Why hasn't Ethics made more progress in today's world?

[Immanuel Can]

We have already been though this ages ago IC. Political power and natural rights were NOT given a theistic interpretation by people such as Locke. The whole idea of the Enlightenment was to reject theistic explanations.

Your knowledge of that period needs a whole lot of work, and you really, really, need to read Locke. Seriously, if you do you'll find I'm verifiably right. It's online...everything Locke wrote...but just look up his pronouncements on "life, liberty and property," so influential in Enlightenment philosophy of man and in politics generally, and you'll see I'm right.

Locke is a Theist from start to finish; and so 's his whole rationale for human rights.

Hey, here's a clip for ya:


“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours.” (from, Of Civil Gov't, section II:6)

Like I said...

As for the "Enlightenment," the term itself was coined by anti-religious historians, just as the term "Dark Ages" was before it, in a blatantly propagandistic effort to dismiss the entire contribution of Christianity in particular to human civilization; and today's historians are calling both these epithets into question. And rightfully so. For to perform this kind of propaganda is to warp history beyond any reasonable level, and to encourage just the kind of knee-jerk rejection of the Christian contributions that your comments would seem to imply.

[Immanuel Can]

When I think of you, Orson Bean comes to mind...a good thing...I like Bean.

Jim Beam? Yeah, I love him too.

Just another commie bastid...

Nah, A_uk is a peculiar mix of communitarian and libertarian.

Mebbe Democrat (as in philosophy, not party) works best for him.

A libertarian communitarian? Isn't that a little bit of an oxymoron, like a new antique or a civil engineer?

Whatever...he's a good egg.

Yeah, he does seem alright. And if he's from the UK, that's in his favour too.

[Ginkgo]

We have already been though this ages ago IC. Political power and natural rights were NOT given a theistic interpretation by people such as Locke. The whole idea of the Enlightenment was to reject theistic explanations.

Your knowledge of that period needs a whole lot of work, and you really, really, need to read Locke. Seriously, if you do you'll find I'm verifiably right. It's online...everything Locke wrote...but just look up his pronouncements on "life, liberty and property," so influential in Enlightenment philosophy of man and in politics generally, and you'll see I'm right.

Locke is a Theist from start to finish; and so 's his whole rationale for human rights.

Hey, here's a clip for ya:


“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours.” (from, Of Civil Gov't, section II:6)

Like I said...

As for the "Enlightenment," the term itself was coined by anti-religious historians, just as the term "Dark Ages" was before it, in a blatantly propagandistic effort to dismiss the entire contribution of Christianity in particular to human civilization; and today's historians are calling both these epithets into question. And rightfully so. For to perform this kind of propaganda is to warp history beyond any reasonable level, and to encourage just the kind of knee-jerk rejection of the Christian contributions that your comments would seem to imply.

Obviously. The Enlightenment was a secular propaganda plot to give the rigid and hierarchical political and social system of the time a bad name. Exactly the same plot was taking place during the American Enlightenment.

Human rights are a modern idea The term is not found in any of the writings of Locke as far as I am aware. Certainly not in the quote you have presented.


Edited to include this quote:

'"Locke is a theist from start to finish, so's his whole rationale for human rights"

[Immanuel Can]

Human rights are a modern idea The term is not found in any of the writings of Locke as far as I am aware.

Then you are indeed not aware, just as you claim. You don't recognize, "life, liberty and property," some form of which is in every major human rights code today? I'll bet everybody else can.

Where do you think it came from?

[Ginkgo]

Human rights are a modern idea The term is not found in any of the writings of Locke as far as I am aware.

Then you are indeed not aware, just as you claim. You don't recognize, "life, liberty and property," some form of which is in every major human rights code today? I'll bet everybody else can.

Where do you think it came from?

Gland you asked that question and disappointed I have to go through the same thing yet again.

The human rights code today is not the same as the the so-called human rights code you are promoting in connection with Locke because there are two interpretations when it comes to "natural rights". I'll give you an example of both using one of your examples.

If God declared we have the right to property then this would be a natural right granted TO humans BY nature. If on the other hand, God made us so we need property as a basic, then we would HAVE a natural right TO property because of OUR nature. The former is an example of right given by a deity/nature. The latter is an example of rights not necessarily given to us by a deity/nature.

This distinction becomes important in terms of human rights because the idea of rights has been an ongoing evolutionary process, starting with, and culminating in where we are today. Human rights are not necessarily grounded in any sort of deity/nature. The most obvious example is positive rights. Positive right is often referred to as an entitlement to something. In this day and age such things as humans right can be a right to citizenship, a right to to clean water (developing countries), a right to education and so on.
These types of positive rights only exist because of a decree by some legal authority.

This is why I said that human rights are not found in the writings of Locke. Certainly they had their beginnings with Locke, but today humans rights extend beyond the right to "life, liberty and property".

[Arising_uk]

Kant didn't try this, and nothing can be shown to be immoral unless you already have a moral code in place that can judge it.

Fair point, Kant would not lie to the Nazi about where the Jew was but then I suppose he may have opposed them on the same grounds, who knows, but from the consequentialist stance he could be considered immoral for doing so but then again maybe not, who knows, or from the Catholic Christian morality he could have just turned them over in the first place, we know that is a fact. I thought Kant tried to create an absolute ethical maxim that all could assent to and obey?

By whom?

Philosophers in the main.

When are they "met"?

When they meet Logic.

And for that matter, what are they? (I'll take one, for an example.)

The tautologies and contradictions, "Something cannot be and not be" or more formally, ~(P ^ ~P)

Non sequitur, I'm afraid, and empirically untrue.

That's because it's to do with the logical truths.

People have not known "straight away" a great many things that are now known to be true.

