Miscellaneous content from the original enlightened caveman. Some serious, some not. Take your chances.

Friday, July 01, 2005

The Rational Morality Debate

A recent post led to a fairly extensive thread that wandered into the subject of morality. At issue is whether morality can be rationally conceived, and whether it really makes that big of a difference. I think it can be and that it makes all the difference. Our welcoming wench, Alice, however, has finally got my number. Or does she...

Alice: Chris. You believe that there is a right way to proceed. You believe that free markets are always better than collective schemes. You believe that the only reason Hitler emerged is because of the Treaty of Versailles. You think the only way to insure having a good marriage is to move in together and have a trial run at it. You have a much clearer vision than I do.

I believe in the ebb and flow method, that there is rarely a clear path to anywhere and it is all of the myriad influences which are present which will produce the outcome.I believe in accidents. I think when things work out well, such as the formation of the United States, it's an accident. Something which happened because of a confluence of events, not because of one or even a few men.


When you say it that way, my position sounds so Type A. More explanation is apparently needed. Perhaps a story.

I know a guy who has a brother. In his house growing up, parental discipline was pretty much non-existent. Nevertheless, both he and his brother have turned out fine - good jobs, family, stability, etc.. But it turns out that his two sisters are majorly messed up. There were never any consequences for doing stupid things when they grew up, and they are both now literally incapable of living responsible lives. They sign leases and break them. They buy cars on credit and end up having to have their parents pay for them. One even has two kids that are now being raised by my friend's brother. It's tragic.

There's no question as to the cause of these girls' misfortunes. Their parents simply failed them. They should have recognized that, though successful, well-adjusted people *sometimes* emerge from consequenceless homes, too often they do not. They ebbed when they should have flowed.

My position is not about some delusional prediction about what happens every time you do this or that - that would be quite contrary to my Kantian view of the universe - uncertainty is the starting point of all thought. It's about probabilities and the stakes of mistakes.

I do happen to believe that free markets are always better than collective ones, but only because there has never been an example of a collective one that led to prosperity without coercion. I believe there are lots of Hitlers lying around this planet, and that the Treaty of Versailles created the conditions necessary for one to obtain absolute power. I don't think the only way to have a good marriage is to move in together first. I believe that moving in together ahead of time dramatically increases the chances of the couple, should they end up marrying, going the distance happily. It's an extended interview process - how is that interpersonal due diligence is so anathema to you? Is that rational?

In all of these areas, I believe the actions that are taken, based upon the prevailing morality - the person in questions' measure of right and wrong - have important ramifications on how things unfold later on.

This is no different than wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle - if the goal (the moral) is to stay healthy, and you can assume there's a reasonable chance you'll wreck (your fault or not), and you can assume that hitting your head at speed will be disastrous to your health, then a helmet is the obvious choice. It's not about a clear vision. It's about being informed and having an idea where you want to go in life.

So my point in all of this is to say it is possible to rationally conceive of our view of right and wrong, and that this is extremely necessary because our choices and actions have larger consequences than we often imagine. And in a society increasingly obsessed with instant gratification, awareness of this is that much more critical.

And lest I ignore an important historical sidebar, Alice also has this to say:
Take the Treaty of Versailles for instance. That begot the Marshall plan. It wasn't invented out of the blue, it came about because people saw that punishing the loser didn't work too well.

This is what I mean by ebb and flow. People are only smart in retrospect. We ain't psychic.

More proof to my point. The aspects of the Treaty of Versailles that caused the problems that created WW2 were the punitive ones - the ones that forced Germany to accept full responsibility for the war, the ones that forced Germany to pay exhorbitant reparations, the ones that forced Germany to relinquish colonies and territories. None of these were present in Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points, which was the US model for the Treaty.

In fact, Clemenceau (the French guy, for the historically challenged) and Wilson were quite at odds through the entire process of establishing the Treaty, heatedly so. The French, having been severely ravaged by the war, and because Clemenceau was a bulldog of magnificent proportions, won out in the end. Nevertheless, someone did know better than to do the Germans as they were done, and that someone was the leader of what has become the greatest nation on this planet. He was enlightened, in a sense, which means he understood enough about humans to know that the French need for revenge would end up coming back to bite them, and maybe everyone else. His morality and his knowledge of his species were the guide to his vision. Several million people would be alive today were it not for an ebb when there should have been a flow.

Lastly, in response to my assertion that individual human action has been one of the most dramatic forces that have shaped human history, specifically my statement that without George Washington, there would be no USA, Alice comes back with this:
...to that I would say, no King George, no USA. If England had acted differently and had been in a different financial position and had not imposed such heavy taxation, it is unlikely the colonists would have agreed to revolt against the mother country.

See, it was the confluence of events. AKA, an accident.

No, it was not an accident. You're quite right that King George's oppression of the colonies was the catalyst for the revolutionary war, but his attitudes and actions were not accidental, not by a long shot. They were a direct result of his morality, which was based upon inherent absolute power of the monarchy and the obligation of all English peoples to bow to it. It is well known that there were those in Britain who recommended just cutting us loose. George would have nothing of it - his pride and his vision of how things should have been (his morality) were being challenged. He, too, ebbed when he should have flowed. It was the widespread dissemanation of enlightenment ideas by people like Thomas Paine and John Locke that alerted the masses to his error. Just as Thomas Paine risked death by writing Common Sense, so did the colonial army in defying and clashing with the British, and both because of their morality, the one that was rationally conceived by a new generation of intellectuals.

At every step of the way through life, there are choices to be made, forks in the road. Each path corresponds to a ripple through the future - some are big, some are small. It is our morality that guides us in choosing a path, which means it is incumbent upon us to conceive of our morality methodically through the use of reason. More importantly, it is incumbent upon us to reject moralistic ideals that do not stand up to rationally scrutiny (read, religious morality). This is a lynchpin in the enlightened modern mind.

(Sorry for picking on you, Alice, but we simply outgrew the comments area. This is an important and clarifying difference of opinion, and if anyone can take it, I know you can.)

28 Comments:

Blogger Chris Wilson said...

