explained that saying you're naturally Disposed to Want something is QUITE different from saying your 'naturally entitled' to that something.

The only sensible manner of using 'naturally entitled' to something would be to mean that someone's naturally Able to get it.

If I am naturally able to take "your" property or your life... Then I suppose I'm Entitled to it/have a Natural Right to it ;)

Provide some better Explanation for what you mean by Naturally Entitlements and how they come from Natural Dispositions.. (keeping the word "entitlement" meaningful of course)
Or... STFU.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:17:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:10:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:03:15 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:52:37 PM, DanT wrote:

Humans instinctually do not eat other humans. It fills most of us with horror and revulsion. Like incest, cannibalism is something people reject as repugnant but have a hard time giving good reasons why.

"According to instinct and tradition, cannibalism is viewed as morally wrong, even when there are no bad consequences. Instinct and tradition in this case are a reliable guide. Cannibalism is at best highly inappropriate if not universally offensive.

Assertion. Yes it's viewed as wrong but no justification is actually provided for tradition or instinct being correct. You're basing all of this off of subjective feelings towards the subject which can mostly be described by evolution's effects on our behavior.
Instinct isn't subjective, it's objective. Tradition is subjective. That's why Legal laws are subjective, whereas natural laws are objective.

Wut. You're basing your claim on instincts regarding what is proper or improper, right or wrong. I don't mean that it's not objective that we have instincts, I mean it's not objective that those instincts reflect any moral or ethical properties.

Cannibalism devalues human life. If we regularly ate our dead we might come to see humans as no different than animals. To devalue human life would potentially produce bad long term consequences. It is therefore wrong to eat humans."

First you're assuming that there's moral differentiation between humans and animals.
No, I'm assuming people instinctively differentiate between animals and humans.

Still just an assertion with no relevant moral reasoning.

Second, you assume objective value in human life.
Expand on that a bit, as it's too vague for me to accurately respond to.

You said "Cannibalism devalues human life." which assumes value to begin with. Show how there is objectively anything valuable about life.

Third, you assume consequentialism as an ethical system.
I am not arguing ethics, I'm arguing rights. The two are not the same thing; A right is not the same as being right.

You still assume consequentialism though. Its' the same thing. You're arguing that something leads to Z consequences and Z consequences are bad without warrant as to why you use consequentialism as your measuring stick for this in the first place.

Three assumptions and no backing up any of it.

I'm not assuming anything. You are responding to a quote, which I provided a source for. I did not know I had to provide a source for a source; that would create a never ending paradox of sources.

I mean reasoning behind the conclusions and assumptions, not necessarily more sources.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:23:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How do Entitlements come from Dispositions?

You jump from one to the other as if they're analogous.. or are so intimately connected to one another that there's no reason to explain why the one necessarily follows the other.

The two are not analogous and they are not so intimately connected.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:25:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:23:34 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
How do Entitlements come from Dispositions?

You jump from one to the other as if they're analogous.. or are so intimately connected to one another that there's no reason to explain why the one necessarily follows the other.

The two are not analogous and they are not so intimately connected.


so long as you keep the words meaningful at least...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:28:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:52:37 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:30:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
1. "Natural Laws" aren't a thing.

Yes they are. If I said "Legal laws" aren't a thing, I'm not really making an argument, I'm just making an assertion. Please refrain from making assertions.

I'm making counter-assertions, actually. You're just saying "such and such IS this, IS that, comes from this, durka durka." I'm challenging your assertion by asserting the opposite, as I do in several other places.

2. You're just arbitrarily insisting on the nature/culture, natural life/political life distinction. You can't just assume that fracture as a starting point, though. It's bad ontology.
In your opinion. Please explain how your opinion is right, rather than simply
asserting it.

Because it's arbitrary? There isn't an ontological difference between "nature" and "culture", or "natural life" and "political life", or "Man" and "animals". It's just a bullsh*t distinction that's been around since Aristotle that Western philosophers have left largely unchallenged. It's just a presupposed state of affairs.

3. Human rights and natural rights are, historically, the same thing. It's just that "Human rights" are literally the politicized, culturalized version of natural rights. Nature is what's excluded from politics/society, and society is what extricates and separates itself from the natural. But then, when society appropriates the natural for its own use (through subjection to and foundation of state power), you get stuff like "Human rights" which, while being tied to the biological fact of being a living human, are only preserved when they can assume the form of rights belonging to a subject of a particular state.

