Basic Human Rights

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 1:52 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 5:23 pm If you mean, "Should a man be permitted to tell his daughter she's fat and stupid for her 20 years or so of growing up, until she commits suicide," then the answer has to be "No,"obviously. That sort of thing isn't controversial, I think: it's probably criminal.
If she's fat...
That's an "if." It's not automatically so.

Sadly, there are such things as spiteful parents who say awful things to their children when those things are not true at all, or when the child is unable to do anything about them. And since children are much more vulnerable to that sort of abuse than adults are, I still say that an unrelenting history of such malevolent treatment is certainly to be regarded as "emotional abuse."

I'm still pretty sure we are going to struggle with a justification for making it a "right" not to be treated that way, at least in the case of a Atheist worldview. After all, from a Atheist perspective, human beings have to be regarded as no more than a kind of late-ape, an accidental byproduct of an indifferent universe, and as such, no more intrinsically guaranteed anything than is a dust speck.

What "rights" could be the natural or "basic" property of such a thing?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 2:16 pm After all, from a Atheist perspective, human beings have to be regarded as no more than a kind of late-ape, an accidental byproduct of an indifferent universe, and as such, no more intrinsically guaranteed anything than is a dust speck.

What "rights" could be the natural or "basic" property of such a thing?
What has, "theism," got to do with the fact that no one is gurranteed they will never be offended or have their feelings hurt or hear anything that makes them, "feel abused?" Most of the cases I know of the abuse of others, actual or imagined, are perpetrated in the name of some ideological, "principles," religious, cultural, or political.

I have no idea what an, "atheist perspective," might be, but I know there is no such thing as, "rights," meaning something someone just has claim to, without having to earn or produce it.

Is the only reason you deal with other human beings decently because you think they have a, "right to," that treatment? C you not see any value in only dealing with other's rationally to your mutual benefit without that concept?

Do you really believe if there were no concept of, "rights," it would make no difference how you treated and deal with others?

Please see my articles: "Why Live In Society?", and, "Controllers, Meddlers and Individualists," here on Philosophy Now for reason only rational objective relationships between productive individuals to their mutually chosen benefit are right human relationships. Such relationships are only possible to individuals because they can neither desire or pursue anything that they have not earned by their own effort.

Every evil begins with a pursuit of the unearned. It is the first sin justified by the depraved concept of, "rights."
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 6:39 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 2:16 pm After all, from a Atheist perspective, human beings have to be regarded as no more than a kind of late-ape, an accidental byproduct of an indifferent universe, and as such, no more intrinsically guaranteed anything than is a dust speck.

What "rights" could be the natural or "basic" property of such a thing?
What has, "theism," got to do with the fact that no one is gurranteed they will never be offended or have their feelings hurt or hear anything that makes them, "feel abused?"
I'm afraid you misunderstand what a "right" is, RC. That's perfectly to be predicted, because it's not a concept that can even make sense from a secular worldview. But Locke had it figured out. If man is created by God, then there are certain entailments that go along with that realization. These are "basic," and are "rights" that he can claim morally, especially when others violate them. A right to life, liberty and property is not founded on some blithe hope that nobody will ever try to take a man's life, liberty or property: the right is asserted because somebody will. :shock:

For example, if we were to say the women in Saudi Arabia have a "right" not to be beaten, we are decidedly NOT trying to say, "The women in Saudi are never beaten." That's one thing we adamantly DON'T mean. What we mean, instead, is that though the women in Saudi are being beaten, it is absolutely morally wrong that they are treated in this way, and they should not be. It's the assertion of a universal rightness against a particular injustice.
Most of the cases I know of the abuse of others, actual or imagined, are perpetrated in the name of some ideological, "principles," religious, cultural, or political.
Yes, but that's not remarkable, for two reason. One is that mankind has long felt the need to justify his actions -- particularly morally objectionable actions -- on the basis of them "serving" some "higher good." Everybody does that, secular and religious. But secondly, it's unremarkable because different belief systems rationalize different kinds of actions. That, too, is both logically and empirically plain.
I have no idea what an, "atheist perspective," might be,

It's very simple: "no god(s)." That's all there is to it: not impressive, I'll admit.
but I know there is no such thing as, "rights,"

Well, how do you "know" this thing? Is it not simply that you see no possible grounds of justification for such "rights"? But that's entirely to be expected from a secular worldview.
Is the only reason you deal with other human beings decently because you think they have a, "right to," that treatment?
No, but it's an excellent reason for doing so.