You're right, I do agree with you on that. I believe the argument you refer to was over at Dadahead. I weighed in, but only after everyone else was tired of the it. Here's what I said:

Rights are an abstract concept, and they do not exist without acknowledgement by some other party. Locke knew this. In fact, this is precisely why he wrote about rights in the first place. He was trying to conceive of a baseline of rights that could be afforded to all people, rights that could be enjoyed by individuals without infringing upon the rights of other individuals.

He called them natural rights because they could be afforded to man in a state of nature - that is, there were no prerequisites (status at birth, for example) to obtaining them. The term "natural rights" is not, as many often argue, meant to refer to rights that are inherent in nature - this is absurd. Locke put forth the rights to life, liberty, and property as the premise to his greater goal, which was to provide a philosophical justification for government. Taken outside of this context, rights are meaningless.

Government before the Enlightenment thinkers was an institution designed to provide for the needs (and desires) of the ruling class - on one hand, to control the masses, on the other hand to methodically pull resources to themselves from all over. The Declaration of Independence is first and foremost a formal argument against this view of government. It provided what was then an absolutely revolutionary idea - that the purpose of government was to secure Locke's vision of the rights of all citizens.

Oh yes, and the right to property actually flows directly from the right to life. One must be able to keep the fruits of his labor if he is to be maintain his right to life - especially when his labor is aimed at finding food or shelter. The fruits of labor are property. If you can't keep what you work on, and what you work on is what sustains, you do not have the right to life.

Again, it's all about morality - what you deem right and wrong in this life.

7/02/2005 01:42:00 PM

 
Blogger Clupbert said...

"I believe that moving in together ahead of time dramatically increases the chances of the couple, should they end up marrying, going the distance happily"

Statistics show this to be false. (http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi5025b_qa.html)

"Something which happened because of a confluence of events, not because of one or even a few men."

I don't agree. One or a few men can trigger a confluence of events. Marx did I think, Einstein did, and I also think that Jesus did.
But to a point I agree. Did you ever read that Crichton book, timeline where he talks about time travel. He says going back in time and changing one thing will not change the future and compares it to trying to change the outcome of a baseball game. You can run out on to the field, scream all you want, and you probably just won't do it.
Otherwise I agree with the rest of what EC said.

7/02/2005 11:34:00 PM

 
Blogger Chris Wilson said...

Ahh Clupbert, thanks for the stats. They make perfect sense, *and* they validate my point completely. The reason 85% of people who move in together don't end up getting married is because something about living together wasn't working. That is a *good* thing.

It's a very reasonable question as to whether they would have arrived at the same conclusion as married couples and simply stuck it out. I think the whole discussion hinges on whether this is good or bad thing.

I certainly acknowledge that a significant degree of the benefit you get from marriage is the growth that comes from making a commitment to someone and sticking to it, even when things take a turn for the worst. There's no question that that this is the driving force behind the value of commitment.

However, there are very real things you learn about compatibility from living with someone that you often can't learn by simply dating and sleeping over occasionally, *especially* if you're young. I say that many of these things are (and should be) deal breakers - getting married because you're brave enough to commit when the compatibility isn't there is pretty much stupid in my book. It's deciding, all for some abstract unjustifiable principle, that you're going to ignore a means to valuable information in making the most important decision of your life.

Living together is a good way to make sure (as sure as you can be) that you're making the *right* commitment. Some may see it as a way to shirk commitment. I simply disagree.

When couples live together and break up rather than get married, I see it as a win for everyone. They figured out that they wouldn't be happy *before* they hit the point of no return, and certainly before they brought kids into an unhappy home, which *far too many* people do. It's only practical.

7/03/2005 12:02:00 AM

 
Blogger Chris Wilson said...

"You can run out on to the field, scream all you want, and you probably just won't do it. "

You can run out on the field and break Randy Johnson's hand and you will almost certainly affect the outcome of the game. It's all about *what* thing you change, which means that little events do matter, *just certain ones*. While it might be interesting to think that there is some level of *momentum* in the ricocheting of life's billiard balls that is impervious to human action, it is a delusion to deny that, in almost every situation, there is some human action that could be taken that would drastically affect the outcome.

To bring this all back to the topic, let me reiterate - our choices and actions are determined by our views of right and wrong (our morality - which includes what we think is important in life), and very often, our choices have broader ramifications than we think. Adopting the ebb and flow, confluence of events philosophy necessarily condradicts this idea, often to the unknown chagrin of the adopter.

It is possible, if you study the world, history, in particular, to glean some insight into which choices have big consequences. It is about those things that we must pay the most attention if we're to get what we want out of life.

Life isn't something we simply meander through, though there are many who have done this and fared quite well. Life isn't something that just happens to us, largely irrespective of our actions. People who have this view and fare well are anomalies. Statistically speaking, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people who are not even remotely enjoying life believe that it is largely beyond their control. This confluence of events concept is just a little less dramatic version of that exact attitude.

There are those who would say that my stance is a very delusional one, some futile attempt to control the uncontrollable, the future. Here's why they're wrong. It's also possible to learn about the world, paying close attention to history, to figure out what in life can be even slightly controlled and what cannot. I *think* I have managed to avoid trying to control the uncontrollable - I've let go - I don't get nervous on airplanes anymore, for example. But, many things that many people consider uncontrollable, I see as imminently controllable, if only insofar as I can make the field of possibilities knowable and somewhat predictable.

Take my neighborhood, for example. It's very safe, mainly because there are lots of kids and the parents are always on the lookout. If someone comes nosing around my house when no one is home, it's a certainty that I'll be asked about it by a neighbor. (In fact, the person may very well be approached, by a neighbor or a cop.) This offers me a much higher degree of predictability than my friends who still live in very urban areas where all walks of life stroll down their streets. Can I say for sure that my house will never be broken into? Can I say for sure that my wife or kid will never be accosted on our street? Of course not. But I can be a heck of a lot more confident about it than my in-town buddies can. That's my version of control, and it's not even close to a fantasy. I've made specific choices based upon what's important to me.