China has claimed the US has violated human rights by allowing the possession of fire arms.

K? All that demonstrates is that "human rights" is also rhetoric that's used to justify soft geopolitics. So?

Consequentially that means we are violating human rights by exercising our natural rights.

"China claims we're violating HR by allowing weapons; therefore, we're violating HR."

mfw you at the same time assert this and presuppose that natural rights exist: http://www.myfacewhen.com...

Human rights are often based in Natural Rights, but in many cases they are based in legal rights.

Duh. Politicization of natural rights --> human rights. We should totes stop pretending like they're meta-juridical values that bind the state, and just look at the actual function that they've served i.e., the capture by the state of natural, apolitical life. They're rights that we get to claim precisely because we are biologically human. If you're not getting that modern states found themselves on politicizing natural life (through things like citizenship, declarations of rights, the tying together of sovereignty with birth (i.e., nationality), then I feel like you're just failing.

Likewise many legal rights are based in natural rights, which is the only way governments may enforce natural rights, as governments are only bound to legal rights, even though they are established for the protection of natural rights.

See? Told you.

It turns out you can't derive natural rights from anything.

Assertion.

Nope. Hume's guillotine, bro. You can't just derive normative stuff because of what you just presuppose "human nature", whatever that means, is like.

Out of such natural laws, we obtain the natural right to life, and property.

No you don't.

Assertion.

Counter-assertion, actually. Stop presupposing that natural rights/law/whatever exist(s), and demonstrate it. You've just got this huge ontology that you assume we all accept. Except, I don't accept.


That sounds arbitrary. It's such confirmation bias: use whatever "natural laws" are preserved by social custom to demonstrate your conclusion; dismiss whatever "natural laws" are contradicted or abandoned by social custom. You can't lose.

Humans instinctually do not eat other humans.

It fills most of us with horror and revulsion. Like incest, cannibalism is something people reject as repugnant but have a hard time giving good reasons why.

"According to instinct and tradition, cannibalism is viewed as morally wrong, even when there are no bad consequences. Instinct and tradition in this case are a reliable guide. Cannibalism is at best highly inappropriate if not universally offensive.

So, a lot of people think that cannibalism is icky; therefore, cannibalism is wrong? Derp derp derp arbitrary.

Cannibalism devalues human life.

Human life ain't got no intrinsic value, son. Presupposing sh*t again, I see.

If we regularly ate our dead we might come to see humans as no different than animals.

F*CKING EXACTLY. Presupposing the distinction between "Man" and "animals" like it's some transcendent ontological fact. Turns out, "Man" is just a fake category that we invented to determine who's in and who's out, who lives, who dies.

To devalue human life would potentially produce bad long term consequences. It is therefore wrong to eat humans."

That's the worst argument I've ever heard. You can't just derive "it's wrong" from "un-preferable stuff could happen". See? Everything you're saying is arbitrary.

"When there are conflicts of rights, responsibilities, or interests between the living and the dead we should privilege the living.

Presupposes that "rights" exist, and that responsibility is part of a legitimate moral ontology.

Only the living have rights to be respected, interests to be furthered, and happiness that can be increased or decreased. If the only way to avoid starvation is to eat a dead person then it is morally permissible to do so.... Survival cannibalism is generally viewed as regrettable but permissible. Only psychopathological cannibalism and non-consensual consumption of human flesh from a living person are wrong.

That's all assumed, too. It's just anchored to transcendental crap about intrinsic value of life and stuff, but it's all just assumed because most people don't have the balls to disagree, since they'll probably be ostracized.

If cannibalism means eating the flesh of your own species then many people around the world commonly practice cannibalism when they eat human placentas. If there is nothing intuitively outrageous about eating placentas then there is nothing intuitively outrageous about cannibalism.

Some cultures perform ritualistic cannibalism as a part of burial ceremonies. Others for medicinal purposes. In these cultures, eating dead humans is considered appropriate on some occasions – even the respectful way to honor human dignity.

Too bad "human dignity" is just a fiction we invented because our species is composed of stuck-up retards.

Eating human muscle tissues grown in cell cultures would neither cause harm nor violate rights. Eating in vitro human meat is morally permissible."

http://www.food.unt.edu...

K, whatever.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:30:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:03:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:55:13 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:52:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Basically what Wnope and Cody said. Furthermore you never answered my own question from the previous thread on the topic. How do you derive any normative intent of your supposed conception of human nature? How do you go from "People are like this." to "People are entitled to this."? Hume's problem is with any normative statement and the claim of rights clearly is.