I could do it out of, say, self-interest, or quid pro quo, or out of a desire to fit in with some ideological position in my society, or just to win friends. But "rights" come most importantly into play on those occasions when, humanly speaking, I decide I don't necessarily WANT to be nice. :shock: It's then that I have to take stock not just of what I feel like giving to people, but what rights they are owed regardless of my feelings or self-interest.
Do you really believe if there were no concept of, "rights," it would make no difference how you treated and deal with others?
I wonder if you haven't got an extra "no" in there... But if I answer as it is written, I'd have to say I don't believe that.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:19 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 6:39 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 2:16 pm After all, from a Atheist perspective, human beings have to be regarded as no more than a kind of late-ape, an accidental byproduct of an indifferent universe, and as such, no more intrinsically guaranteed anything than is a dust speck.

What "rights" could be the natural or "basic" property of such a thing?
What has, "atheism," got to do with the fact that no one is gurranteed they will never be offended or have their feelings hurt or hear anything that makes them, "feel abused?"
I'm afraid you misunderstand what a "right" is, RC. ...

For example, if we were to say the women in Saudi Arabia have a "right" not to be beaten, ... What we mean, ... is that though the women in Saudi are being beaten, it is absolutely ... wrong that they are treated in this way, and they should not be.
That is exactly what I mean by rights as well. Something one believes they, "should or should not," have, like a certain treatment of care, or anything else it is, "right," for them to have, just because they exist.

I'm afraid you do not understand (or perhaps believe me) that I do not believe anyone has a right to anything, even to not be beaten, just because they exist. It is the main point I was making. If the reason you would not beat a woman is only because you believe she has some kind of right to not be beaten, that reason is wrong.

The reason a rational individual would not beat a woman has nothing to do with some externally imposed obligation to someone else's, "rights," to not be beaten, but because their own sense of self-worth and integrity require it. The rational individual can neither desires or seek anything they have not produced or earned by their own effort and can find not value anyone else's pain or suffering. It's why the rational individual rejects all ideas of retributive justice or any other belief that justifies harming others, like the Christian view of punishment.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:19 pm
but I know there is no such thing as, "rights,"

Well, how do you "know" this thing? Is it not simply that you see no possible grounds of justification for such "rights"? But that's entirely to be expected from a secular worldview.
The secular world does the most screaming about rights and demanding them, as a matter of fact. But the basis of rights, when anyone bothers to actually defend the concept, is always some ideology, like altruism, collectivism, or some social/political ideology, or religious ideology.

There certainly is such a concept, but what it identifies is a fiction, like all other ideological doctrines such as, "manifest destiny," "karma," or, "astrology."
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:19 pm
Is the only reason you deal with other human beings decently because you think they have a, "right to," that treatment?
No, but it's an excellent reason for doing so. ..."rights" come most importantly into play on those occasions when, humanly speaking, I decide I don't necessarily WANT to be nice.
Why would you ever not want to be, "nice," (by which I presume you mean benevolent)? That is not possible for a rational individual, because he makes all choices based on reason, never allowing feelings to determine his behavior. Oh, I see you explained:
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:19 pm :shock: It's then that I have to take stock not just of what I feel like giving to people, but what rights they are owed regardless of my feelings or self-interest.
So it's your irrational feelings that make you want to be, "not nice," and it is not enough for you to realize feelings are never a sound basis for making choices and must have some, "crutch," like a mystical concept of rights to help you deal with them. If that works for you, good, but I would not regard that as evidence there actually is such thing as rights.
Do you really believe if there were no concept of, "rights," it would make no difference how you treated and deal with others?
I wonder if you haven't got an extra "no" in there... But if I answer as it is written, I'd have to say I don't believe that.
[/quote]
I see the confusion. I did write what I meant, but I understand why it seems ambiguous. My fault. You have already answered the question but I'll reword it so you can see what was aiming at: Believing in rights as you do, is the way you treat and deal with others different than it would be if you believed there were no rights?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 1:35 am That is exactly what I mean by rights as well. Something one believes they, "should or should not," have, like a certain treatment of care, or anything else it is, "right," for them to have, just because they exist.
Everything depends on how they exist. If they exist as an accidental byproduct of impersonal forces, then you're right...there's no chance they have "rights." But if they exist as the deliberate creations of an intention-having, loving God, then they have whatever rights He has ordained for them to have. That's what Locke knew.
I'm afraid you do not understand (or perhaps believe me) that I do not believe anyone has a right to anything, even to not be beaten, just because they exist.

No, I understand that completely. Was I not clear? A person who does not believe in God has absolutely no justification for believing in rights. I agree with you about that.
If the reason you would not beat a woman is only because you believe she has some kind of right to not be beaten, that reason is wrong.
Not "some kind of right." An absolute right. God did not create women so that they could be beaten. He created them to be the companion of men, and He created them, as Genesis says, "in His own image." Their rights derive wholly from that fact.

But it's a pretty great fact.
The reason a rational individual would not beat a woman has nothing to do with some externally imposed obligation to someone else's, "rights," to not be beaten, but because their own sense of self-worth and integrity require it.

Your argument is: a woman has a right not to be beaten, because she might not like it? Because she thinks she has "self-worth," and that it would violate the "integrity" of somebody who, in your view, is merely an accidental byproduct of an indifferent universe? :? This is going to take some explaining, I would say.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:19 pm
but I know there is no such thing as, "rights,"

Well, how do you "know" this thing? Is it not simply that you see no possible grounds of justification for such "rights"? But that's entirely to be expected from a secular worldview.
The secular world does the most screaming about rights and demanding them, as a matter of fact.
It often does. But how will it justify all the "screaming"? How will it back its "demands"? The first question is bound to be "Why?" Why does a secular person have to give anybody else "rights"? Why does he even have to believe in them? Can you explain that?
There certainly is such a concept, but what it identifies is a fiction,
I completely understand why you think so. That conclusion accords with things like Evolutionism or Materialism...or any Atheist doctrine. Under any of them, "rights" have to be nothing but a fiction.

But they are wrong.
So it's your irrational feelings that make you want to be, "not nice,"
Not at all. It might well be quite rational.

For example, I might reason that being "not nice" is the way to get what I want the fastest, with the least cost to me: very rational indeed. To steal, when one can get away with it, is extremely rational as a way of getting what one wants. To cheat, to bully, to deceive, to malign and backstab...all highly effective methods, which is what makes them so attractive to so many. Some evil is irrational; but there are also many rational incentives for being evil -- at least sometimes.
Believing in rights as you do, is the way you treat and deal with others different than it would be if you believed there were no rights?
Not only the way I treat others, but my own whole pattern of life is different because I believe in what God says about the value of a person, and because I try to honour the rights God has given them. I can honestly say I would be a much different man if I believed differently. I would likely be much more cold and rational about pursuing my own interests, and far more indifferent to how I was treating others on the way.

Obviously, I can't really prove that to you here, of course; but if you knew me, RC, I don't think you'd have much difficulty believing that's true.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 1:52 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 5:23 pm If you mean, "Should a man be permitted to tell his daughter she's fat and stupid for her 20 years or so of growing up, until she commits suicide," then the answer has to be "No,"obviously. That sort of thing isn't controversial, I think: it's probably criminal.
If she's fat because she's a lazy glutton and stupid because she refuses to learn, not telling her the truth would be cruel. If someone hates the truth so much they let their feelings determine their behavior and they choose off themselves, it's their own fault. Poor baby!

This idea that words can actually harm someone else is the lie behind all the so-called the PC nonsense. It is still true, sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me. If you suffer from what anyone says, it's your own fault.
And this is the very reason WHY the human being created 'world' was in such the mess that it was, in the days when this was being written.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 3:20 am Everything depends on how they exist. If they exist as an accidental byproduct of impersonal forces, ...
This is the kind of statement you frequently make that upsets a lot of people who accuse you of being dishonest in your arguments, IC. I know it's not dishonesty, just a blindness to any view that does not agree with yours. The alternative view to creation is not, "accident," but the very opposite--nothing happens by accident, because reality has a very specific nature and all it's behavior is determined by it's conformance to that nature. At the physical level, that nature is discovered by the physical sciences and all merely physical behavior is determined by those principles discovered by those sciences. But reality includes the additional natural attributes of life, consciousness, and human volitional, intellectual, rational minds, which all have their own specific natures.

It is only a belief that reality cannot be trusted to be what it is, because it can all be, "changed," by some unpredictable mystical force, by magic, or miracles, or the whims of some supernatural being that could be called, "accidental."
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 3:20 am
I'm afraid you do not understand (or perhaps believe me) that I do not believe anyone has a right to anything, even to not be beaten, just because they exist.

No, I understand that completely. Was I not clear? A person who does not believe in God has absolutely no justification for believing in rights. I agree with you about that.
It has nothing to do with a belief or non-belief in God. It has to do with the fact that no one has a claim on what does not exist, which no one has achieved or produced, and no one has a claim on anything produced or created by anyone else. It is why every organism's life depends on it's own creative action to sustain its life. The idea of, "rights," is justification of theft, the idea that anyone deserves, and therefor can claim to have or use, what they have not themselves created or produced, because, if it exists someone had to produce it, and the idea of rights means someone else can claim it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 3:20 am
The reason a rational individual would not beat a woman has nothing to do with some externally imposed obligation to someone else's, "rights," to not be beaten, but because their own sense of self-worth and integrity require it.

Your argument is: a woman has a right not to be beaten, because she might not like it? Because she thinks she has "self-worth," and that it would violate the "integrity" of somebody who, in your view, is merely an accidental byproduct of an indifferent universe? :? This is going to take some explaining, I would say.
Really? You cannot understand why a rational individual cannot possibly find any value or joy in anyone else's suffering, that it is understanding what a human being is that makes all other human being a potential value to them, that one's love of reality, all of reality, just as it is, because it is the source of all possible good and virtue means loving all human beings, just as they are without judgment, until they have verbally or through their actions declared who and wha they are. You cannot understand why a rational individual does desires only the best for all individuals to be happy and successful because other's success can only ever further the pleasure and success of one's own life?

If that is true, I have to take your word for it, but I think it is sad that anyone could hate reality so much they would prefer a view of reality as some kind of evil one can only be saved from by some mystical supernatural intervention.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:19 pm Well, how do you "know" this thing? Is it not simply that you see no possible grounds of justification for such "rights"? But that's entirely to be expected from a secular worldview.
The secular world does the most screaming about rights and demanding them, as a matter of fact.[/quote]
It often does. But how will it justify all the "screaming"? How will it back its "demands"? The first question is bound to be "Why?" Why does a secular person have to give anybody else "rights"? Why does he even have to believe in them? Can you explain that?
[/quote]
You are the one that needs to answer that question. You believe in the concept rights, just as most other ideologies do. Personally, I know none of your mystical explanations for it are true.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:19 pm
There certainly is such a concept, but what it identifies is a fiction,
I completely understand why you think so. That conclusion accords with things like Evolutionism or Materialism...or any Atheist doctrine. Under any of them, "rights" have to be nothing but a fiction.
Why do you do that, IC? I address your views in terms of your own avowed theism, not other ideologies, but you continually introduce concept in your discussion with others they to not hold at all. Why do you keep referring to atheism in discussions with me when you know I am not an atheist. Why bring up 'materialism,' [by which is meant, "physicalsim," today] when you know I am not a physicalist. Why do you insert the concept of, "evolution," when you know I reject evolution as a science and all its conjectures. It's tantamount to my saying, well what you believe is what any Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim must believe. It's a dishonest way to discuss anything. Save yourself some trouble in your discussions with me: I do not hold any ideology and reject all, "-isms," which includes all all political/social ideologies, all religions, and pseudo-sciences like psychology, sociology, evolution, and cosmology. That does hot mean I regard everything they say is untrue, even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes. It means, as a, "systematic explanation of reality," they all teach what is not true, (and most of those wrong teachings are very dangerous).
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:19 pm
So it's your irrational feelings that make you want to be, "not nice,"
Not at all. It might well be quite rational.
I'm sorry, IC, but there is not a rational reason to want to abuse, harm, or intentionally cause another human being unhappiness. I what you believe justifies that, it is evil.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:19 pm For example, I might reason that being "not nice" is the way to get what I want the fastest, with the least cost to me: very rational indeed.
I cannot imagine what kind or, "reason," could possibly conclude getting what you, "want," the fastest justifies being, "not nice," to someone else, or worse, what one could want that required being not nice to someone else. I could certainly imagine how some feelings or irrational desires might prompt someone to such behavior, but not reason. If you call whatever justifies such behavior, "reason," you are reasoning from wrong premises.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:19 pm To steal, when one can get away with it, is extremely rational as a way of getting what one wants.
Just as I thought. A rational individual knows one can never, "steal and get away with it." Maybe the consequence will be delayed, and most never count the consequence to their own psychology, which no one can evade, but no one can steal without knowing whatever they have gained that way can never satisfy their psychological need to know what they have and enjoy in life is theirs, because the have earned it. They can never enjoy what they think they have gained as the reward for their own virtue and never escape the knowledge that they are parasites. No matter how much they can deceive others, they cannot deceive their consciousness of what they really are and reality never forgives.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:19 pm To cheat, to bully, to deceive, to malign and backstab...all highly effective methods, which is what makes them so attractive to so many. Some evil is irrational; but there are also many rational incentives for being evil -- at least sometimes.
If that is what Christians believe, no wonder they have been responsible for so much evil in history. No rational individual believes cheating, bullying, or any other intentional threat or harm can ever achieve or produce anything of true value. Good grief, I hope you do not really believe what you just wrote.

I hope you are confusing, "rationalization," and, "incorrect reason," as, "rational."
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:19 pm
Believing in rights as you do, is the way you treat and deal with others different than it would be if you believed there were no rights?
Not only the way I treat others, but my own whole pattern of life is different because I believe in what God says about the value of a person, and because I try to honour the rights God has given them. I can honestly say I would be a much different man if I believed differently. I would likely be much more cold and rational about pursuing my own interests, and far more indifferent to how I was treating others on the way.

Obviously, I can't really prove that to you here, of course; but if you knew me, RC, I don't think you'd have much difficulty believing that's true.
You don't need to prove it to anyone, certainly not me. If you can believe, "stealing, cheating, bullying, deceiving, maligning and backstabing," can all be, "rational," ways of dealing with others, then I guess you are capable of believing anything. I have to say, I am frankly appalled you could possibly really believe that.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 3:25 pm The alternative view to creation is not, "accident," but the very opposite--nothing happens by accident, because reality has a very specific nature and all it's behavior is determined by it's conformance to that nature. At the physical level, that nature is discovered by the physical sciences and all merely physical behavior is determined by those principles discovered by those sciences. But reality includes the additional natural attributes of life, consciousness, and human volitional, intellectual, rational minds, which all have their own specific natures.
You're right that there's a problem with the word "accident," RC: it's a bit ambiguous. But if understood rightly, it's entirely apt.

These "principles" or "natural attributes" which you say make life non-accidental: how did they come to exist? How did we end up in a law-governed universe?

There are only two answers: one, that there was a Law Establisher who designed them, and two, that they "just happened" to have worked out that way, by chance. In other words, that they, too, were an accident.

So you've moved the explanation one stage backward -- from explaining why people exist to explaining why the laws that made people to exist exist -- but you have not changed the equation. The ultimate answer, secularly speaking, can be nothing other than "These laws and principles just happened, and far more easily might not have."

That's "accident."
It has to do with the fact that no one has a claim on what does not exist, which no one has achieved or produced, and no one has a claim on anything produced or created by anyone else.
Property rights. That's what you're talking about. You're trying to use the negation of "claim" to say the same thing, but it's the same concept.
The idea of, "rights," is justification of theft
Theft is not "wrong" in any objective sense, in a secular world. Theft is just one organism proving more sagacious in the interests of its survival than another.

But "rights" do not license any theft at all. At least, legitimate, God-rights do not. I will not suggest so much for those phony "rights" secularists "scream" or "demand" to get (to borrow your terms from the last message).
You cannot understand why a rational individual cannot possibly find any value or joy in anyone else's suffering
If what you were saying were right, then there would BE no such thing as abuse. There would be no "value or joy" produced in the creating of it.

But historically speaking, we can see that human beings have found being hurtful to others very useful in expediting their projects, and are more than willing to resort to it. They find...perhaps not "joy," but at least great utility and advantage in "producing and creating" abuse.

For them it's the most rational course to a quick result.
You cannot understand why a rational individual does desires only the best for all individuals
There are no such rational individuals on the planet, I'm afraid. It's the "only" that rules everybody out. For at some time, in all our lives, we have desired the harm of another. And for some people, it's their stock-in-trade.

But "rational" doesn't stop them, because one can find a "rationale" for practically anything.
The secular world does the most screaming about rights and demanding them, as a matter of fact.
It often does. But how will it justify all the "screaming"? How will it back its "demands"? The first question is bound to be "Why?" Why does a secular person have to give anybody else "rights"? Why does he even have to believe in them? Can you explain that?
You are the one that needs to answer that question. You believe in the concept rights, just as most other ideologies do. Personally, I know none of your mystical explanations for it are true.
You think that, I know. One of us is going to turn out to be right.

But meanwhile, I am not the one who needs to explain a secular concept of "rights." I'm not a secular person.

What's interesting to me, though, is that as a secularist, you do such things as claiming people are "rational," and that "rational" means "good" in some automatic way. I don't think you have either a logical or an empirical leg to stand on there, RC.
I am not an atheist.
Well, it appears you disbelieve in the only God that actually exist, so maybe you can explain...
I do not hold any ideology and reject all, "-isms,"
Well, except skepticism, perhaps.
...most of those wrong teachings are very dangerous.
About that, we certainly agree.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:19 pm
So it's your irrational feelings that make you want to be, "not nice,"
Not at all. It might well be quite rational.
I'm sorry, IC, but there is not a rational reason to want to abuse, harm, or intentionally cause another human being unhappiness
.
Yeah, there is.

Take the following premises:

There are no such things as rights, including property rights.
I want something you think you own.
I have the power and opportunity to take it, and you lack the means to stop me.
I believe I will be better off when I have it, and the sooner the better.
Therefore, the most rational course is for me to acquire it instantly.


Perfectly rational: and still evil.
A rational individual knows one can never, "steal and get away with it." Maybe the consequence will be delayed, and most never count the consequence to their own psychology, which no one can evade, but no one can steal without knowing whatever they have gained that way can never satisfy their psychological need to know what they have and enjoy in life is theirs, because the have earned it. They can never enjoy what they think they have gained as the reward for their own virtue and never escape the knowledge that they are parasites. No matter how much they can deceive others, they cannot deceive their consciousness of what they really are and reality never forgives.
In order to "save" this account, look what you've had to assume: 1. a universe with moral consequences bedded into it, 2. a human psychology that knows that evil is wrong, 3. A conception of virtue, 4. The precept, "parasitism is wrong, even though it's common in the natural world," 5. That "deception" is an actual and morally negative thing, and 6. That "reality," like a god, "never forgives."

That anthropomorphic and moral language cannot be justified if you don't believe in the Creator. For then, it's merely arbitrary. If somebody else sees the world differently, who's to adjudicate? And what "natural principle" beds morality into the nature of the universe?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:19 pm To cheat, to bully, to deceive, to malign and backstab...all highly effective methods, which is what makes them so attractive to so many. Some evil is irrational; but there are also many rational incentives for being evil -- at least sometimes.
No rational individual believes cheating, bullying, or any other intentional threat or harm can ever achieve or produce anything of true value. Good grief, I hope you do not really believe what you just wrote.
It's not important whether or not I believe it. What's important is that empirically, you can see there are plenty of people who operate in just that way, RC. There really cannot be more data for any proposition than that the human race is capable of evil, and very inclined to it. We killed one and a half hundred million people in the last century in wars (none of which, by the way, was religious), and under secular regimes.

The data's in on that: you're just being a bit polyannish there. If you think otherwise, then I suggest you stop locking your doors...after all, why worry about nothing? :wink:
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Fri May 14, 2021 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by henry quirk »

If you can believe, "stealing, cheating, bullying, deceiving, maligning and backstabing," can all be, "rational," ways of dealing with others

If man is just a smart chimp, then what's irrational about any of it?

In many cases, it's a damn sight easier to kill & take instead of transact & trade.

Tyranny can be exceedingly rational.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:14 pm If man is just a smart chimp, then what's irrational about any of it?
Quite right. I can't see any reason why an accidental byproduct of an indifferent universe, the late dependent of a chimp, could be condemned for anything he decides to to at all.
Tyranny can be exceedingly rational.
That's for sure.

Look at the Globalist agenda, for example. Their plan is very "rational," in that it will bring everything on the globe within the systematic planning and arrangement of a central government. That which is unpredictable, uncontrollable, unexpected, will be reduced to the minimum or (at the theory goes) eliminated entirely.

The whole thing is sold as utterly "rational." But it's also totally destructive to the individual, terminal for national sovereignty and self-determination, and a guarantee to deliver us all into the callous hands of the totalitarians.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

To cheat, to bully, to deceive, to malign and backstab...all highly effective methods, which is what makes them so attractive to so many. Some evil is irrational; but there are also many rational incentives for being evil -- at least sometimes.
No rational individual believes cheating, bullying, or any other intentional threat or harm can ever achieve or produce anything of true value. Good grief, I hope you do not really believe what you just wrote.[/quote]
It's not important whether or not I believe it. What's important is that empirically, you can see there are plenty of people who operate in just that way, RC.
[/quote]
Of course. The difference is, you think that kind of behavior is rational and I know it is irrational.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 6:24 pm No rational individual believes cheating, bullying, or any other intentional threat or harm can ever achieve or produce anything of true value. Good grief, I hope you do not really believe what you just wrote.
It's not important whether or not I believe it. What's important is that empirically, you can see there are plenty of people who operate in just that way, RC.
Of course. The difference is, you think that kind of behavior is rational and I know it is irrational.
Well, for something to be "rational," all that has to happen is a proper connection between means and ends. What those ends are, or should be, rationality never tells you.

It's not "irrational" to want to be the Tyrant of Russia. Reason qua reason has no opinion about whether or not you should be. It has no opinions at all, in fact; it only points to instrumental connections between here and the goal you've chosen.

Reason only supplies the connection between what you want and how to get there. Reason can tell you that a revolution will serve your purposes most expeditiously, so that becomes the "rational" solution. It can't tell you you "shouldn't" want to be a Russian Tyrant.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:14 pm Tyranny can be exceedingly rational.
Et tu!?
You really believe the desire for, or pursuit of, evil can be rational?
I don't mean using the mechanics of reason to, justify, or excuse evil, which is rationalization, not reason. I mean correct reason from true premises. Can that right reason ever be the basis for preferring or choosing evil?

If living rationally is no better than living irrationally, if evil is just as likely from correct reason as incorrect reason, why bother reasoning at all?

Do you really believe that, Henry?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 6:40 pm I mean correct reason from true premises. Can that right reason ever be the basis for preferring or choosing evil?
Not if your first premise is, "God exists." Then reason can never lead you to do evil, because every case of doing evil will be counterproductive to your real interests.

But it's not at all apparent that reasons can help you if your first premise is, "The universe is a product of time plus chance."

Neither time nor chance have any interest in what you do. Then, all there is are the means to obtain whatever end you choose, and "rationality" means only that.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by henry quirk »

You really believe the desire for, or pursuit of, evil can be rational?

If man is just a smart ape then I got no reason to believe otherwise.

If man is just a smart ape, why shouldn't a modern day Kahn sweep over the planet and form and shape a global, cohesive society? Why shouldn't he, with an iron fist, make the world efficient?

It seems perfectly rational, if man is just a smart ape, to cull the population of genetic defects, the unruly, and impose sweeping conformity on the rest.

Quite rational to make euthanasia mandatory for folks who can't or won't produce.

Quite rational to institute breedin' programs, if man is just a smart ape.

If man is just a smart ape, it's utterly rational to shape the world into an ordered machine.

Lies, theft, murder, rape, slavery, evil: meaningless categories, if we're just smart apes.
Post Reply