The next time I go a party where a friend (an in-town friend) tells me about his wife getting car-jacked (it's happened before), he'll come off with the usual, "Ahh hell, whatcha gonna do?" I'll say what I said last time, "Be smarter about where your wife is driving." It's about choices. My friends love me.

7/03/2005 12:30:00 AM

 
Blogger Robert said...

Nice discussion you’ve got going here. I have a few thoughts.

Chris: So my point in all of this is to say it is possible to rationally conceive of our view of right and wrong, and that this is extremely necessary because our choices and actions have larger consequences than we often imagine. And in a society increasingly obsessed with instant gratification, awareness of this is that much more critical.

Alice: I am talking big picture here. I think I said before, there are way too many things which influence outcomes. To think that anyone can act "rationally" is an illusion. We would be paralyzed if we had to consider everything in order to make proper decisions. At best, you can do what's best for you and hope and have as part of your ethics that that will not harm others. "liberty for all".

Unless I missed the point entirely, it seems that Chris’ conception of “rational morality” is an ideal for society generally and individuals specifically. I tend to agree, with the caveat that a minority of people (in all of history) rely upon rationality, while any given majority will be reactionary…to varying degrees, of course.

That said though, Alice seems to be using a reductio ad absurdum, in that she implies that rationality is utterly unattainable and therefore an unrealistic basis for decision making. As I say above, for many, rationality will be illusory, but that in no way negates the tangible benefits of tempering morality with reason as a guiding principle.

And now for something completely different…

Chris: Rights are an abstract concept, and they do not exist without acknowledgement by some other party.
[…]
The term "natural rights" is not, as many often argue, meant to refer to rights that are inherent in nature - this is absurd. Locke put forth the rights to life, liberty, and property as the premise to his greater goal, which was to provide a philosophical justification for government. Taken outside of this context, rights are meaningless.


Forgive me, but I just can’t resist jumping in here. First of all, you correctly point out that “rights are an abstract concept”….but…to say that “they do not exist without acknowledgement by some other party” is to misrepresent the concept, or at least to misunderstand it (further explanation will be forthcoming). Now, natural rights may be metaphysical, but certainly not “meaningless” in the absence of acquiescence. Moreover, Locke was establishing the datum upon which “civilized society” rests. Lastly, you contradict your previous assertion that denied the inherent nature of rights by stating (quite correctly) [T]he right to property actually flows directly from the right to life. Exactly…property rights are the crux of inherent rights, inasmuch as one owns oneself, ergo life is property. The bit about third party acknowledgement simply speaks to ones willingness or ability (or lack thereof) to defend their life, liberty and property, not the existential reality of rights.

Alice: They live lives, as have all indigenous peoples, in harmony with their environment. They live off of the land and they depend on the cycles of nature to determine their fate. What makes western ways objectively better?

You mention, sanitation and life saving drugs; I say overpopulation. You say increased productivity; I say pollution. You say individualism; I say greed and selfishness. You say more leisure time; I say meaninglesness.


To answer your question directly…most everything. A few broad examples would be: quality of life, abundance of food and potable water, security of rights and stable society (relative to non-western cultures, rather than my vision of Libertopia), etc, etc, etc.

As to the second paragraph, you’re comparing avocados with pomegranates. The original juxtaposition was between African poverty/squalor and western prosperity; both scenarios represent the present paradigm, whereas you have contrasted X with utopian-X.

7/04/2005 04:10:00 PM

 
Blogger Chris Wilson said...

Damn! An Independence Day fucking throwdown. This, to me, is a significant milestone in the life of this site - a group of folks interested enough in some off-the-wall, but downright important shit to weigh in on a holiday. Perfect.

First off, I'm indebted to Robert for articulating what I've been thinking about Alice's latest comments. Although I have to say that reductio ad absurdum, though admittedly accurate, has a sting to it, you're on the money, bro. You're somewhat misguided, which I shall soon rectify, but on the money.

"First of all, you correctly point out that “rights are an abstract concept”….but…to say that “they do not exist without acknowledgement by some other party” is to misrepresent the concept, or at least to misunderstand it (further explanation will be forthcoming). Now, natural rights may be metaphysical, but certainly not “meaningless” in the absence of acquiescence. Locke was establishing the datum upon which “civilized society” rests."

Natural rights are abstract *artifacts* around which interpersonal agreements are made. Locke's intellectual pursuit was a set of such artifacts that could be afforded to all people, regardless of circumstances, without the possibility of infringement upon the same rights of others. Without any agreement on these rights, they are meaningless. That is *not* to say that they, as a concept, don't have inherent *merit* - that is, that they don't inherently "make sense." But that't not what Locke was describing.

Another way, a materialist way, to say this is to say that any notion of a "right" is not, in any way, explicable in the context of the laws of nature as we know them. It's a manmade construct, and therefore, requires the acknowledgement of other men, just as the word "tree" has to be tree to someone else in order for it to mean something.

And next on deck...

Trouble, as always, harsh and hardcore, has it right this time. In order to think about this properly, you have to start with a goal, something you think is important (a moral, hello). Then, you can easily weigh the field - who's doing better against the goal. Unless you totally reject a western *goal*, you have no choice but to concede that our way is better. Perhaps that's it, Alice - perhaps you're revealing a disdain for the western view of "better."

This is the tipoff:
"Westerners always think we live the way life should be lived. This is not rational."

Ahem, let me rephrase. Westerners always think we live the way life *can be* lived. That's the key. We start with a goal - say, living without fear, boredom, or worry - and we try every imaginable way to get there. Over time, we accrue a magnificent database of information - what has worked, and what hasn't. That's western culture.

Sure, you *can* shit au naturale, as Drew Barrymore did, but why the fuck would you? It's a pain in the ass, on more than one level. Our western goal - life without fear, boredom, or worry - is not in agreement with that way of doing business. Unlike us, the Africans, many of them, have tried that, and only that. On the other hand, some of us, the military types, the outdoorsy types, have tried it, and we've unanimously concluded that a flushing toilet wins every time. The point is that, in trying only a handful of ways of living life, in contrast to us westerners, Africans (and countless others) are sucking wind.

