Real universal rights

[Rational ethicist]

unwanted arbitrariness

Everything else here is just bait to introduce that slice of weirdness, right?

Why do you kee going on about this unwanted arbitrariness that's tautologically impossible for anyone want?

I think the idea to avoid unwanted arbitrariness is the very most important principle in ethics. That is why I so often refer to it. It is absolutely crucial. You can even say it is so central to ethics that it defines ethics. https://stijnbruers.files.wordpress.com ... riness.pdf

[mickthinks]

And no, my choice is not arbitrary.

then tell me what selection rule did you use to select that one distinction?

Any such selection rule would be chosen from among all the other possible rules arbitrarily, surely?

In any case, I don't use a rule to choose the human/non-human distinction for ascribing rights. I choose instead to follow historical precedent. I don't consider that to be an arbitrary choice.

... your ethic should be able to deal with all possible situations, including situations that are not actual, such as the situation where your ancestors have rights they need you to defend.

lol Perhaps I was too cautious earlier—to put it more boldly and bluntly; I believe such a situation, in which my ancient ancestors have rights they need me to defend, is impossible.

[FlashDangerpants]

unwanted arbitrariness

Everything else here is just bait to introduce that slice of weirdness, right?

Why do you kee going on about this unwanted arbitrariness that's tautologically impossible for anyone want?

I think the idea to avoid unwanted arbitrariness is the very most important principle in ethics. That is why I so often refer to it. It is absolutely crucial. You can even say it is so central to ethics that it defines ethics. https://stijnbruers.files.wordpress.com ... riness.pdf

You'll never catch me saying any such thing. You want to sell that crock you need some new thread, it's not something you can possibly to hope to blatantly smuggle this way.

If someone offer me a definition of unwanted that says.... "the condition that something cannot be consistently wanted by at least one person who has subjective evaluations, value judgments or preferences that have a subjective strength" and I'm afraid that's a hard no.

[Ben JS]

Rights are invented and granted - not discovered. They're not natural features of reality.

What's with ths misanthropic special pleading? Everything invented is still 100% natural.

Beavers invent beaver dams. Beaver dams are natural because beavers are natural.
Humans invent airplanes. Airplanes are natural because humans are natural.

Inventors and invention are naturally-occuring phenomena!

Their nature and scope are matters of choice. Which things - or, more narrowly, which creatures - should have rights - and which rights they should have - are moral questions. So, as ever, no non-moral premises can entail conclusions about those rights.

Fucking idiot.

Should beavers have beaver dams? They do! Irrespective of whether they should or shouldn't.
Should humans have airplanes; or rights? They do! Irrespective of whether they should or shouldn't.

A right is a belief.
An intangible concept that itself does not exert influence on reality directly.
The influence is exerted by the holder of the belief: conscious beings.
In the absence of anyone's holding / awareness of a belief,
the belief exerts no influence on reality -
it inhabits the same plane as any possible imaginary idea.

Yes, rights arose naturally -
but only exist as a description of one's will;
an instruction that one either intends to follow or disobey.

There is a distinction between the contents of a concept,
and the physical mechanisms by which a concept is able to be considered by a conscious being.
The physical mechanisms are in accord with reality and products of nature,
but the contents of the concept can be in discord with reality - not accurately represent reality.

If I consider a unicorn, [to my knowledge] I am not considering an aspect of nature / reality.

[Skepdick]

A right is a belief.
An intangible concept that itself does not exert influence on reality directly.
The influence is exerted by the holder of the belief: conscious beings.

And since beleifs and belief-holders always come as a parcel - beliefss exert influence on reality.

In the absence of anyone's holding / awareness of a belief,
the belief exerts no influence on reality -
it inhabits the same plane as any possible imaginary idea.

That's some dumb Platonist bullshit. What or where is a belief without somebody holding it?

Yes, rights arose naturally -
but only exist as a description of one's will; an instruction that one either intends to follow or disobey.

Why are you using the adjective "only". Rights exist. The form is immaterial.

There is a distinction between the contents of a concept
and the physical mechanisms by which a concept is able to be considered by a conscious being.

That's a stupid distinction. If you start with a monist ontology all these silly dualist dilemmas disappear. Nobody understands the contents or mechanisms of gravity. And yet the fact that it has a causal effect on reality suffices for all practical purposes.