Actually I did, but you kept asking the same question. I don't like repeating myself. I should only have to say something once.

Oh please humor me at least this once.

Well if you read my original post before responding to it, you may get an answer.

Once again, all laws are based in morals, whether it be legal or natural. Rights are not based on morals, but rather based on laws, and some laws are immoral even though they are based on morals.

Take for example, Legal Laws. Legal laws are based on subjective morals, and there are two types of subjective morals; self-morality, and social-morality. Self morality is based on personal values, whereas social morality is based on cultural values.
Legal Laws may coincide with the personal value of a politician, but not with the cultural values of the community; legal laws may likewise coincide with the cultural values of the community, but not the personal values of the politician. Because of this, Laws may be immoral, even thought they are based on morals.
http://www.debate.org...

Now, crossing over into Natural Laws; Natural laws are based on Cosmic-morality; that is morals which are universally recognized. If humans have an instinct to be disgusted by certain behavior, than those are a natural set of values, which is universal for humanity.
http://www.debate.org...
Cosmic Morals may not agree with cultural morals. For example, a culture may over time develop cannibalistic tendencies due to isolated factors within their society. Tribes that lack a sufficient source of protein have historically become cannibalistic tribes, as it benefited the living members of the community to eat the dead, or eat foreigners. Our instincts to survive is greater than our instincts to despise cannibalism; as such we instinctively view cannibalism as immoral, but we also have instinctive exceptions. When an exception is made continuously over a period of time, it becomes engrained in the culture, making something which is naturally immoral, culturally acceptable.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:35:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, it's funny because, you presuppose that "human nature" is a thing, but the whole point of challenging the nature/culture distinction is to demonstrate that "human nature" isn't some separate, isolated thing that exists independent of social experience. It's sort of like technology. We like to think that technology is an exteriority, but, in fact, the history of things demonstrates that technology is, in fact, co-constitutive with us. Things like cooking, agriculture? Those are technologies, and they're inextricably linked to "the human", even though we try to situate technology as outside of us.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:37:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:30:36 PM, DanT wrote:

Well if you read my original post before responding to it, you may get an answer.

Once again, all laws are based in morals, whether it be legal or natural. Rights are not based on morals, but rather based on laws, and some laws are immoral even though they are based on morals.

What you're claiming.
>Laws based on morals.
>Right based on laws.
>Rights are not based on morals.
Isn't that like contradictory?

Take for example, Legal Laws. Legal laws are based on subjective morals, and there are two types of subjective morals; self-morality, and social-morality. Self morality is based on personal values, whereas social morality is based on cultural values.

I know dat.

Legal Laws may coincide with the personal value of a politician, but not with the cultural values of the community; legal laws may likewise coincide with the cultural values of the community, but not the personal values of the politician. Because of this, Laws may be immoral, even thought they are based on morals.
http://www.debate.org...

Der yes.


Now, crossing over into Natural Laws; Natural laws are based on Cosmic-morality; that is morals which are universally recognized. If humans have an instinct to be disgusted by certain behavior, than those are a natural set of values, which is universal for humanity.
http://www.debate.org...

That doesn't mean those values are objective in the ontological sense, just that they are shared. Universal subjectivity doesn't translate to ontological objectivity.

Cosmic Morals may not agree with cultural morals. For example, a culture may over time develop cannibalistic tendencies due to isolated factors within their society. Tribes that lack a sufficient source of protein have historically become cannibalistic tribes, as it benefited the living members of the community to eat the dead, or eat foreigners. Our instincts to survive is greater than our instincts to despise cannibalism; as such we instinctively view cannibalism as immoral, but we also have instinctive exceptions. When an exception is made continuously over a period of time, it becomes engrained in the culture, making something which is naturally immoral, culturally acceptable.

So does that mean we have a right to survive at all costs since it's the most base instinct?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:45:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:17:25 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:10:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:03:15 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:52:37 PM, DanT wrote:

Humans instinctually do not eat other humans. It fills most of us with horror and revulsion. Like incest, cannibalism is something people reject as repugnant but have a hard time giving good reasons why.

"According to instinct and tradition, cannibalism is viewed as morally wrong, even when there are no bad consequences. Instinct and tradition in this case are a reliable guide. Cannibalism is at best highly inappropriate if not universally offensive.