They're experiencing a version of life that does not allow for the kind of contemplation that we're engaged in (on Uncle Sam's birthday, no less). Theirs is a life full of have-tos; ours is a life divided between have-tos and *want-tos*. That's progress, on most any level. Not only is this rational, it's flat out practical. And it's logical to its core.

You can't get hung up on taking rationality to its extreme. Shall we consider Bayes Theorem? Bayes, an 18th century mathematician, put forth the following basic way of deciding how likely something happening is: take the specific outcome you're interested in and divide it by the number of possible times it could occur.

For example, if you want to know the probability that your birthday will fall on a Monday, you divide 1 (a particular day of the week) by 7 (seven days of the week). One in seven. Easy. Now what are the chances that you'll crash on your flight next month? You divide 1 by the number of flights happening while you're in the air. This doesn't exactly bear out the saying that you're safer in the air than if you're driving a car.

It's not the standard way of looking at statistical probabilities, but it's pretty useful, if you ask me. It helps you keep your decision making in the realm of rationality. This, I think, might be of interest to you, Alice.

Considering the idea of a confluence of events, you can quickly see that areas where lots of factors are in play are areas where you're best served by treading lightly with high-stakes decision-making (additional variables stack the probabilities against you). The likelihood of whatever particular event you might be angling for - say, a well-adjusted kid - might very well be far beyond the realm of possibility (which would explain your unwillingness to place rationality on a pedestal). However, an *isolated* event, such as seeing to it that your kid understands that there are real consequences for poor actions, is something that might easily make sense in a particular situation (with a Bayesian mideset, of course). By taking this kind of view, you are immediately forced to determine what micro-events make for the *highest likelihood* that the macro-event - say, a well-adjusted kid - might happen. You conclude that kids who understand consequences fare better in life than kids who don't. You conclude that kids who know, for an absolute certainty, that there is at least one person on the planet who holds them as the most important thing in life fare better than those who don't. This is entirely rational, even if the confluence of events that could push the outcome one way or another are not.

And more...

"Despite what Micheal Crichton thinks and despite the fact that we just don't want to think about it either, we are on the brink of drastically overpopulating the planet."

This is a canard. Ten years ago, the wackos were holding up models of of the *population explosion* that would take place by the year 2000. All in all, we're still growing arithmetically. Please show me the crisis.

And more still...

"1) The mutilation of anyone's genetalia is wrong because it infringes on the personal rights of the individual.

2) If any country or society performs such surgeries they are guilty of a henious crime against humanity.

3) the country of East Ploopy performs such surgeries on their young women.

Therefore, the country of East Ploopy is guilty of infringing on the rights of individuals and of henious crimes against humanity.

I think this is a logical, rational argument. "

Yes, it's logical, but it's incorrect. That's the beauty of logic and reason. While you may be adhering to the rules of argument, you have not satisfied the ultimate rule, which is to prove your conclusion. You have offered evidence (premises) that, if correct, would do so. However, they do not.

The first premise is okay (though heavy weight - and boring - logicians would take you to task on the meaning of wrong). The second is, however, problematic. Any medically trained person can think of a couple of reasons why it might make sense to "mutilate" someone's genitalia - cancer, etc. And then, what is a heinous crime against humanity?

I'm not trying to be pedantic here. I'm only making the point that all rational or logical argument depends upon some set of assumptions. It is those assumptions that determine whether logic makes sense. If we *accept* that all pit bulls are killers and we accept that all killers must be incarcerated, then logically speaking, we have no choice but to lock up all pit bulls. But we don't have to accept the premise that all pit bulls are killers.

And we come back to Kant. This is just another way of describing the notion that all thinking starts with uncertainty. We have to start with assumptions and work our way up from there.

And lastly...

"I have not hijacked the thread. What I am trying valiently to point out is that we are not totally rational. We base much of our decision making on our "feelings" and "opinions".

And I like feelings and opinions. I think mine are fabulous. They come from the collected experiences I have had as a human being. They come from my genetic makeup and from my childhood experiences."

I decide who's hijacking around here and it's Clupbert, only Clupbert.

Alice, this is all established stuff, the very marrow of this site. We are now to the point where we're dissecting what this means. Yes, we have feelings, and yes, they're great, especially the ones that assist us in our *rational* pursuits. We all agree, I think, that acting entirely rational is impossible. However, what we're talking about is creating a rational *plan* while we're in our most rational frame of mind, and then committing to seeing it through. Sometimes we succeed, sometimes we fail, but the plan is always there.

It's the plan that we're after in enlightening ourselves. We've learned enough to know that some courses of action push us towards our goals while others push us away. We simply *choose* to do what makes sense and then ride it out from there. How close we get to our goals depends upon how much courage we have to execute our plan and how how much inquisitiveness and wisdom we have to modify the plan appropriately along the way. All along, rationality is our guide. It's our failsafe.

PS - For Uncle Sam

Let us not forget that this day, 229 years ago, a group of men, representing a population of courageous and pissed off people, declared their unwillingness to abide the flawed and unjust system of government that gave birth to them. Instead, they conceived of a rational state where all could enjoy the same opportunities (and the same challenges) without fear of persecution or coercion of any sort, with only a man's wits and backbone between him and prosperity. (Women didn't count back then, but let's not quibble. I'm on a roll here.) Never before in the history of the planet had this been done. We are here because of them. We are here because of their commitment to the rationality of their vision. This, and nothing else, is the source of American patriotism.

And...I'm...spent.

7/05/2005 12:46:00 AM

 
Blogger Chris Wilson said...

Almost forgot this...

"Lastly, you contradict your previous assertion that denied the inherent nature of rights by stating (quite correctly) [T]he right to property actually flows directly from the right to life. Exactly…property rights are the crux of inherent rights, inasmuch as one owns oneself, ergo life is property."

There's no contradiction here at all. I assert that rights don't mean anything unless they are acknowledged by other humans. The right to property is a logical consequence of the right to life. This says nothing whatsoever about the nature of rights. The two issues are separate. The right to life is completely absurd unless people agree that it exists. *Once they do*, the right to property is an unavoidable consequence. I'll say it again - Locke knew this. This was his primary concern - how can we conceive of a set of rights that we can all be entitled to without infringing on the rights of others? That's why the list is necessarily very short.