The physical mechanisms are in accord with reality and products of nature,
but the contents of the concept can be in discord with reality - not accurately represent reality.

Who cares? The descriptions of the concepts accurately represent the concepts concerned.

If I consider a unicorn, [to my knowledge] I am not considering an aspect of nature / reality.

In so far as thinking about unicorns makes you buy into the entire unicorn marketing bullshit and it affects your behaviour - the concept of a unicorn is as real as any other causal force.

Most physicists have no problem grasphing the above, but philosophers (and similar idiots) struggle with it.

[Rational ethicist]

And no, my choice is not arbitrary.

then tell me what selection rule did you use to select that one distinction?

Any such selection rule would be chosen from among all the other possible rules arbitrarily, surely?

Yes, the choice of selection rule would be arbitrary, if you did not use a meta selection rule to select the selection rule. But here I was claiming that your initial choice (for the human/non-human distinction) was arbitrary. The point is we have to avoid unwanted arbitrariness. The choice to exclude non-humans is arbitrary (if you don't have a selection rule) and is unwanted by non-humans, so that choice is unwanted arbitrariness. The choice of selection rule may be arbitrary, but that does not yet mean it is unwanted arbitrariness. If it is unwanted arbitrariness, you can choose two options: 1) you have to use a meta selection rule, to avoid that arbitrariness. Or 2) you can simply not make any distinction, i.e. not select any distinction. I suggested to follow this second approach. If you follow the first, then of course the choice of meta selection rule may now be arbitrary. In the end you can have an infinite regress of arbitrariness, with meta meta... meta selection rules. This means that arbitrariness is not always avoidable. Anyway, this is why I prefer the second strategy, to simply not make a distinction at all. Although I think it is possible to give a meta selection rule that is arbitrarily selected out of the set of all meta selection rules, and this arbitrariness is not unwanted by anyone. You can try figuring this out...

In any case, I don't use a rule to choose the human/non-human distinction for ascribing rights. I choose instead to follow historical precedent. I don't consider that to be an arbitrary choice.

It is arbitrary again, because why choosing this history and not another? Consider slavery: 200 years ago people made the black/white distinction and used black people as slaves. If you followed the historical precedent back then, then you would also make that black/white distinction, and hence you would be a racist. If on the other hand you followed the historical precedent anno 2022, then you are against racism and slavery. So which historical precedent is the correct one? If everyone follows the current historical precedent, then moral progress is impossible. Perhaps the human/non-human distinction is wrong, just like the black/white distinction is wrong. How could you tell? And we can never move away from that wrong distinction if we stick to the historical precedent.
This basically shows that your choice of selection rule is indeed arbitrary (why the historical precedent anno 2022 and not anno 1822?), and that arbitrariness is unwanted, by those who are on the wrong side of the chosen distinction (the non-humans, the black slaves).

lol Perhaps I was too cautious earlier—to put it more boldly and bluntly; I believe such a situation, in which my ancient ancestors have rights they need me to defend, is impossible.

I can easily imagine a world that does not contain any contradictions, and that has the property that ancient ancestors have rights they need you to defend. So I'd say that world is possible.

[Rational ethicist]

If someone offer me a definition of unwanted that says.... "the condition that something cannot be consistently wanted by at least one person who has subjective evaluations, value judgments or preferences that have a subjective strength" and I'm afraid that's a hard no.

Why a no? It's just a definition. Do you prefer reserving the term "unwanted" for something else, i.e. define unwanted in another way? In that case, fine, then we can choose another term for "unwanted". I could write "the condition that something cannot be consistently wanted by at least one person who has subjective evaluations, value judgments or preferences that have a subjective strength arbitrariness", but I prefer the shorter version "unwanted arbitrariness". You may call it "smooch arbitrariness" if you want.
Or do you disagree with using that condition (that something cannot be consistently wanted...)? Any suggestions for a better condition? Simply deleting the condition is not good, because then we should either tolerate all kinds of arbitrariness, which is not good, or we should be against all arbitrariness, without qualifiers, which is also not good because I really think some kinds of arbitrariness are permissible (as they are innocent or good, such as the arbitrary choice to drive on the right side instead of the left side of the road).