That's the empirical for you.

Nope. As a matter of fact, they come from the rationale provided by John Locke: a thoroughly Theistic rationale too. Go read him and you'll see.

I've read him, albeit a long-time back, and if I remember right he talked about individuals defending their rights. Personally I didn't accept his description of some golden state of nature where all were equal nor his omnipotent 'God', wishful thinking I thought.

Oh, of course. But you won't have any "right" or know that you're "right" to do so. You'll oppose them because you want to.

Exactly, and like Locke suggests I'll hopefully base my choices upon good reason. Although, as I said, I tend to think all, due to being born into a culture, have an ethic and morals, so life is about discovering which ones one actually hold and if you are lucky you live in a time where you can fool yourself, i.e. Chinese non-interesting times.

[Immanuel Can]

If God declared we have the right to property then this would be a natural right granted TO humans BY nature.
Flat self-contradiction: if, as you say, God grants the right, then it's not some anthropomorphic "Nature" that does it, but God.

If on the other hand, God made us so we need property as a basic, then we would HAVE a natural right TO property because of OUR nature. The former is an example of right given by a deity/nature. The latter is an example of rights not necessarily given to us by a deity/nature.

Non-sequitur. Whether or not we were created by God, it is not our "needing" that can compel any "right." Rather, as per Locke, it's God's purposes that compel the right, and we're just very blessed to have it. But He would not have had to assign us such a right if He were not inclined to do so. If He were a distant, angry, impersonal God like Allah or the Gnostic Demiurgic "god", for example, he could have given us "needs" for the sake of watching us suffer.

And on the Materialist account, if we are merely contingent products of an impersonal universe, we have no rights at all. Even the ones we try to describe for ourselves are merely contingent claims of a contingent being. Rights, then are dependent, as Locke said, on God having the purpose to institute in us moral freedom of choice and action. It is because He purposes us to be free that we have a right to be that: Locke's very clear about that rationale.

This distinction becomes important in terms of human rights because the idea of rights has been an ongoing evolutionary process, starting with, and culminating in where we are today.

Evolution, by definition, absent any God presiding over it is a contingent process itself and confers no rights. Gazelles do not have a right not to be eaten by lions, and we have no "right" to expect not to be swallowed up by our own toxic practices in the near future, or by cosmic heat death in the long run. "Evolution" is not a person; it has no "intentions" and does not confer rights.

Positive right is often referred to as an entitlement to something. In this day and age such things as humans right can be a right to citizenship, a right to to clean water (developing countries), a right to education and so on. These types of positive rights only exist because of a decree by some legal authority.

So again, people in Saudi Arabia do not have any rights that ISIS does not give them? People in North Korea have no rights because their government gives them none? I don't believe that, and neither, I think, do you.

This is why I said that human rights are not found in the writings of Locke. Certainly they had their beginnings with Locke, but today humans rights extend beyond the right to "life, liberty and property".

Your proof, good sir? Give me one such universal human right -- just one, any one -- and show me what fact grounds that right, and I'll be content.

[Ginkgo]

If God declared we have the right to property then this would be a natural right granted TO humans BY nature.
Flat self-contradiction: if, as you say, God grants the right, then it's not some anthropomorphic "Nature" that does it, but God.

If on the other hand, God made us so we need property as a basic, then we would HAVE a natural right TO property because of OUR nature. The former is an example of right given by a deity/nature. The latter is an example of rights not necessarily given to us by a deity/nature.

Non-sequitur. Whether or not we were created by God, it is not our "needing" that can compel any "right." Rather, as per Locke, it's God's purposes that compel the right, and we're just very blessed to have it. But He would not have had to assign us such a right if He were not inclined to do so. If He were a distant, angry, impersonal God like Allah or the Gnostic Demiurgic "god", for example, he could have given us "needs" for the sake of watching us suffer.

And on the Materialist account, if we are merely contingent products of an impersonal universe, we have no rights at all. Even the ones we try to describe for ourselves are merely contingent claims of a contingent being. Rights, then are dependent, as Locke said, on God having the purpose to institute in us moral freedom of choice and action. It is because He purposes us to be free that we have a right to be that: Locke's very clear about that rationale.

This distinction becomes important in terms of human rights because the idea of rights has been an ongoing evolutionary process, starting with, and culminating in where we are today.

Evolution, by definition, absent any God presiding over it is a contingent process itself and confers no rights. Gazelles do not have a right not to be eaten by lions, and we have no "right" to expect not to be swallowed up by our own toxic practices in the near future, or by cosmic heat death in the long run. "Evolution" is not a person; it has no "intentions" and does not confer rights.

Positive right is often referred to as an entitlement to something. In this day and age such things as humans right can be a right to citizenship, a right to to clean water (developing countries), a right to education and so on. These types of positive rights only exist because of a decree by some legal authority.

So again, people in Saudi Arabia do not have any rights that ISIS does not give them? People in North Korea have no rights because their government gives them none? I don't believe that, and neither, I think, do you.

This is why I said that human rights are not found in the writings of Locke. Certainly they had their beginnings with Locke, but today humans rights extend beyond the right to "life, liberty and property".

Your proof, good sir? Give me one such universal human right -- just one, any one -- and show me what fact grounds that right, and I'll be content.

I'm not saying that natural rights are anthropomorphic. No one is, nor has for that matter. Natural rights overlap with natural law. It is the natural law aspect that makes for universality. Go back to your original passage you posted and see how Locke explains his, law of nature. You posted it.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law.


The right to equal protection under the law is an example of a positive law that- like all laws- has a universal aspect to it. Equal protection under the law is an example of positive law invented by the legal system. Like most positive laws it can be examined on the basis of a universal principle. That principle being natural law.