(On a sidenote, it's also why the UN's push for universal human rights, including the right to a basic standard of living, is unworkable. Same thing with the right to healthcare. It's impossible to grant these to all people without violating property rights. And once you start doing that, the world starts to look a lot more like the natural world of yesteryear, the one where rights don't exist at all.)

7/05/2005 02:01:00 PM

 
Blogger Chris Wilson said...

Trouble, you're right about that. I always refer to my rationally conceived ethics as my intellectual best practices. I recognize that sometimes my caveman emotions get the best of me and I say and do things that are contrary to my ethics. But my ethics are there, and the older and more mature I get, the more they govern what I say and do. That's how it's supposed to work.

7/05/2005 02:03:00 PM

 
Blogger Robert said...

Before I take you to task EC, I want to commend you for your entertaining and informative response(s). Incidentally, Alice owes you a tongue-lashing. OK, to the wood-shed we go.

Chris: It's a manmade construct, and therefore, requires the acknowledgement of other men, just as the word "tree" has to be tree to someone else in order for it to mean something.

[and]

There's no contradiction here at all. I assert that rights don't mean anything unless they are acknowledged by other humans. The right to property is a logical consequence of the right to life. This says nothing whatsoever about the nature of rights. The two issues are separate. The right to life is completely absurd unless people agree that it exists.

[and]

(On a sidenote, it's also why the UN's push for universal human rights, including the right to a basic standard of living, is unworkable. Same thing with the right to healthcare. It's impossible to grant these to all people without violating property rights.


-Definition of terms-

1.) Natural Rights: inherent to human beings by virtue of existence—such are neither granted nor need to be recognized or sanctioned by others (life, liberty and property).

2.) Constructed Rights: privileges that are granted by the state or society—such are not inherent and must be recognized by others (voting franchise, license to drive, access to education, “free” healthcare, “living wage”, et al.).

You have (inadvertently or otherwise) either confused these categories, or reject the distinction altogether. If the former is the case, I would argue that the three facets of “natural rights” are part and parcel of personhood. That is, I need no other party to grant me permission to live, to own my life or to be at liberty to exist. The only question that remains is whether I am able to protect myself and my assets from an aggressor (state, group or individual).

Now, in the context of a “social contract”, such as ours, individuals subject themselves to the rule of law, which calls for certain limitations and forfeiture of those rights, but only after due process. Notwithstanding the fact that phenomena such as murder, confinement and theft obviously violate natural rights, it does not follow that such rights are merely theoretical. And though we may disagree, I stand by my definition of natural rights.

Finally, two quick points. First, a tree is a tree, X is X, regardless of how many idiots may deny the fact. Secondly, “human rights”, inasmuch as they extend beyond “natural rights”, are “constructed rights” and no more than a thinly veiled attempt at forced equality, in terms of stuff, typically by way of socialistic redistribution of resources. Of course, the more insidious method of propagating “human rights” is through the indoctrination of children and soft-minded adults (I’m not referring to you, Alice…even though you did play the “crimes against humanity” card). While I’m sure you know this, Chris, you seem to conflate the two types of rights, which are in reality mutually exclusive.

7/05/2005 04:21:00 PM

 
Blogger Robert said...

Whoa! This level of "misunderstanding" has not been seen since Three’s Company. You know—Jack, Larry, the girls, either landlord—down at the Regal Beagle, words spoken, meaning misconstrued, cue laugh-track. That sorta thing.

The subject of your last two comments, my statements, were in jest. The first of which was in reference to Chris’ “harsh” critique of your logical syllogism. As for the other, I was merely picking on your use of “crimes against humanity”. If you must be pissed, direct it at my poor use of humor, but not because of any malice on my part.

7/05/2005 09:54:00 PM

 
Blogger Chris Wilson said...

"Can you grant me at least this? (probably not) You must have faith (read an irrational thought) that by being moral, you will attain what you want out of life."

Yes, if morality is rationally conceived, then this is simply faith in reason, the only faith that makes sense. See the previous lengthy discussion on the topic.

"At least you agreed with me on the natural rights stuff, so I must have a few brain cells still functioning."

My assent or dissent is not necessarily a good litmus test for proper brain function. It's more telling that you're actually noodling on all of this. That's a good sign.

Robert - I reject those definitions because they are incorrect. Stay with me - this may be painful.

First, the definition of definition:
1. A statement conveying fundamental character.
2. A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.

If you insist that what you've provided is governed by the latter, then a definition itself is nothing more than an arbitrary agreement as to the meaning of something. This reinforces my point. If, on the other hand, you like the former definition, then we have to look at the definition of fundamental:
1. Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary: the fundamental laws of the universe.
2. Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure; central: an example that was fundamental to the argument.
3. Of great significance or entailing major change: a book that underwent fundamental revision.

Number 2, I think, is the only one that is applicable. So, your definition of natural rights should convey the essential component(s) of the concept. It does not. Here's why.

"That is, I need no other party to grant me permission to live, to own my life or to be at liberty to exist."

Incorrect. If, as an early settler on the North American continent, you inadvertantly wandered onto the territory of hostile indians, you would most certainly need their permission to keep drawing air. In their minds, your life would be flat-out worthless, and chances are, you'd be dead in short order. Furthermore, there would be no malice on the part of the Indians that they had violated your right to life. As they would not recognize any such right, it simply would not exist, as you'd be able to tell St.Peter (to your chagrin) when you got to the Pearly Gates. (You believe in that stuff, right? :-) )

The fact is that nature *is* red tooth and claw, as they say. Without sentient beings to *agree* upon them, rights do not exist. In place of our modern notion of "right", Mother Nature has preferred might, cunning, and luck, and she has done so for billions of years.

Interestingly, this is an excellent exercise in thinking for yourself. Sometimes, it is possible, as I hope I've demonstrated, to be right and be be at odds with even the dictionary (Alice's fav book). Personally, these are cherished moments. I upended Webster. What could be better than that (intellectually speaking, of course)?

"Notwithstanding the fact that phenomena such as murder, confinement and theft obviously violate natural rights, it does not follow that such rights are merely theoretical."