[FlashDangerpants]

If someone offer me a definition of unwanted that says.... "the condition that something cannot be consistently wanted by at least one person who has subjective evaluations, value judgments or preferences that have a subjective strength" and I'm afraid that's a hard no.

Why a no? It's just a definition. Do you prefer reserving the term "unwanted" for something else, i.e. define unwanted in another way? In that case, fine, then we can choose another term for "unwanted". I could write "the condition that something cannot be consistently wanted by at least one person who has subjective evaluations, value judgments or preferences that have a subjective strength arbitrariness", but I prefer the shorter version "unwanted arbitrariness". You may call it "smooch arbitrariness" if you want.
Or do you disagree with using that condition (that something cannot be consistently wanted...)? Any suggestions for a better condition? Simply deleting the condition is not good, because then we should either tolerate all kinds of arbitrariness, which is not good, or we should be against all arbitrariness, without qualifiers, which is also not good because I really think some kinds of arbitrariness are permissible (as they are innocent or good, such as the arbitrary choice to drive on the right side instead of the left side of the road).

This arbitrary insistence on yor part that arbitrariness is the most important principle in ethics does nothing at all for me. And why should it?

[Rational ethicist]

This arbitrary insistence on yor part that arbitrariness is the most important principle in ethics does nothing at all for me. And why should it?

You think that your opinion about my insistence of the anti-arbitrariness principle is important? Well, let me arbitrarily exclude your opinion and say it is not important.
You have a preference to avoid talking about that anti-arbitrariness principle? Well, let me arbitrarily reject your preferences.
You disagree with the anti-arbitrariness principle? Well, let me arbitrarily choose you as a person upon whom I may force that principle.
You believe that the anti-arbitrariness principle is not the most important principle in ethics? Well, let me arbitrarily say that your belief is invalid.

[FlashDangerpants]

And what was achieved by any of that?

[Age]

Besides the word "yourself" being an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, and a misnomer I will say yes.

For future reference, what word should I use as the correct replacement for "yourself"?

A word that refers to just 'one' and not 'two'. But there are still more things to be learned before this conception will be understood and catches on.

'you', adult human beings, do not even bestow 'rights' on "yourselves", NOR children, in any logical, true, nor right way. So, because 'you' are NOT YET CAPABLE thinking that 'you' are ENTITLED to bestow '4ights' on ANY thing, including "yourselves" is just NONSENSICAL and DISTORTED thinking

I have a drivers licence, which grants me the right to drive my car on a public highway. I take advantage of that right by driving my car on a public highway, which I find convenient and useful. That right was granted to me by other human beings. Yet you say that "adult human beings, do not even bestow 'rights' on "yourselves", NOR children, in any logical, true, nor right way", even though my drivers licence example clearly demonstrates that we do bestow rights on ourselves.

Oh, I thought we were contemplating and discussing 'rights', in the sense of 'Real universal rights' in this thread.

And, considering that I was replying to what you wrote in regards to: It seems rather arrogant of us -human beings- to think that we are entitled to bestow rights on anything other than ourselves. I think it would be more appropriate to impose responsibilities on ourselves in respect of how we behave towards other living creatures. I also thought we were discussing 'rights' in relation to 'morality' and/or 'ethical' issues, only.

I want to be able to drive my vehicle on a public highway, and the right that has been granted to me enables me to do that, so in what way is it not logical, true, nor right?

'you', adult human beings, have made up countless 'laws', like above, which are 'bestowed', and ENFORCED. So, it would have been MUCH BETTER and MUCH CLEARER if I had emphasized that I was referring to 'moral' and/or 'ethical' 'rights', only.

[Age]

In this case you have to define what you mean by 'morality' and 'ethics'.

why do we have to define it here? Morality is about what agents (individuals who make choices) should and should not do or choose.

It is a prerequisite of good communication to define the meanings of the terms one use, especially in philosophy wherein one is engaging in loads of loose terms; this is necessary to avoid talking pass each other and waiting for the cows to come home.

So, if doing 'this' is a prerequisite of good communication, then why do you not do 'this' "veritas aequitas"?

It is a matter of defining the terms used and getting consensus; if there is no consensus it is waste of time continuing the discussion.

