Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:37 pm
Alexander_Reiswich has posted the following.
'The concept of rights and duties is just an idea, one that has existed for quite a long time and which is common to virtually all cultures. Although there are many variations and more complex forms, the basic idea is fairly clear, i.e. "if I have right X in relation to subject Y, then subject Y has a duty to satisfy my claim to right X". That's what I mean by the logic of the "concept of rights and duties". Does this clarify it? If you meant something else, please let me know.'
My standing questions are these: what and where are so-called abstract or non-physical things, and in what way do they exist? So - what and where are so-called concepts, and in what way do they exist? So far, answers avoiding question-begging or equivocation on 'thing' and 'exist' come there none. But - any offers?
So, if a concept is 'just an idea', what and where is an idea, and in what way does it exist? If an idea is a thing that supposedly exists in a mind, what and where is a mind, and in what way does it exist? When we say a concept or an idea is a thing that exists in a mind, have we explained anything at all?
How does a supposed non-physical cause have a physical effect? And how can a physical effect be evidence for a supposed non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism? Rational answers come there none.
What I'm trying to hunt down and expose is the myth of so-called abstract or non-physical things, which is ancient and persistent. And talk of ideas or - more modern and technical-sounding - concepts in minds demonstrates how deeply runs the myth.
It informs all the important philosophical questions about truth, knowledge, identity, justice, goodness, beauty, being, and so on, and so on - all the things supposedly named by what we misleadingly call
abstract nouns.
Socrates and Plato made careers out of asking and trying to provide answers to these misguided questions - and philosophers have been hamstering in the silly wheel ever since.
I would read Alexander_Reiswich's point above differently.
Where rights and duty are to be imposed, they cannot belong to morality-proper.
Rather they should belong to politics [legislation, judiciary and policing] or within the governance of an Association or Society or other social groups [even criminal gangs].
Criminal Codes within national political laws are based on some abstracted ideas; agreed by all, majority or imposed by a dictator within some social contract.
Btw, why do you still live in UK and be dominated by its laws which are based on abstracted ideas and not on facts. It is likely you are not happy with some of these laws based on abstracted ideas which to you is non-existence.
You should move to somewhere [some isolated island, jungle, wilderness] where there are no laws nor rules imposed on you.
Then, it is possible you will realize and sense the 'moral laws' within you [Kant?] which you 'ought' to comply or else you will die miserably.
Socrates and Plato made careers out of asking and trying to provide answers to these misguided questions - and philosophers have been hamstering in the silly wheel ever since.
That is your narrow, shallow, archaic and dogmatic view due to your ignorance that the Philosophy of Morality has since shifted and made progress towards morality with neuroscientific, genetics, genomics, etc. basis.