Uh, what? Murder, confinement, and theft, violate rights *as agreed upon by humans*. They violate no law in nature, as I think I've shown already, at least with regard to murder. But theft and confinement - come on now, Robert. It takes two *people* agreeing that they'll not steal from one another to prevent it. Stealing food is a hallmark in animal behavior. The way it is avoided is by the potential victim either being clever enough or powerful enough to deter it. There are no rights here, only actions and consequences, which is what nature is all about.

"First, a tree is a tree, X is X, regardless of how many idiots may deny the fact."

Wrong again. I know this is semantics, but it's all related. The *word* tree is a verbal symbol for an entity that is what it is, no matter what anyone says. However, in order for the *word* tree to mean anything at all, it has to be agreed upon by others, else the fool shouting "tree! tree!" at a tall woody-trunked plant just looks like a retard.

And to Eric and Alice regarding our *damage* to the planet...

Yes, indeed, we are now capable of destroying this rock much more dramatically than any of our forefathers could. However, the same technology is also capable of fixing many of the problems that could never have been dealt with 100 years ago. We keep our water supplies *much* cleaner than they do in third world countries, for example. I'm not trying to ignore the ramifications of hi-tech living beings on a planet. I'm just saying it's not all bad news.

As for anyone actually being pissed at any of this, I think we know better. Group hug, anyone?

7/06/2005 10:56:00 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hi folks.just happened down the scroll and something piqued my interest. the discussion about genital mutilation ( in my humble experience ) almost never leads to a discussion about the totally un-necessary and broad impact of circumcision in this country. NONE of the " health " organizations will actually condone said brutallity on the condition of need. this practice was initiated in the 1800's in an attempt to curtail masturbation. this was seen as deleterious to overall health at that time. my belief is that the " morality " factor played, then as now, a pivotal role in the decision to carry-out the procedure. the idea is that sexual satisfaction is not a " rational " goal outside of procreation. thus, in this country, we endure the " consequences " of having a population of males who are overwhelmingly in need of " unnatural " stimulation in order to achieve orgasm. this, i believe, has given rise to the current mainstream of forceful, male-dominant porn industy. these folks prey on the masses of males who need " extra " stimulation because their penis is calloused and not as receptive as in it's " natural " state. no other country has the sex crime rates that we see in the US. i also believe that the legislation of morality is the termite factor we see today. that being, " my brother's keeper " complex. peter mcwilliams wrote a wonderful treatise on the subject called " ain't nobody's business if you do ". in it, he attacks the " morality " behind the laws concerning drugs, gambling and sex. totally based on religion's stranglehold on this country's legislative mind-set. i found it very resourceful and dis-emburdening ( see enlightening ). PEACE.

7/06/2005 11:05:00 AM

 
Blogger Chris Wilson said...

I'll say this, and then we'll leave this topic for good.

A circumcised dick just looks cooler than a non-circumcised dick. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time.

7/06/2005 11:38:00 AM

 
Blogger Robert said...

I’ll leave any substantive comment concerning the aesthetics of a circumcised male member for another thread.

Chris: There are no rights here, only actions and consequences, which is what nature is all about.

Sorry Chris, but I think that you’re simply defining inherent rights out of existence, rather than debunking the merits of the concept. Specifically, your assertion that life, liberty and property can be seized, abrogated or outright ignored only bespeaks immoral acts, but does not demonstrate the nonexistence of rights. Moreover, brutes and thugs will always be among us, unfortunately. That said, inherent rights are first and foremost recognized by the individual that posses said rights, as evidenced by the “will to live” and “self defense”. What follows is an innate desire to protect your stuff and to be at liberty. The keystone in the arch of rights is “ownership”, and that of life and property. The degree of “acknowledgement” by my neighbor simply works to determine my level of vigilance.

Alice: If there is no God, then where do the rights come from? Nature, I believe gives us no rights. Nature doesn't care at all about us.....

To anthropomorphize Nature in this way is inapt, I think, in the context of “natural rights”. You’ll notice that I’ve not described inherent rights as a “gift” of any sort, neither “given” by God or Nature. Rather, by nature I mean “natural state of things”. My point is that with life comes the ownership of same, and indeed a right live it in liberty. The import of articulating the philosophy of inherent rights is to create consensus, in the interest of precluding the undue infringement of those rights. Regardless, if my rights are circumcised in the forest, there will be a sound…forgive me, I couldn’t help it.

7/06/2005 04:27:00 PM

 
Blogger Chris Wilson said...

"thus, in this country, we endure the " consequences " of having a population of males who are overwhelmingly in need of " unnatural " stimulation in order to achieve orgasm. this, i believe, has given rise to the current mainstream of forceful, male-dominant porn industy. these folks prey on the masses of males who need " extra " stimulation because their penis is calloused and not as receptive as in it's " natural " state."

Whoa! A logical basejump. Let me rephrase: males are overwhelmingly in need of "routine" stimulation - natural or otherwise. This is genetic, which means we've been enduring the consequences of it forever. And the porn industry isn't dominating anyone. It's meeting a demand that would have been there back in caveman days. Think every one of the caveman babe calendars wouldn't have had sticky pages? Surely you jest. And calloused penises??? Created by the porn industry???? I'm speechless.

Momentarily, that is. And while I'm on the ridiculous topic, "doubts linger as to whether circumcision itself is protective, or whether the lower risk may be the result of cultural practices among those who circumcise. HIV rates are low in Muslim communities, for example, which practice male circumcision but also engage in ritual washing before sex and frown on promiscuity."

This, the last paragraph of that SF Chron article, is what a non-hack journalist would have led with. This story is stupid.

Now to Robert - it ain't over yet.

"Sorry Chris, but I think that you’re simply defining inherent rights out of existence, rather than debunking the merits of the concept. Specifically, your assertion that life, liberty and property can be seized, abrogated or outright ignored only bespeaks immoral acts, but does not demonstrate the nonexistence of rights."

I have debunked the merits of the concept - it simply doesn't make sense. And if my evidence doesn't demonstrate the nonexistence of rights (without human acknowlegdement), then what does?

Suppose one guy in a population of 100 decides to recognize his natural rights. Unfortunately, no one else does, and he is murdered. Among the remaining 99, there is a constant struggle for survival that often includes interpersonal conflicts that often end in death. So, if even in this absurd situation, natural rights exist (they must, if they're inherent), how do we know? What *observable phenomena* can be attributed to them? If you can't point to anything, then it's simply impossible to insist that they exist.

"The keystone in the arch of rights is “ownership”, and that of life and property. The degree of “acknowledgement” by my neighbor simply works to determine my level of vigilance."

No. No. No. The degree of acknowledgement by your neighbor determines *whether you'll own anything*. You may be as vigilant as you like, but you'll eventually encounter a neighbor who'll convince you that you have no right to anything unless he says you do. That's our species.

It seems that your position hinges on some equality between the existence of rights in your mind and their inherent existence in nature. So long as *you* acknowledge natural rights, they exist. That doesn't jibe well with the concept of inherent "existence". And it leads to a very slippery memetic slope.

If the existence of an idea in your brain means it exists, then you end up having to accept that every idea you conceive of in the vast solution space of ideas inherently exists. All of a sudden, you've rendered the word 'exists' meaningless. This doesn't work.

I *think* we're leading down a heavy logic hole. Books are devoted to headaches such as existence. I have one - Colin McGinn's, Logical Properties. It's boooooring. Anyway, the ball's in your court.

7/07/2005 01:05:00 AM

 
Blogger Chris Wilson said...

Oh, and Lonesome, great post, my man. It's always nice to get a little classical reinforcement. And the "y" thing, that's an awesome little factoid. (Permission to plagiarize, sir?) I think your conclusion is very clever (and right), but I'd modify just slightly - rationality is *the best* morality. I like that.

7/07/2005 01:09:00 AM

 
Blogger Robert said...

The degree of acknowledgement by your neighbor determines *whether you'll own anything*.

Suppose that you buy a car, and the seller transfers the title to you. It’s now *yours*, right? Further, suppose that Joe Blowe swipes it whilst you sleep. Do you cease to own the car, simply because it’s no longer in your possession? If so, “ownership” has no meaning. Such is the case with rights, as everyone “possesses” the title to their life.

It seems that your position hinges on some equality between the existence of rights in your mind and their inherent existence in nature. So long as *you* acknowledge natural rights, they exist. That doesn't jibe well with the concept of inherent "existence". And it leads to a very slippery memetic slope.

If the existence of an idea in your brain means it exists, then you end up having to accept that every idea you conceive of in the vast solution space of ideas inherently exists. All of a sudden, you've rendered the word 'exists' meaningless. This doesn't work.


Holy reductio ad absurdum Batman! I certainly didn’t create this concept from whole cloth, neither from the fabric of my mind. The fact is, not all things that “exists in nature” need to be *material* (e.g. emotions, ideas, identity…”agreement”, etc.). Certainly you don’t deny the reality of “intangibles”, do you? At any rate, ownership is the core of rights. Theft and confiscation may effect possession, but cannot affect ownership.

I *think* we're leading down a heavy logic hole.

It’s awfully difficult to argue against that. ;-)

7/07/2005 02:33:00 AM

 
Blogger Chris Wilson said...

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. I think ownership falls into the same category as rights, and I'm not alone. Where do you think the notion that possession is 9/10s of the law comes from? It's an acknowledgement that ownership means nothing unless others recognize it - it's hard to say you own something if you don't possess it. Possession is inherent to nature; ownership is not. To answer your question, if some guy comes along and steals your property and there's no one around to convince him that it's yours, tough luck for you - it's his.

I'm not saying you created the concept of natural rights. I'm saying that you seem to believe that so long as you believe in them, they exist inherently in nature. They don't. And, of course, I recognize intangibles, but not intangibles that have no observable (even indirectly) phenomena associated with them. You cite emotions. Easy to point to all sorts of phenomena that come from them. Ideas, in general, same thing. Agreement - same thing. Identity - well, that's a logic hole, as I said.

Now you may say that there are plenty of observable phenomena when it comes to natural rights. Fair enough - lots has come from them. Now take out any human acknowledgement of them. Do those phenomena still exist? No, they don't. Therefore, rights are abstract, and they only take on some level of reality when they are acknowledged by humans.

Notice that, of your examples, only emotions exist independent of man's acknowledgement. (Leaving identity aside.) That's exactly my point. If you have an idea and you do nothing with it (such as build something), and no one accepts it, then you're hard pressed to prove it exists outside of your mind.

Just to be clear, the entire dictionary, in my view, is exactly the same way. If I write my own dictionary and define everything the way I want (different from the traditional definitions), and no one wants to accept my definitions, they will have no relationship to reality outside my mind. It's all about agreement, or at least acknowledgement.

7/07/2005 11:00:00 AM

 
Blogger Robert said...

Alright, let me try to restate your position, in order to find out if I understand it. I’ve identified two distinct themes (beneath a third, overarching view) in your comments thus far.

1. possession trumps and/or defines ownership

2. consensus is determinative, with respect to concepts and their meaning

3. 1 & 2 flow from pragmatism, in that our species’ mental faculties are not far removed from our caveman ancestors, and as such, complex ideas (civilization, inherent rights, morals and ethics) are only abstractions that dwell within the mind and were constructed to facilitate society. Whereas, in reality, human existence consists primarily of survival and reproduction, the means of which include, but not limited to, brute force and treachery. Therefore, morality is reduced to ‘might makes right’ and ethics are mere mythology.

Pardon the hyperbole, but I’m just trying to get to brass tax. I trust that you’ll correct me if I’ve mischaracterized your position.

7/07/2005 01:44:00 PM

 
Blogger Chris Wilson said...

We're getting close, Robert.

"1. possession trumps and/or defines ownership"

Yep.

"2. consensus is determinative, with respect to concepts and their meaning"

*Acknowledgement* is determinative. One last absurd thought experiment on this - suppose you have an ancient population of people who can't communicate verbally. They live in scarce times, which means they are constantly competing for resources. Most die young. Every so often, one of these people has an epiphany - somehow it dawns on him that simply by being alive, he is entitled to the fruits of his labor. Now suppose he goes back to the tribe with his latest kill. When he previously would have guarded it carefully, now he leaves it out in the open. It's his; no one has the right to take it.