This I would say would be one of the BEST POINTS ever raised within this forum, with the ACTUAL PROOF of 'this' just being this forum, itself.

If you define 'Morality' as what agents should and should not do, then anything goes and there will be no efficiency towards any form of progress in terms of doing good and avoiding evil.
If you identify X as good and that I, most or all should [ought] to do X as well, why should I and others comply with your should?

If you insist, then you may have to use threat or force.
The religious authorities enforce their 'oughts' on all believers because God commanded so; that is not morality, there is merely religion with threat of hell.
If force or threat is to be used, then Laws [criminal] has to enacted and that is politics not morality proper.
Religion and Politics relating to 'evil acts' are pseudo-morality.

Morality proper is related to the spontaneity [not forced, threatened or motivated by desires and rewards] in acting good [not evil] by individuals in alignment with what is intrinsically moral within them.

That 'you' do not [.. I presumed] have any impulse or go about killing another human at present indicate your moral competence in this case of 'killing humans' is in working order to some degree.
The potential to kill is also inherent in ALL humans, as such there is no guarantee you will not kill another human if your moral inhibitors are overcome by the potential to kill another human, e.g. in a rage of passion, brainwashed by a cult, enrolled in the military, and the likes.

Morality and Ethics should thus be directed to re-enforcing the effectiveness of the moral competencies within one's brain, mind and body. This will have to involve changes in the neural connectivity, genes and DNA related to the moral functions which cannot be done effectively at present but possible in the future [50, 100 years].

Morality is about promoting good and avoiding evil towards the optimal well being of individual[s] and that of humanity.

Morality and Ethics is primarily confined to the human species

why restrict it to humanity?

no, that is too arbitrary. Why confine it to the human species and not for example the white race or the great-ape family or the primate order or the mammal class or whatever...? And - considering our ancient ancestors or interspecies hybrids and chimeras - who belongs to the human species?

I stated morality is primarily directed to the human species. In that case we do not have to squabble whether we should or should-not kill living non-human things for food to sustain and optimize our well being.

The next consideration is to extend to other living things with self-awareness e.g. the primates, dolphin and the likes who are self-aware they are in pain.

Other than that consideration should be given to ensure our actions do not have a negative feedback to our well being to ensure preservation of the individual[s] and therefrom the species.

If you were to extend morality to all living things, then what about the millions of good and bad bacteria within your guts and microbiome that you are killing and depriving them of life every day?? You are familiar with the 'microbiome'.
How do you deal with this dilemma?

The most fundamental universal right of humans is the right to live, breathe, has basic freedom, justice, self-development, to property and ?.

But why restrict those rights to humans? It arbitrarily excludes non-humans. Therefor, I suggest to avoid any arbitrary exclusions, by granting rights to everyone and everything. So I suggest "universal right of entities"

It is not arbitrarily if you are more observant of what is going on in Nature out there?
Get out an LOOK!
IN GENERAL members of each species do not kill each other for food indicates living things are species-centric.
Members of a species may be tribalistic and may killing others of a different tribe but such killings are not significant to the survival of the species.

As I had stated, morality is primarily confined to the human species and therefrom extend to living things that has self-awareness thus is self-aware that they are in pain.
'Rights' is parallel with morality should also be confined to the human species as a primary priority.

[Age]

Rights are invented and granted - not discovered.

Has absolutely EVERY thing been discovered?

If yes, then REALLY?

But if no, then how do you KNOW that 'rights' are NOT discovered.

They're not natural features of reality.

How do you KNOW this FOR SURE?

Also, and by the way, WHY do 'you', adult human beings, here, individually, use the word 'reality' DIFFERENTLY, but as though 'you' each ALREADY KNOW what 'it' IS, EXACTLY?

Their nature and scope are matters of choice.

But as continually POINTED OUT TO 'you', "peter holmes", ALL thoughts 'are matters of choice', YET you CLAIM some are Facts.

Which things - or, more narrowly, which creatures - should have rights - and which rights they should have - are moral questions. So, as ever, no non-moral premises can entail conclusions about those rights.

But, as ever here, 'you' are Wrong, ONCE MORE.

[Age]

It is a prerequisite of good communication to define the meanings of the terms one use

But I found it weird to ask for a definition of ethics in a discussion on a forum titled "Ethical theory". I don't see the added value of defining ethics here.

So, you could NEVER logically say NOR prove that what "another" says or claims is wrong nor false about 'ethics', as long as what they say or claim about 'ethics' is done under sub-section titled 'Ethical theory', right?

After all you see absolutely NO added value AT ALL of defining the word 'ethics' here, correct?

If yes, then this would mean and entail that absolutely ANY thing could written or said about 'ethics' and it would ALL be fine and all right.

If you define 'Morality' as what agents should and should not do, then anything goes and there will be no efficiency towards any form of progress in terms of doing good and avoiding evil.

How do you mean "anything goes"? It is just a definition. Or do you disagree with my definition? Morality is not about what agents should and should not do? In any case, this discussion was about universal rights, and that clearly relates to what agents should and should not do: agents should grant rights, should not violate right,...

If you identify X as good and that I, most or all should [ought] to do X as well, why should I and others comply with your should?

That is going back to the first year undergraduate in philosophy: write an essay about "why be moral?" Let's leave that for another discussion and focus here on the idea of universal rights: which rights would you grant, to what/whom, and why? What if you have to grant rights to everything?
To answer your question: if X = "avoid unwanted arbitrariness", then you have to do X as well, because if you may allow unwanted arbitrariness, then so is everyone and you cannot want that. My point was that in the traditional approach of rights-based ethics, there is unwanted arbitrariness in granting rights to others. That is why I propose to grant rights to really everything, without arbitrary exclusions. You should comply to this idea, because if you disagree, then I may grant rights arbitrarily to others, so I may arbitrarily exclude you from being granted rights, and you cannot want that.

The religious authorities enforce their 'oughts' on all believers because God commanded so; that is not morality

Now you are confusing me with what you mean with morality. It is morality, because it is about what we ought to do. That divine command theory is one particular moral theory. It is a bad one, because it contains unwanted arbitrariness, so we can reject it. But it remains a moral theory, so it is morality. Compare it to geometry: there are different geometrical theories or systems, such as Euclidean geometry. Euclidean geometry does not contain arbitrariness. But you can formulate a theory that says for example the rule (axiom) "between every two points you can draw a straight line, except between the points in the upper-right corner over there." This axiom is like one of Euclid's axioms, but it contains an arbitrariness, with that exception. So this is a bad geometrical system, no mathematician is using such a system. But it is still geometry.

Morality proper is related to the spontaneity [not forced, threatened or motivated by desires and rewards] in acting good [not evil] by individuals in alignment with what is intrinsically moral within them.

ok, nice definition, but I don't think it is useful in this discussion about rights.

I stated morality is primarily directed to the human species.

then it has unwanted arbitrariness (as you arbitrarily exclude non-humans), and hence it is a bad moral theory, which we can reject just like that divine command theory. I can simply exclude/reject your anthropocentric moral theory, and you cannot give valid arguments against that exclusion. You can ask me: "On what grounds do you exclude my theory? What valid reasons do you have to reject it?" And, being lazy, I can simply respond by saying: "I just arbitrarily decided to do so, without valid reasons. And according to you, arbitrary exclusions are permissible because you arbitrarily excluded non-humans. So you said that I may arbitrarily exclude things, so I decided to arbitrarily exclude your moral theory."

Other than that consideration should be given to ensure our actions do not have a negative feedback to our well being

Who counts as "our"? Does "our" refer to humans? That is arbitrary, because you and I are also mammals, so it could equally refer to the class of mammals. Or the order of primates,...

to ensure preservation of the individual[s] and therefrom the species.

why preservation of the species and not preservation of the race, of the family, of the genus, if the infraorder, of the order, of the class, of the phylum,...? You and I belong to a phylum...

If you were to extend morality to all living things, then what about the millions of good and bad bacteria within your guts and microbiome that you are killing and depriving them of life every day?? You are familiar with the 'microbiome'.

yeah, what about that? easy: you simply take those bacteria also in consideration.

How do you deal with this dilemma?

the same as with other dilemmas: find and choose the best option.
What point are you trying to make? Let me change your words a bit: "If you were to extend morality to all humans, then what about the thousands of black slaves that you are using? How to deal with that dilemma?" Yes, if you give black slaves their freedom, then your well-being will be lower and those of the slaves will be higher. Increasing the well-being of one person decreases the well-being of others, so it is a dilemma. Now what? Conclude that we should not extend morality to all humans?

But why restrict those rights to humans? It arbitrarily excludes non-humans. Therefor, I suggest to avoid any arbitrary exclusions, by granting rights to everyone and everything. So I suggest "universal right of entities"

It is not arbitrarily if you are more observant of what is going on in Nature out there?

what do I have to look for? I don't see anywhere in nature written that rights may or should be restricted to humans.

IN GENERAL members of each species do not kill each other for food

that is an "is" (a fact), from which you cannot derive an "ought" (a value). Your "in general" is also concerning, because it introduces an arbitrariness: how many species (in percentage) must have the property that its members don't eat each other, in order for you to derive the moral claim that rights may or ought to be restricted to humans? I don't see the connection between on the one hand a percentage of species having such a property and on the other the idea to restrict rights to humans.

indicates living things are species-centric.

that is factually not true: living beings are not species-centric. You could equally say that they are genus-centric, because IN GENERAL members of each genus do not kill each other for food. Or race-centric, or subspecies-centric, or family-centric,... There is a simple reason why most living beings are not species-centric: because they do not understand this very abstract notion of a species. There is no living being who is capable of determining which other living being does or does not belong to its own species. You are not able to determine which living being belongs to the human species.

Members of a species may be tribalistic and may killing others of a different tribe but such killings are not significant to the survival of the species.

neither are they significant to the survival of the genus, or the order, or the class, or the phylum,... In fact, such killings are far less significant for the survival of the phylum than for the survival of the species. So why not adopt a phylum-centric morality? Why not restrict rights to vertebrates (our phylum) instead of humans (our species)? Arbitrariness...

As I had stated, morality is primarily confined to the human species

yes, you stated it, but I think you have to argue for it. If you are unable to give an argument, your morality contains unwanted arbitrariness, and that is definitely not allowed.

and therefrom extend to living things that has self-awareness

what about the humans that don't have self-awaraness?

[Ben JS]

And since beleifs and belief-holders always come as a parcel - beliefss exert influence on reality.

One can be aware of a belief and not hold it.
There are beliefs no one holds, but one can imagine.

The contents of a belief, do not need to correspond to reality.
There are beliefs labeled 'delusional', which do the above.

There are infinite possible beliefs that have no affect on reality,
as they are not held by any being -
belief-holders being the link between a belief and it's potential to contribute to an outcome.

What or where is a belief without somebody holding it?

Non-existent. Which is what rights are in the absence of the sentient.

Rights exist. The form is immaterial.

As an idea, and potential belief.
But not as an inherent aspect of reality or living beings.
It's possible living beings can exist without creating the concept of rights.
In this scenario, rights wouldn't exist.

When evaluating rights,
considering their origins is important.
Considering their connection to reality is important.

Nobody understands the contents or mechanisms of gravity. And yet the fact that it has a causal effect on reality suffices for all practical purposes.

Gravity is a physical phenomena, described by people, that affects other tangible phenomena - with or without living beings present.
A belief, however, in the absence of any belief-holder (sentient being), is not exerting influence on any part of reality.
This is a primary reason the content of ideas aren't treated the same as processes inherent to reality.

The descriptions of the concepts accurately represent the concepts concerned.

This is where lots of discussion is rooted in - that people have differing beliefs regarding rights.
There isn't a consensus regarding their objectivity / subjectivity, and which rights ought be intrinsic and to whom.
And a myriad of other aspects which are in dispute.

In so far as thinking about unicorns makes you buy into the entire unicorn marketing bullshit and it affects your behaviour - the concept of a unicorn is as real as any other causal force.

Gravity, in the absence of sentient beings, would continue to affect reality.
The concept of a unicorn, in absence of sentient beings, would not affect reality.

-

A right is only as good, as there are beings that give it weight.
The rights we create, are rooted in our preferences.
And our preferences are products of what enabled the survival of our genes.
This is the origin of their existence, with respect to our current scientific understanding.

If we set aside our preferences,
and evaluate a right on it's own merit beyond belief-holders,
it is an idea created by sentient beings in the pursuit of effective interaction.