Assertion. Yes it's viewed as wrong but no justification is actually provided for tradition or instinct being correct. You're basing all of this off of subjective feelings towards the subject which can mostly be described by evolution's effects on our behavior.
Instinct isn't subjective, it's objective. Tradition is subjective. That's why Legal laws are subjective, whereas natural laws are objective.

Wut. You're basing your claim on instincts regarding what is proper or improper, right or wrong. I don't mean that it's not objective that we have instincts, I mean it's not objective that those instincts reflect any moral or ethical properties.

For the millionth time Being Right is not the same thing as Having a Right.

Morals are nothing more than a set of values.
Subjective morals are based on the values of the community, or the personal values of an individual.
Objective values are based on a set of instinctive values, encoded into out DNA.

Instinctive values does not always match up with cultural or personal values. I have an instinct to eat meat, yet I'm a vegetarian. Instinctively, eating meat is moral, personally it is not. One has a natural right to eat meat, but if I was a dictator I may choose to outlaw meat based products, as that is what my personal values dictates is right.

Rights are based on laws, laws are based on morals, but laws can be immoral.
http://www.debate.org...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:47:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:37:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:30:36 PM, DanT wrote:

Well if you read my original post before responding to it, you may get an answer.

Once again, all laws are based in morals, whether it be legal or natural. Rights are not based on morals, but rather based on laws, and some laws are immoral even though they are based on morals.

What you're claiming.
>Laws based on morals.
>Right based on laws.
>Rights are not based on morals.
Isn't that like contradictory?
You didn't listen to what I said.

Although Laws are based on Morals, Laws an be immoral.
Here is a Venn Diagram to help explain.
http://www.debate.org...


Take for example, Legal Laws. Legal laws are based on subjective morals, and there are two types of subjective morals; self-morality, and social-morality. Self morality is based on personal values, whereas social morality is based on cultural values.

I know dat.

Legal Laws may coincide with the personal value of a politician, but not with the cultural values of the community; legal laws may likewise coincide with the cultural values of the community, but not the personal values of the politician. Because of this, Laws may be immoral, even thought they are based on morals.
http://www.debate.org...

Der yes.


Now, crossing over into Natural Laws; Natural laws are based on Cosmic-morality; that is morals which are universally recognized. If humans have an instinct to be disgusted by certain behavior, than those are a natural set of values, which is universal for humanity.
http://www.debate.org...

That doesn't mean those values are objective in the ontological sense, just that they are shared. Universal subjectivity doesn't translate to ontological objectivity.

Cosmic Morals may not agree with cultural morals. For example, a culture may over time develop cannibalistic tendencies due to isolated factors within their society. Tribes that lack a sufficient source of protein have historically become cannibalistic tribes, as it benefited the living members of the community to eat the dead, or eat foreigners. Our instincts to survive is greater than our instincts to despise cannibalism; as such we instinctively view cannibalism as immoral, but we also have instinctive exceptions. When an exception is made continuously over a period of time, it becomes engrained in the culture, making something which is naturally immoral, culturally acceptable.

So does that mean we have a right to survive at all costs since it's the most base instinct?

Yes, we have a natural right to life; we don't have a natural right to not be eaten after we die.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:50:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:23:34 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
How do Entitlements come from Dispositions?

You jump from one to the other as if they're analogous.. or are so intimately connected to one another that there's no reason to explain why the one necessarily follows the other.

The two are not analogous and they are not so intimately connected.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:51:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Instincts are by definition objective, as it's not based on personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. If one is purely driven by instinct, they are on autopilot.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:52:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:45:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:17:25 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:10:31 PM, DanT wrote:
Instinct isn't subjective, it's objective. Tradition is subjective. That's why Legal laws are subjective, whereas natural laws are objective.

Wut. You're basing your claim on instincts regarding what is proper or improper, right or wrong. I don't mean that it's not objective that we have instincts, I mean it's not objective that those instincts reflect any moral or ethical properties.

For the millionth time Being Right is not the same thing as Having a Right.

Morals are nothing more than a set of values.
Subjective morals are based on the values of the community, or the personal values of an individual.
Objective values are based on a set of instinctive values, encoded into out DNA.

Instinctive values does not always match up with cultural or personal values. I have an instinct to eat meat, yet I'm a vegetarian. Instinctively, eating meat is moral, personally it is not. One has a natural right to eat meat, but if I was a dictator I may choose to outlaw meat based products, as that is what my personal values dictates is right.