Unfortunately, since he's the only one who has grasped this notion of rights, his kill is soon swiped by a bigger man. Indignant, he starts a fight with the man and ends up getting killed. In fact, this is pretty much what happens every time one of these people becomes "enlightened" as to his inherent rights. Now the absurd payoff - suppose aliens come down and begin observing these people. How would they describe them?

They'd describe their physical characteristics, their way of life - what they ate, what they used for shelter, etc. - and how they related to the rest of the beings they saw. But would they also say that they had any inherent rights? Would they see individuals as "owners" of anything? I say they would not, on both accounts.

The point is that any notion of rights requires the acknowledgement of some person. Even if another person acknowledges your rights, he may not grant them to you. But if he doesn't even acknowledge them, if no one acknowledges them, they simply do not exist.

Your final statement is correct right up to its conclusion.

"Therefore, morality is reduced to ‘might makes right’ and ethics are mere mythology."

Morality, in the absence of rationally conceived (and acknowledged by humans) rights, has always been 'might makes right'. My point about rights not existing without human acknowledgement has no bearing on morality when those rights *are* acknowledged. I'm just saying that are the constructs of sentient human beings, and as such, they require humans to exist. And ethics, well ethics are in the same boat - without humans acknowledging *some goal*, judgments as to effective and ineffective ways to get there are meaningless.

Are we tracking, now? I hope so. Though we've not exactly gone around in circles, we've certainly seen Big Ben and Parliament a few more times than I'd like:-)

7/08/2005 01:30:00 AM

 
Blogger Robert said...

Though we've not exactly gone around in circles, we've certainly seen Big Ben and Parliament a few more times than I'd like:-)

Message received and I concur.

Final thoughts: I understand your position and it’s not unreasonable at all. In fact, the pragmatic skeptic in me appreciates your points immensely. That said, I would classify inherent rights as “self-evident”, which is nothing if not a nebulous category. So, shall we agree to disagree?

7/08/2005 02:12:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

perhaps all of this gives us an answer to the chromosomal question "why". men have a "Y".

7/08/2005 05:55:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"One of the things which makes me the most crazy is the fact (in my opinion) that junk has replaced quality. You can go to Costco or Walmart and buy a four piece bedroom set for $999...it is junk. It will never get handed down to anyone, because it isn't worth the money it would take to haul it off to the dump."


Alice on her deathbed...

"(gasp) I only wish (gasp) that I'd spent more time at the office, worked harder, made more money, and stayed out of those discount stores, (cough) so I could have left you kids a decent bedroom set."

;-)

Kebko

7/12/2005 09:38:00 PM

 
Blogger Chris Wilson said...

Oooh profanity, Alice. Have you been drinking again?

Kebco - that was classic.

7/12/2005 10:48:00 PM

 
Blogger Robert said...

Kebko and Caveman…you both, are insensitive assholes!

I’m jealous…

7/12/2005 11:21:00 PM

 
Blogger Chris Wilson said...

Actually, Alice, you're the "welcoming wench", not the welcome wench, and you can't resign. You are the big toe in this foot of a website. Without you, we will lose all grammatical bearing, and new comers will be forced to contend with the likes of Clupbert and Troubleshooter.

How about a 50% raise in salary? Would that convince you to stay?

Oh and Robert - being an insensitive asshole is easy. Please tell me you're not one of those people who spends his life wishing he could different but just doesn't have the courage to take action. Here's what you do. Crank up your stereo really loud right now. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Now, when your kid comes downstairs all upset, just say, "Hey buddy, when you pay the bills around here, you can adjust the stereo. Now take your ugly ass to bed. Daddy's selling your bike on eBay." See? It's easy.

7/13/2005 12:00:00 AM

 
Blogger Robert said...

Now, when your kid comes downstairs all upset, just say, "Hey buddy, when you pay the bills around here, you can adjust the stereo. Now take your ugly ass to bed. Daddy's selling your bike on eBay."

Are you kidding me? I’m the guy that spent time in the Law Library to educate myself in the finer points of the ‘divorce statutes’, with the express purpose of personally petitioning the Superior Court Judge to summarily dissolve my marriage to…um…what’s her name?

Now that I’ve secured both physical and legal custody of my ‘rugrats’, there is little doubt who is the benevolent dictator in MY house. What’s more—I happen to take pride in the balance I’ve struck between benevolence and dictatorial power. Although, time will tell. ;-)

Alice…….come back!

7/13/2005 12:46:00 AM

 
Blogger Genius said...

Wow, a lot of comment
Anyway
> The aspects of the Treaty of Versailles that caused the problems that created WW2 were the punitive ones

I suggest that is not entirely the case - the problem was a self defeating strategy - if the allies had proposed to truly dominate Germany then Germany would not have been allowed to rearm etc. the problem is they created a treaty they were not going to enforce - thus resulting in chronic treaty breaking.

As to the "great man theory in the main post and in culpbert's comment e.g.
"One or a few men can trigger a confluence of events. Marx did I think, Einstein did, and I also think that Jesus did."
Does anyone really think that science would not have progressed without Einstein? Or that America would not now be independent without Washington? Not that men cannot have a great effect on the future but we tend to over emphasize that effect (and underestimate the effect of butterfly's wings).

---
Alice

>You can go to Costco or Walmart and buy a four piece bedroom set for $999. It was made in China by people who make $5 a day or a week or whatever.

Ands now off into economics...
I wonder why we need to value items in this way.
I would be happy to hand down a bedroom set to my children $999 or not (frankly I wouldn't even pay $999) - but not to force it upon them. If you hate the fact that the Chinese made it with cheep labour the problem is that we are willing to pay $999 for a new bed instead of just buying/keeping used ones and having negligible turnover (or just using mattresses!).

Interesting discussion anyway
BTW I cut and paste posts into a word document to spell check - when I remember to do it...

9/25/2005 03:02:00 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home