Where Do Natural Rights Come From?

[Zero]

My "thing" hangs naturally to the right.

j/k

[Berzerker]

"Natural rights" are moral claims of ownership - a "gift" from that which created us. It doesn't matter if you call this creator "God", nature or the Big Bang, but this source of life lies beyond human endeavor. How do we determine what these rights are? One must start out with only those natural rights that are self-evident before speculating about other potential rights.

1) Life
2) Liberty

From these self-evident rights derive all other natural rights (as opposed to "civil" rights).

For those who say there are no natural rights, only "societal" rights, you've put yourself in the position of defending the actions of state sponsored genocide and every other crime against humanity committed by nation-states. If, for example, the millions of people slaughtered by the Nazis and Commies had only those rights granted by those societies, then the Nazis and Commies took nothing from their victims and genocide and slavery are moral if "society" says so.

[Ramo]

One must start out with only those natural rights that are self-evident before speculating about other potential rights.

1) Life
2) Liberty

Why are they self-evident?

genocide and slavery are moral if "society" says so.

No, a society considers genocide considers genocide and slavery immoral if this society says so. That has no bearing on what I might consider immoral. Individuals and groups of indiviudals tend to subscribe to different moral systems to at least some extent. I'm sure some there are things I might consider immoral that you consider moral, and vice-versa.

[mrmitchell]

Natural rights, I guess, come from man's need to give input. It makes 'em feel useful.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I would think so, a Kantian view of natural rights. That of course begs the question, what is the optimal functioning of society to everyone's mutual benefits? And if these things can be deduced a priori, why have some cultures strayed from what some believe to be natural rights (if they really are natural rights).

Clearly there are no natural rights per se but a set of rights agreed upon by the society which are necassrily for the society and its constituents to function properly in a particular historical time frame.

Since societal conditions continually shift and drift, such rights will be expanded or limited as well.

[Agathon]

Natural Rights cannot be deduced a priori for the simple reason that there is no such thing as a priori knowledge and no such thing as the a priori.

Read: Quine, "Two Dogmas of Empricism", and Davidson; "Radical Interpretation."

[Bereta_Eder]

From nature and that's why they are called "natural".

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
"Natural rights" are moral claims of ownership - a "gift" from that which created us.

So, your form of "natural rights" is positive rights (freedom to), not negative rights (freedom from). Why are positive rights superior?

Originally posted by Berzerker
How do we determine what these rights are? One must start out with only those natural rights that are self-evident before speculating about other potential rights.

1) Life
2) Liberty

From these self-evident rights derive all other natural rights (as opposed to "civil" rights).

Even if I grant you that the right to life is a basic belief, atomic and taken to be true, it does not apply to the right to liberty. For one thing, liberty is not atomic.

Originally posted by Berzerker
For those who say there are no natural rights, only "societal" rights, you've put yourself in the position of defending the actions of state sponsored genocide and every other crime against humanity committed by nation-states. If, for example, the millions of people slaughtered by the Nazis and Commies had only those rights granted by those societies, then the Nazis and Commies took nothing from their victims and genocide and slavery are moral if "society" says so.

Not necessarily, it depends on the foundation of said rights. In a society where all humans have natural rights, certain peoples could still be denied such rights by defining them as "non-humans."

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Also, do these Natural Laws really improve the efficiency of society, particularly freedom of religion?

Golly, I see what you mean! The United States for instance should have Episcopaliainism as its state religion because (1)it was proposed at the foundation of the country and (2)more of our power elite have been Episcopalians than any other single denomination. We'll get right on it. I suggest you Canadians get right on re-establishing the Church of England.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why are they self-evident?

Damn you beat me to it

For those who say there are no natural rights, only "societal" rights, you've put yourself in the position of defending the actions of state sponsored genocide and every other crime against humanity committed by nation-states. If, for example, the millions of people slaughtered by the Nazis and Commies had only those rights granted by those societies, then the Nazis and Commies took nothing from their victims and genocide and slavery are moral if "society" says so.

Defending, no. Remember we have our own moralities, which although may have no weight, still exist.

However, if you are asking if the Nazi's and Communists that you speak of had just as valid a claim they were following 'natural rights' as present society, I must agree. As UR stated, you can easily deny people rights by claiming them to be non-human, or in the Nazis case, sub-human.

And yes, slavery and genocide are moral if the 'society' says so. After all, morallity is simply a societal construct of how people SHOULD act. This differs based on how many people in society agree with the idea.

Some groups may decide that the 'right to liberty' isn't natural at all, but societally made. They might decide to follow Hobbes instead and say that life is simple the only natural right.

Clearly there are no natural rights per se but a set of rights agreed upon by the society which are necassrily for the society and its constituents to function properly in a particular historical time frame.

I can agree with you on that. Of course the set of rights agreed upon will vary from society to society.

[Kramerman]

"natrual rights" are arbitrary to any given society.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

Why are they self-evident?

You live, and you live with no "divinely" fabricated leash leading to my hand. Life and liberty are self-evident "gifts" from that which created us. Does not your life and liberty emanate from that which created life?

No, a society considers genocide considers genocide and slavery immoral if this society says so.

And if this "society" says these are moral? I'm not sure what you mean there by "this" society, but those who deny natural rights are stuck in the position of either defending the Nazis or rationalising away why their behavior was immoral without explaining why. If genocide is immoral, why? If "society" decides what is moral and whom has rights, then the Nazis did no wrong, true?

That has no bearing on what I might consider immoral.

Then the opinions of individuals, including individuals making up the majority, are not the basis for determining morality - that's where natural rights enter the picture.

Individuals and groups of indiviudals tend to subscribe to different moral systems to at least some extent. I'm sure some there are things I might consider immoral that you consider moral, and vice-versa.

True, a good clue for objectively defining morality is by identifying universal views instead of relying on the conflicting opinions of individuals. The Golden Rule encapsulates this by urging us to treat others as we would have others treat us. No one wants to be murdered, so this universal view may make up a solid basis for asserting the immorality of murder. But why? Do people have an inherent sense that they belong to themselves? Yes, albeit a sense that criminals and cultures try to subvert for their own motives.

UR -

So, your form of "natural rights" is positive rights (freedom to), not negative rights (freedom from). Why are positive rights superior?

I make no distinction between a freedom to and a freedom from.

Even if I grant you that the right to life is a basic belief, atomic and taken to be true, it does not apply to the right to liberty. For one thing, liberty is not atomic.

If liberty was not a self-evident natural right, where are the chains placed around your ankles by that which created you subjugating you to my will?

Not necessarily, it depends on the foundation of said rights. In a society where all humans have natural rights, certain peoples could still be denied such rights by defining them as "non-humans."

Based on what? Their conviently ignorant opinions, not any scientific standard used to define humaness. Many in this country justified slavery by using the Bible, not natural rights.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You live, and you live with no "divinely" fabricated leash leading to my hand. Life and liberty are self-evident "gifts" from that which created us. Does not your life and liberty emanate from that which created life?

Why should life and liberty emanate for that which created life? Life, I can see, but why liberty? What basis is there for that? Who gives this gift and where does it arise from?

And if this "society" says these are moral? I'm not sure what you mean there by "this" society, but those who deny natural rights are stuck in the position of either defending the Nazis or rationalising away why their behavior was immoral without explaining why. If genocide is immoral, why? If "society" decides what is moral and whom has rights, then the Nazis did no wrong, true?

If the society says those acts are moral, then they are moral within that society. And where have Moral relativists rationalized behavior without explaining why . We have explained why it may be immoral: because society today says it is immoral. Though to certain individuals it may be moral and to them it is so.

The Nazis did no wrong to those that believe in that morality. To most Germans in the 1930s, the Nazis did no wrong and they agreed with their morality.

Then the opinions of individuals, including individuals making up the majority, are not the basis for determining morality - that's where natural rights enter the picture.

The individual, collectively with other individuals decide what morality is. Of course this changes over time and who is doing the deciding. I don't see where Ramo's point invalidates that individuals do not make up morality. His immorality is in no way, shape, or form connected to what was immoral or moral of earlier people (except perhaps his view of history shaped his morality).

The Golden Rule encapsulates this by urging us to treat others as we would have others treat us.

And does this always work? No. Because we would like to treat some people in ways that we ourselves would not like to be treated (ie, death penalty.. hardly anyone wants to be killed, but some believe that people that perform heinous crimes should have their lives terminated).

If liberty was not a self-evident natural right, where are the chains placed around your ankles by that which created you subjugating you to my will?

Society has determined that slavery isn't what we value anymore. Though that is mainly western morality, in Sudan, it is quite different, and what is moral there is different.

Oh, and as for the chains around your ankles... without a parent (or guardian) to take care of you, you would surely perish, so you must follow them. How is that for chains?

Many in this country justified slavery by using the Bible, not natural rights.

The Bible has been the ultimate symbol of natural rights. You yourself referenced the Golden Rule, which was spread by the Bible mostly.

Their conviently ignorant opinions, not any scientific standard used to define humaness.

What makes humans so special? Because society decides we are better than other animals. This may change in the future, and then future natural right moralists can doom our generation to Hell for eating animals.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Defending, no. Remember we have our own moralities, which although may have no weight, still exist.

So whose morality is correct? Yours that says genocide is immoral or the Nazis who said cleansing "society" of undesirables is a worthy goal? In an earlier thread you said slavery was moral if %51 said so. Why is slavery moral if %51 says so and it becomes immoral if %51 say it is immoral? You're now claiming that morality depends on the opinions of 2 people, the people who effectively create this majority/minority split at %50 + 1 and %50 - 1.

However, if you are asking if the Nazi's and Communists that you speak of had just as valid a claim they were following 'natural rights' as present society, I must agree.

Huh? Where did I say they had a valid claim to do what they did in the name of natural rights? Natural rights are why their behavior was immoral regardless of what Nazi society said on the matter.

As UR stated, you can easily deny people rights by claiming them to be non-human, or in the Nazis case, sub-human.

So? Criminals often try to justify violating the natural rights of others, their self-serving opinions are not the basis for defining humanity.

And yes, slavery and genocide are moral if the 'society' says so.

So are they or do you need the majority to tell you first?

After all, morallity is simply a societal construct of how people SHOULD act. This differs based on how many people in society agree with the idea.

Does that mean you believe the Nazis committed no crimes against humanity?

Some groups may decide that the 'right to liberty' isn't natural at all, but societally made.

Did "society" create you?

They might decide to follow Hobbes instead and say that life is simple the only natural right.

Why would life be a natural right?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So whose morality is correct?

NO ONES!

Why is slavery moral if %51 says so and it becomes immoral if %51 say it is immoral?

Because morality is a democratic process. The morals that prevail are those people that have the power. After all every law is legislated morality.

Of course this depends on a democratic society. An authoritarian society doesn't require this majority, only that the people in charge agree with a moral position.

Natural rights are why their behavior was immoral regardless of what Nazi society said on the matter.

Who says their defintion of natural rights is less valid than yours? Because we won and told them what natural rights mean?

So are they or do you need the majority to tell you first?

Society telling you is, in modern parlance, the majority telling you. They are one and the same.

Did "society" create you?

Technically, yes... because it brought together my mother and father.

Biologically, I have no idea what created me, so I cannot correctly claim any made up right from ti.

Does that mean you believe the Nazis committed no crimes against humanity?

Personally I believe they didn't. According to them they did not do so. My belief is no more valid than theirs, however my belief does have more weight behind it, because society (which is the majority) believes that is the right path.

Why would life be a natural right?

Ask the Hobbesians .

I can understand people calling life a natural right, because it comes from things that are not understood (unlike liberty, equality, or property).

Seeing how different societies treat life, I cannot say it is natural right. If it were a natural right, then every society would value it above all else.

--

Natural rights are simply, like morals, societal constructs to explain why people should have certain rights. They are in no way valid except to the people that created those rights. There is no special entity that 'gifts' you with rights.

Why should biology give you societal rights? Only society can give you societal rights and take them away if it wishes.

I may have my own morality, but it only matters if likeminded people are in power, which in democratic countries MEANS the majority. IF I were in a despotism, my morality would not matter at all, unless I was in the government and making law. Then my morality would have great weight.

Of course my morality is no better or worse than anyone else's, just different.

[Ramo]

You live, and you live with no "divinely" fabricated leash leading to my hand.

Since I doubt there's a divinity, any divine action is by definition is impossible. If I was born in a more authoritarian society, there may have been such a leash (slavery, serfdom, statism, etc.).

Life and liberty are self-evident "gifts" from that which created us.

My mom?

Does not your life and liberty emanate from that which created life?

My life emanated from the person who created my life, yes. That's a definition. My liberty exists to the extent that I'm not constrained (so therefore it emanates from everyone I interact with). I don't know how that has to do with my mom.

And if this "society" says these are moral?

I meant to write moral instead of immoral, so yes.

I'm not sure what you mean there by "this" society

The society that makes the judgement on the morality of genocide or slavery.

but those who deny natural rights are stuck in the position of either defending the Nazis or rationalising away why their behavior was immoral without explaining why

Why?

If genocide is immoral, why?

My moral system is based on the idea that the maximization of liberty is "good." It's different from most other peoples' moral systems.

If "society" decides what is moral and whom has rights, then the Nazis did no wrong, true?

No, individuals decide what is moral and whom has rights. Individuals decide this based on interaction with their societies.

Then the opinions of individuals, including individuals making up the majority, are not the basis for determining morality -

Why not? What is morality but the judgement of aspects of social interaction? By definition, individuals determine morality. Unless you believe some deity forces individuals to believe there's a certain way about how people should interact.

True, a good clue for objectively defining morality is by identifying universal views instead of relying on the conflicting opinions of individuals.

But there aren't any universal moral views. I challenge you to identify one (keep in mind that there are always people like Hitler).

And even if there were, there's no reason to think that these moral views necessarily originate from nature. It could be that social or environmental conditioning have created certain universal moral systems.

The Golden Rule encapsulates this by urging us to treat others as we would have others treat us.

What does the Golden Rule have to do with the argument? Are you arguing that the Golden Rule is a universal moral?

No one wants to be murdered

What about suicidal people?

But why?

Natural selection has given us a propensity to survive and spread our genetic code.

Do people have an inherent sense that they belong to themselves?

No. In a society that had slaves, a slave certainly may not have a sense that he belongs to himself. There's nothing inherent about ownership. Ownership is a legal construct and can only exist within the context of a society and authority to enforce said ownership.

[Imran Siddiqui]

My mom?

Great answer... I still think society gave birth to me because my parents had an arranged marriage. If that isn't society giving me life, I don't know what else could .

[Jon Miller]

first I am a theist

but the only right we have, is the right to free will (given by God)

we have no right to liberty, property, or life

Jon Miller

[Ramo]

Great answer... I still think society gave birth to me because my parents had an arranged marriage. If that isn't society giving me life, I don't know what else could .

My parents also (pretty much).

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Why should life and liberty emanate for that which created life? Life, I can see, but why liberty? What basis is there for that? Who gives this gift and where does it arise from?

From the same source that gave you life. Did this "creator" that gave you your life also put chains around you mandating I rule over you?

If the society says those acts are moral, then they are moral within that society.

So morality is defined by majority rule?

And where have Moral relativists rationalized behavior without explaining why .

I've had this debate here before and the response I get to my argument is that the Nazis were immoral even though their victims had no rights - that is a rationalisation from people who can't admit people have natural rights while acknowledging the immorality of the Nazis.

We have explained why it may be immoral: because society today says it is immoral. Though to certain individuals it may be moral and to them it is so.

You didn't say the Nazis were immoral, you said they were moral because their "society" allowed their behavior.

The Nazis did no wrong to those that believe in that morality. To most Germans in the 1930s, the Nazis did no wrong and they agreed with their morality.

Were they moral? You say yes, but also say they were immoral because we today say so. That makes morality - arguably the most important philosophical concept ever discovered by humans - a meaningless idea.

The individual, collectively with other individuals decide what morality is.

Why is morality defined by the opinions of a plurality or a %50+1 majority?

Of course this changes over time and who is doing the deciding. I don't see where Ramo's point invalidates that individuals do not make up morality. His immorality is in no way, shape, or form connected to what was immoral or moral of earlier people (except perhaps his view of history shaped his morality).

Then morality is meaningless.

And does this always work? No.

Why does it always have to work? If it always worked, immorality would not exist.

Because we would like to treat some people in ways that we ourselves would not like to be treated (ie, death penalty.. hardly anyone wants to be killed, but some believe that people that perform heinous crimes should have their lives terminated).

If I committed such a crime, was I not violating the Golden Rule? If I murdered someone and was also killed as a punishment, wouldn't that be treating me as I treated my victim?

Society has determined that slavery isn't what we value anymore. Though that is mainly western morality, in Sudan, it is quite different, and what is moral there is different.

You didn't answer my question.

Oh, and as for the chains around your ankles... without a parent (or guardian) to take care of you, you would surely perish, so you must follow them. How is that for chains?

Are you my child? If not, your response avoided my question. The child could run away, where are those chains now? They were never there.

The Bible has been the ultimate symbol of natural rights. You yourself referenced the Golden Rule, which was spread by the Bible mostly.

There is no mention of natural rights in the Bible, the Golden Rule is about a moral way of life. When "God" condemned Ham's descendants to be enslaved, where were their natural rights?

What makes humans so special?

The debate involves humans, therefore defining humaness matters.

Because society decides we are better than other animals.

When you can debate natural rights and morality with a lion, let us know. Rights and morality are about human interaction, not our interaction with other species.

This may change in the future, and then future natural right moralists can doom our generation to Hell for eating animals.

Lol, animal rights activists are not advocates of natural rights, they are leftists who reject natural rights.

[Zero]

Now if youre a Hobbes-ian then you dont believe ther is such thing as natural right correct?

Good, there ya go, end of discussion.

[David Floyd]

Imran,

Because morality is a democratic process. The morals that prevail are those people that have the power. After all every law is legislated morality.

Well, when having to choose between a system in which slavery and genocide can be morally justified and a system in which they cannot, I'll choose the system in which they cannot be justified. That pretty much sums it up for me. I believe in natural rights because they provide a mechanism for ensuring liberty that no other system can provide.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
first I am a theist

but the only right we have, is the right to free will (given by God)

we have no right to liberty, property, or life

Jon Miller

I went to a sunday service last week and the guy preached about how god doesnt grant us free will Too bad Sermon is done in a one way conversation....

I was seriously contemplating whether it was worth going for free food and pleasing the girl I am currently interested in. (yeah I know, whats the chance of me getting any with a bible chick? well thats kinda not what was on my mind right now)

[Kramerman]

Because morality is a democratic process. The morals that prevail are those people that have the power. After all every law is legislated morality.

not entirely true, tho much more so than i would like in the USA. Laws are mainly made in order to make our society function. If murder, theft, and traffic violations were not outlawed, for example, it would happen very often, and our society would break down. People would not go to work so they could stay home and guard their possessions and family. No one goes to work, no businesses would function, no economy, becomes mob rule, becomes anarchy.

[Berzerker]

Jon -

but the only right we have, is the right to free will (given by God)

we have no right to liberty, property, or life

Liberty is free will.

Ramo -

Since I doubt there's a divinity, any divine action is by definition is impossible. If I was born in a more authoritarian society, there may have been such a leash (slavery, serfdom, statism, etc.).

It doesn't matter if you believe in a divinity or not, the fact remains neither you nor I nor any other people created life. And the fact someone might enslave you doesn't mean natural rights don't exist, only that they have been violated.

My mom?

You have such a short horizon, who or what created your mom? Her parents? And who created them? If you want to go through the whole process we'll end up at a time when no people were alive.

My life emanated from the person who created my life, yes.

No, your life emanated from that which created life in the first place.

The society that makes the judgement on the morality of genocide or slavery.

Does that mean you're taking Imran's position that the majority (or plurality) in a society defines morality?

Why?

Because virtually everyone not in a debate about natural rights will agree that the Nazis were immoral. It's only when debating natural rights and morality with people who reject these rights do I see people claiming the Nazis were moral.

My moral system is based on the idea that the maximization of liberty is "good." It's different from most other peoples' moral systems.

Do you care if you're right?

No, individuals decide what is moral and whom has rights. Individuals decide this based on interaction with their societies.

Then why do you disagree that the Nazis were moral when you just said morality is defined by the people within Nazi society?

Why not?

Because morality depends on something more tangible than a person's opinion. You just agreed the Nazis were immoral, correct? If so, why?

What is morality but the judgement of aspects of social interaction?

Morality is right, immorality is wrong. But if each individual decides what is right or wrong and no one is "right", then morality is meaningless.

By definition, individuals determine morality. Unless you believe some deity forces individuals to believe there's a certain way about how people should interact.

Then murder is moral if I say so and murder is immoral if you say so? If that's the case, morality is a worthless concept.

But there aren't any universal moral views. I challenge you to identify one (keep in mind that there are always people like Hitler).

I didn't say there were universal moral views, I said there were universal views which may form the basis for determining morality.

And even if there were, there's no reason to think that these moral views necessarily originate from nature. It could be that social or environmental conditioning have created certain universal moral systems.

No, these universal views are inherent, not conditioned. Every person reacts with disdain to being the victim of attempted murder, they didn't need to be conditioned to react in their own defense, although some people have been conditioned to not resist (like through religious convictions).

What does the Golden Rule have to do with the argument? Are you arguing that the Golden Rule is a universal moral?

Yes... We all would like to be treated a certain way by others.

What about suicidal people?

That isn't murder, but don't change the subject by trying to introduce factors that change our circumstances. No one wants to be murdered, but obviously there are cases of people preferring death to their special situation. But if not in that situation, they wouldn't want to be murdered either.

Natural selection has given us a propensity to survive and spread our genetic code.

I wouldn't attribute that to natural selection.

No. In a society that had slaves, a slave certainly may not have a sense that he belongs to himself. There's nothing inherent about ownership. Ownership is a legal construct and can only exist within the context of a society and authority to enforce said ownership.

You missed where I said criminals and cultures have tried to subvert the inherent sense of self-determination/ownership - that is the conditioning you spoke of entering the picture.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Jon -

Liberty is free will.

it is more than free will

but it does include free will

Jon Miller

[GePap]

I highly rtecommend Nietzsche's A Geneology on Morals

I must agree that there is no such thing as natural righs. I also question whether Monotheism really gives you some sort of self-evident evidence for them either. Just cause God tells you not to take another mans vase doesn't mean God approves of a right of property. Maybe it is just another way for Him to protect his turf: God giveth, God taketh away: not larry, but God. God gives man choices and responsibilities. Those are not the same as rights.

As for LIfe being proof: life is a set of self-replicating chemical processes. If a lion eats me, has it violated my natural rights? If a bear steals my food, has i violated my rights? Damn bear, I will sue!

NOw you can argue about sentience being the place "natural" rights come from, but before that, you would have to come up with a nice definition for it, no?

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Because morality is a democratic process. The morals that prevail are those people that have the power. After all every law is legislated morality.

Might makes right? And every law is legislated morality? Hmm...so you're defending the Nazis?

Who says their defintion of natural rights is less valid than yours? Because we won and told them what natural rights mean?

The Nazis believed in natural rights? hardly.

Society telling you is, in modern parlance, the majority telling you. They are one and the same.

The majority can tell me whatever it wants, that doesn't make the majority right. And since you've said no one's morality is right, why do you claim the majority's morality is right?

Technically, yes... because it brought together my mother and father.

And their parents? And on and on till we get back long before your society ever existed.

Biologically, I have no idea what created me, so I cannot correctly claim any made up right from ti.

Why not? This unknown "creator" gave you life, so isn't life one of these rights?

Personally I believe they didn't.

Sheesh.

According to them they did not do so. My belief is no more valid than theirs, however my belief does have more weight behind it, because society (which is the majority) believes that is the right path.

You just said you agreed with the Nazis, so why does your opinion have more weight than theirs?

Ask the Hobbesians .

You said it so I'm asking you.

Seeing how different societies treat life, I cannot say it is natural right. If it were a natural right, then every society would value it above all else.

Why? A natural right is not a guarantee no one will violate it, it's just a moral claim of ownership.

Natural rights are simply, like morals, societal constructs to explain why people should have certain rights. They are in no way valid except to the people that created those rights. There is no special entity that 'gifts' you with rights.

So if "society" says you have no right to defend yourself from murderers, you won't defend yourself from their attack?

Why should biology give you societal rights?

Societal rights are different than natural rights - the former are called "civil" rights.

Only society can give you societal rights and take them away if it wishes.

Which explains why you think the Nazis did nothing wrong.

Of course my morality is no better or worse than anyone else's, just different.

Which means morality is meaningless.

[Ramo]

It doesn't matter if you believe in a divinity or not, the fact remains neither you nor I nor any other people created life.

Any mother has created life.

And the fact someone might enslave you doesn't mean natural rights don't exist, only that they have been violated.

That's not relevent to the point. I may have been born as your slave.

You have such a short horizon, who or what created your mom? Her parents? And who created them? If you want to go through the whole process we'll end up at a time when no people were alive.

Why do I need a longer horizon? How is who created my mom relevant?

I still don't understand why who created me is relevant.

No, your life emanated from that which created life in the first place.

You playing with semantics. What are you getting at?

Does that mean you're taking Imran's position that the majority (or plurality) in a society defines morality?

No, you were asking a question about societal morality, and I answered it by saying that societal morality is societal morality (basically).

Because virtually everyone not in a debate about natural rights will agree that the Nazis were immoral.

Why is that relevant? I thought you just said the majority doesn't determine morality (which I agree with).

It's only when debating natural rights and morality with people who reject these rights do I see people claiming the Nazis were moral.

No one is claiming that the Nazi's are moral. Neither Imran nor I subscribe to a morality that accepts genocide, etc.

Do you care if you're right?

What's "right?" Right according to whom? My moral system is logically consistent with my philosophy, if that's what you mean.

Then why do you disagree that the Nazis were moral when you just said morality is defined by the people within Nazi society?

The people within Nazi society don't define my morality. I define my morality.

Because morality depends on something more tangible than a person's opinion.

Why?

You just agreed the Nazis were immoral, correct? If so, why?

Again, because they usurped the liberty of millions in the extreme. Which is "bad" in my moral system.

Morality is right, immorality is wrong. But if each individual decides what is right or wrong and no one is "right", then morality is meaningless.

Why?

Then murder is moral if I say so and murder is immoral if you say so?

No, you think murder is moral if you say so, and I think murder is immoral if I say so.

If that's the case, morality is a worthless concept.

Why?

No, these universal views are inherent, not conditioned.

What is inherent and what is conditioned, and how do you know which one is which? How is morality inherent to a person if it exists only within the context of a society? Isn't morality is always conditioned in some way by interaction with society or environment or whatever.

Every person reacts with disdain to being the victim of attempted murder, they didn't need to be conditioned to react in their own defense, although some people have been conditioned to not resist (like through religious convictions).

Again, that's not true. What of people who are suicidal? And why is this relevant?

Yes... We all would like to be treated a certain way by others.

Not necessarily. If someone's really, really apathetic, this wouldn't be true.

But this doesn't imply that everyone believes we should all treat others as we would like to be treated.

That isn't murder

It is if the state thinks so. Like ours does. Murder, like ownership, is an inherently legal concept.

But I'll assume that instead of murder, you mean a nonconsentual killing. Yes, everyone by definition doesn't consent to a nonconsentual killing. You're arguing semantics again.

Yes, nonconsentual killing is nonconsentual. So what does all this imply?

I wouldn't attribute that to natural selection.

Why not?

You missed where I said criminals and cultures have tried to subvert the inherent sense of self-determination/ownership

You missed the whole point of that. What is ownership outside the context of society and state?

- that is the conditioning you spoke of entering the picture.

No, it isn't. The conditioning I was referring to is any sort of "non-natural" interaction. For instance, human interaction.

Edit, missed this:

I didn't say there were universal moral views, I said there were universal views which may form the basis for determining morality.

What's the distinction? You're arguing that certain universal morals can be logically derived from these universal views, aren't you? Aren't you trying to argue that "Natural Rights" are universal morals?

[GePap]

Which means morality is meaningless.

Yes! you get it! Of course morality is meaningless! Everything is meaningless, if what you assume is that there is some 'meaning' ouside from that which humans impose upon the world. Man gives meaning, amn is the source of meaning. What does it mean when one animal kills another? Nothing. Now, humans are animals, so why does one human animal killing another mean anything either?

"Morality" 'means' something in so far as human beings have created the notion of values and vices and a methods of trying to classify social actions within this framework, and that this framework informs their future actions. Outside of that morality is meaningless.