Rights are based on laws, laws are based on morals, but laws can be immoral.
http://www.debate.org...

While the distinction is noted, you're still failing to justify the actual rights part of the issue. As in how you derive rights or entitlements from the mere is of human nature.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:53:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:50:02 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:23:34 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
How do Entitlements come from Dispositions?

You jump from one to the other as if they're analogous.. or are so intimately connected to one another that there's no reason to explain why the one necessarily follows the other.

The two are not analogous and they are not so intimately connected.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:00:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:50:02 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:23:34 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
How do Entitlements come from Dispositions?

You jump from one to the other as if they're analogous.. or are so intimately connected to one another that there's no reason to explain why the one necessarily follows the other.

The two are not analogous and they are not so intimately connected.

already explained this.
If I am deprived of my liberty, I can go insane. People who are enslaved will instinctively try to escape, or create an uprising. Before government, people were naturally acquiring property, people were naturally free, and of course people were alive. When people within the community began to violate others natural rights, through murder, theft, and bondage, governments were instituted so to prevent these social taboos; government's sole purpose being to protect people from a violation of their natural rights, and the enforcement of natural laws. The governments than began creating legal laws based on natural laws so that natural laws may be enforced. Governments than began to create additional laws, in accordance with personal or cultural values, which differed from the natural values.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:02:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 2:00:25 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:50:02 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:23:34 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
How do Entitlements come from Dispositions?

You jump from one to the other as if they're analogous.. or are so intimately connected to one another that there's no reason to explain why the one necessarily follows the other.

The two are not analogous and they are not so intimately connected.

already explained this.
If I am deprived of my liberty, I can go insane. People who are enslaved will instinctively try to escape, or create an uprising. Before government, people were naturally acquiring property, people were naturally free, and of course people were alive. When people within the community began to violate others natural rights,

Stop right there, we're arguing about natural rights. What you just described was a natural inclination to do certain things. Establish entitlement brah.

through murder, theft, and bondage, governments were instituted so to prevent these social taboos; government's sole purpose being to protect people from a violation of their natural rights, and the enforcement of natural laws. The governments than began creating legal laws based on natural laws so that natural laws may be enforced. Governments than began to create additional laws, in accordance with personal or cultural values, which differed from the natural values.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:02:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:52:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:45:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:17:25 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:10:31 PM, DanT wrote:
Instinct isn't subjective, it's objective. Tradition is subjective. That's why Legal laws are subjective, whereas natural laws are objective.

Wut. You're basing your claim on instincts regarding what is proper or improper, right or wrong. I don't mean that it's not objective that we have instincts, I mean it's not objective that those instincts reflect any moral or ethical properties.

For the millionth time Being Right is not the same thing as Having a Right.

Morals are nothing more than a set of values.
Subjective morals are based on the values of the community, or the personal values of an individual.
Objective values are based on a set of instinctive values, encoded into out DNA.

Instinctive values does not always match up with cultural or personal values. I have an instinct to eat meat, yet I'm a vegetarian. Instinctively, eating meat is moral, personally it is not. One has a natural right to eat meat, but if I was a dictator I may choose to outlaw meat based products, as that is what my personal values dictates is right.

Rights are based on laws, laws are based on morals, but laws can be immoral.
http://www.debate.org...

While the distinction is noted, you're still failing to justify the actual rights part of the issue. As in how you derive rights or entitlements from the mere is of human nature.

Natural laws are based on natural values; if it's a natural value that we are entitled to life, than we have a natural right to life.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:08:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 2:02:40 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:52:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:

While the distinction is noted, you're still failing to justify the actual rights part of the issue. As in how you derive rights or entitlements from the mere is of human nature.

Natural laws are based on natural values; if it's a natural value that we are entitled to life, than we have a natural right to life.

Except for that values are inherently subjective. While it's objective that we have values and we can value objective things (like health or life), that doesn't mean that those values in themselves have any real normative content. They're just feelings.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:16:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 2:08:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 2:02:40 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:52:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:

While the distinction is noted, you're still failing to justify the actual rights part of the issue. As in how you derive rights or entitlements from the mere is of human nature.

Natural laws are based on natural values; if it's a natural value that we are entitled to life, than we have a natural right to life.

Except for that values are inherently subjective. While it's objective that we have values and we can value objective things (like health or life), that doesn't mean that those values in themselves have any real normative content. They're just feelings.

Instinctive value are objective, because it requires no thought, no bias, no personal opinions, and it requires no interpretation.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle