Where Do Natural Rights Come From?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Once again you jump to the extreme conclusion about what people say.

If you can't argue his points, don't go making up points to argue on your own!

Funny how you don't condemn him for the same transgressions, Boris, but that is expected, I guess.

(ie, like not being able to keep apart personal beliefs compared to what those beliefs mean relative to everyone else, even though I've kept them apart since the beginning of this debate... for example, I've been arguing that personal beliefs on things are meaningless in general society because different people have different beliefs, yet loin wants to say that I believe that my beliefs are meaningless to ME [my mind], when I've said since the beginning, my beliefs, and everyone elses, are meaningless to the outside world... unless it wins out).

Just because he says that it's absurd to say nothing has meaning (and he's right) doesn't mean he's saying everything has meaning.

Actually he basically is. He is saying that people make moral choices because they are more reasonably justified than others (which is obviously false if you look at relgion). And those choices, thus then have meaning, or (as he would argue) why would you chose them. THAT is silly.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Once again you jump to the extreme conclusion about what people say. If you can't argue his points, don't go making up points to argue on your own!

Funny how you don't condemn him for the same transgressions, Boris, but that is expected, I guess.

When has he done the same? Not in this debate, that I have seen. Cite an example of him making up a point you didn't posit to argue against.

EDIT for your addition: That's not the same thing, as he's making a logical deduction based on your own arguments. In order for your beliefs to have meaning for you, you have to have some sort of reference. Unless you are that drooling monkey, your belief system is based on what you feal are the best possible moral choices to make in your life. If you don't believe those are the best possible things to believe, why would you believe them unless you were stupid? If you state you don't believe they are rationally superior to the alternatives, then you are indeed essentially stating that they are meaningless even to you. Don't blame loinburger for drawing a logical conclusion based on your own statements.

Actually he basically is. He is saying that people make moral choices because they are more reasonably justified than others (which is obviously false if you look at relgion).

I don't see why religious convictions make that false. Of course you will have the idiots who make unreasonable choices. Loinburger is suggesting that everyone is capable of making such reasoned choices. If in fact they choose an unreasonable course of action, they will pay for it, presumably, in some manner or another.

I could go to work tomorrow or sit at home and play Civ. The benefits of going to work include not using a sickday I can use later when I'm actually sick, not getting behind on more work, not making the boss annoyed with me over not coming in, etc. The benefits of staying home and playing Civ are, hmmm, maybe an extra day off of work will relax me and somehow benefit the soul, I dunno.

But I don't weigh these options, I just don't feel like going to work and call in sick. Well, lo and behold, the next day there is piles of work to be done, I'm not feeling well but don't want to use another sick day, and the boss is irritated at me for being out and making the previous day more of a burden. Upon reflection, I realize staying home to play Civ3 was a bad idea. So in that choice, I can reasonably say that the one choice of going to work was superior to the other choice of staying home, and had I just sat down and pondered the consequences, I would have probably come to that conclusion beforehand and saved myself a lot of grief.

The same thing holds true in a moral argument. I can rationalize that stealing is wrong, because on a very basic level if I steal from someone, I will probably pay a far more dire consequence than if I left other people's things alone. After all, the person I'm stealing from could decide he doesn't want his thing stolen, and then defend it, possibly with lethal force. The potential for material gain does not outweigh the risk of serious injury or death in my attempt to acquire it. On a slightly more general level, I can also rationalize that by stealing from someone, I am setting up a standard whereby it would be okay for them (or anyone else) to steal from me. Such a state would be less desirable than one where people respected the property of others, thus making it so I didn't have to constantly guard my possessions against theft every waking moment.

Now, I could choose to steal anyway, but from a rational standpoint it is the inferior choice, as the potential and likely consequences are far more objectionable than my not stealing.

[SnowFire]

Words are redefined all the time, and plenty of times 'on a whim'.

But the concepts behind the words are the same. How about those? The concept of one, whether you call it one, uno, un, rabbit, or a mental image of a gigantic oak tree with mustard covering it, is the same no matter what- and the concepts of one and two are defined such that 1+1=2, no matter how you wish to express that. It is convenient to identify the word "one" with the concept for one, which speeds up talking quite a bit. In any case, Math is a priori knowledge- even if I am a brain in a vat and my whole life has been false, I can pretty well guarentee you that my rules of math are still correct at the conceptual level, because in some sense they have been defined to be (this doesn't prevent the society I've really been in this whole time to have developed a "different" math with different assumptions, or to have different terms for some things).

Do you accept that, at least? That if I define something really simple, like that the number one exists and every number has a successor (with no number having a successor of 1), this is true no matter what anyone else thinks?

If you can get your brain around that, it's only a bit more of a stretch to start identifying concepts like "The Middle East" with words. Sure, we might still be brains in vats, but who cares? It sure seems like we're not, so let's take the simplest explanation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Boris, I edited my post after you posted to it:

(ie, like not being able to keep apart personal beliefs compared to what those beliefs mean relative to everyone else, even though I've kept them apart since the beginning of this debate... for example, I've been arguing that personal beliefs on things are meaningless in general society because different people have different beliefs, yet loin wants to say that I believe that my beliefs are meaningless to ME [my mind], when I've said since the beginning, my beliefs, and everyone elses, are meaningless to the outside world... unless it wins out).

I mean, he came into the thread for the sole reason to debate moral relativism vs. objective relativism that we debated before. He didn't even address the reason for the thread, and then makes wierd claims about my beliefs. So, hey, not like I took him (or this thread) seriously after that.

Only Bezerker tried to answer the main question.

Now, I could choose to steal anyway, but from a rational standpoint it is the inferior choice, as the potential and likely consequences are far more objectionable than my not stealing.

Very true, but WHY are the consequences like that? Isn't it because more people believe it is moral to discourage stealing (and believe in capitalism). In communism, it'd be different, there wouldn't be anything such as stealing, because everything would be communally owned.

Loinburger is suggesting that everyone is capable of making such reasoned choices.

I agree, it is just that people disagree on what a reasoned choice is. People believe they are 'reasoned' and the other guy is not.

In any case, Math is a priori knowledge

But is it? Is anything a priori except instinct? Isn't math a learned discipline, and thus not knowable at birth, at least IMO.

Do you accept that, at least? That if I define something really simple, like that the number one exists and every number has a successor (with no number having a successor of 1), this is true no matter what anyone else thinks?

I accept that it is true to YOU (and that is basis for my whole belief). The rest of society may disagree and say the number 1 does not exist. Then they would think that you are wrong.

Sure, we might still be brains in vats, but who cares?

You might not care, but it may be what is going on. You have to admit there may be that possibility. Thus there is the possibility that everything you believe in might be 'false' according to society.

My main premise is that individual beliefs by themselves have no meaning. However, societal beliefs (which are a combination of individual beliefs) do have some meaning, because they are what is considered 'right'.

---

What I believe (basically) is what GePap said on page 3: "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, [man] is the source of meaning"

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Boris, I edited my post after you posted to it:

I mean, he came into the thread for the sole reason to debate moral relativism vs. objective relativism. He didn't even address the reason for the thread, and then makes wierd claims about my beliefs. So, hey, not like I took him (or this thread) seriously after that.

Only Bezerker tried to answer the main question.

Whether he was addressing the main topic or not doesn't concern me. As for his "weird claims" about your belief, he is drawing a logical conclusion from what you state. I think he's trying to make a point through some hyperbole, however, that you probably don't really believe what you're saying, but are rather defending a position you've been cornered in.

Very true, but WHY are the consequences like that? Isn't it because more people believe it is moral to discourage stealing (and believe in capitalism). In communism, it'd be different, there wouldn't be anything such as stealing, because everything would be communally owned.

It's like that due to the very nature of the beast. We are territorial and possessive by instinct, so one can expect that if Grog the caveman stole the mammoth meat from Braag, Braag will not like it.

A choice between capitalism and Marxism is rather different, as it usually involves an entire society rather than individual moral choice. In nation X there may have evolved a society that is best-suited to a free market system, while in nation Y the society may best be reflected through Marxism. But within those societies, moral choices are going to be more absolute. If, for instance, you live in nation X but are a committed Marxist, you'd best not try to "redistribute the wealth" of your own accord, lest you find yourself facing the wrath of the person you are redistributing it from, not to mention the law. Your choice conflicted with society's standard, so you're wrong

Likewise, if you live in nation Y but start hording material wealth, you'd better be prepared for the consequences. Since your chosen action conflicts with the society's belief of material equality, you're in the wrong there.

So there is moral relavatism on a large scale, yes. But once you come down to individual interaction within society, such relavatism really doesn't exist. From an outside observer, the morals may be relative, but from within they are absolute.

I agree, it is just that people disagree on what a reasoned choice is. People believe they are 'reasoned' and the other guy is not.

Thats where consequences come into play. If Grog rationalizes stealing from Braag is okay because Grog is hungry, and then when Grog tries to steal Braag brains him, we can see the consequence of his reasoning. Or maybe he successfully steals it, but then that sets up a precedent whereby its okay to steal whatever one wants, so now everyone is constantly trying to steal from each other, defending their own things, etc., and chaos insues, leading to a breakdown in society. Therefore, since the alternative of not stealing Braag's food has demonstrably better consequences for all involved, one can say objectively that Grog's reasoning was flawed.

Back to math, the same applies. You can objectively state that believing 2+2=4 is superior to 2+2=5. That's because, by the definitions of the system using them, numbers have a specific meaning. You could try and buck that system and redefine numbers to mean what you want, but you're going to face bad consequences for that, whether it be the office building you designed collapsing or you overpaying your dinner bill. Ergo it is reasonably superior to stick with 2+2=4 in all cases.

What I believe (basically) is what GePap said on page 3: "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, [man] is the source of meaning"

That's not what you're asserting, however. You've been saying that even within human constructs, relativism exists to such a degree to render everything meaningless. That's simply not true. Of course nothing has meaning outside of sentient existence, because one has to be sentient to understand the concept of meaning in the first place!

But arguing you may be a brain in a jar is pointless. Unless you're prepared to walk around assuming that to be true, it has absolutely no bearing on your existence or the moral choices you will face and consequences thereof. Whether this existence is real or imagined, it's real enough that within its confines we must accept a degree of absolutes. If you claim you don't do that, then you're lying. And if you accept any absolutes, even within what may be a fantasy, you are rationally choosing what you believe to be the superior course of action.

[Imran Siddiqui]

that you probably don't really believe what you're saying

Well, he got that point partially correct (it depends on if you determine I'm talking about society or individual belief systems). When confronted with sillyness, I'll be silly. I have no compunction about sinking down.

It's like that due to the very nature of the beast.

People do believe that human nature is a myth (well mostly commies, but nevertheless).

A choice between capitalism and Marxism is rather different, as it usually involves an entire society rather than individual moral choice.

That's the point. Though entire societal shifts involve which individuals are in power, and what their beliefs are. It is same with every 'moral change'.

So there is moral relavatism on a large scale, yes. But once you come down to individual interaction within society, such relavatism really doesn't exist. From an outside observer, the morals may be relative, but from within they are absolute.

But the better way (IMO) to analyize societal behavior is from the outside. Inside, yes, it may seem like morals are absolute, I will totally agree with your there, but are they really absolute? After all, if those moral precepts can be changed with a shift in which individuals hold power, are they really absolute?

If they are absolute for a temporary amount of time, then are they really absolute?

But, I agree, in that point of time, for that society, the individuals might look at it as having absolute morality.

Thats where consequences come into play. If Grog rationalizes stealing from Braag is okay because Grog is hungry, and then when Grog tries to steal Braag brains him, we can see the consequence of his reasoning. Or maybe he successfully steals it, but then that sets up a precedent whereby its okay to steal whatever one wants, so now everyone is constantly trying to steal from each other, defending their own things, etc., and chaos insues, leading to a breakdown in society. Therefore, since the alternative of not stealing Braag's food has demonstrably better consequences for all involved, one can say objectively that Grog's reasoning was flawed.

The one flaw in this analysis is that it is based on the State of Nature arguement. How about if Grog steals from Braag, but then Braag comes to brain him, but Grog comes with the biggest dudes in the land. Grog wins. Society is not in chaos, because Grog is strongest. Therefore he can steal from whoever he wants. Over time, he may wish to set up an order (think depotism), and someone might say that democracy can have better consequences for all involved, therefore democracy is reasonably better.

Of course we all know that Grog can then come and beat the guy down and say, naw, it is reasonably better for me to rule. Now it might not be, but Grog can say this because he has power. Thus, the irrational position has won out, and nothing bad has really happened.

Btw, why aren't you on AIM?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Finally, a decent argument from you.

You think most people believe that watching TV is full of meaning?

Do I think that people care about the objective outcome of, say, a basketball game, and that this gives meaning to their watching the television? Yes. If basketball were as meaningless and subjective as you claim everything to be (e.g. if the concept of a "winner" and "loser" to a basketball game were nonsensical) then nobody would care what the outcome of a basketball game was -- why throw a victory celebration if there really isn't any difference between winning and losing, or if it isn't even possible to determine the winner and the loser? Something doesn't need to have far-reaching repercussions or cosmic significance (or whatever) in order to be considered "meaningful."

I personally think that your position that everything you do has meaning is the absurd position.

A rational individual does not intentionally perform an action without a purpose for doing so. On the other hand, a drooling idiot needs no purpose behind his randomly smashing his fists onto a keyboard.

I may believe that personally communicating allows me to function in this society and thus is relavent. Doesn't mean it has any meaning in anyway.

If there were no objective meaning to your words then you would not be capable of communicating -- your words would be incoherent babblings, nothing more. Communication only works when you presuppose that there is some objective meaning to your words that the listener will be able to successfully interpret. Without objectivity, successful interpretation is impossible -- any word can mean anything.

So people that go into abortion debates KNOWING they won't change anyone's mind, knowing the entire debate is meaningless earns your ire?

Not particularly. What earns my ire are the halfwits who enter into (e.g.) an abortion debate and say "This debate is meaningless," and then proceed to present a justification for their opinions. Their contradictory behavior frustrates me, but what's truly pathetic is that often all that they're doing is leaving an escape route for themselves so that they can avoid (heaven forbid) actually having to scrutinize their own opinions and perhaps (good heavens no!) discovering that they are flawed. They're cowards who use a blanket condemnation of "subjectivity" or "meaninglessness" or whatever in order to delude themselves into believing that they are infallible. They may not claim that they are gods (since they generally won't claim that they are perfect), but their claims don't fall much short.

You, who wishes the change the world for the better by your stunning debates on Poly.

Your monkey typist is really starting to slip up -- I'd said before that I am under no illusion that I am changing the world. Teach it some new material.

I can see you are so stuffed inside the box, you can't see past your own ass.

I can't even begin to deconstruct that sentence. It's obviously an insult (since you're talking about my ass, and AFAIK you're not a homosexual), but could you be a bit clearer about what you're talking about? What box am I stuffed in? Is she pretty?

He is saying that people make moral choices because they are more reasonably justified than others (which is obviously false if you look at relgion).

Do try to keep up. I said that there exists a decision process by which the superiority/inferiority of morals can be determined. I've never claimed that everybody follows that decision process all of the time. Your doozy of a strawman is analogous to an argument like "Suzy didn't measure the length of the object correctly, so clearly the word 'meter' is completely meaningless and subjective!" Or, to keep the wording more similar, "So you're claiming that the term 'meter' is objective? Lol, people make mistakes in measuring all of the time, your argument is clearly absurd. "

He didn't even address the reason for the thread, and then makes wierd claims about my beliefs.

I don't believe in natural rights, but I'm sure as hell not going to weigh in on the side that was haranguing Berzerker when I was in almost total disagreement with everybody on that side.

And what weird claims have I made about your beliefs? You've claimed that communication is meaningless, and yet you've continued to communicate. I'm not sure if I could invent weirder beliefs than that if I'd tried.

What I believe (basically) is what GePap said on page 3

Gepap also said "It is [ob]vious that absolute relativism is impossible (nothing rel[ati]ve can be absolute, no?)," and "As for relativity: here here for Loin! subjectivity can only go so far: make definitions subjective and the argument must come to an end since it will lead nowhere." But of course these quotes don't hold with your notions of personal infallibility, so I don't blame you for apparently neglecting to read them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah, the edit:

You've been saying that even within human constructs, relativism exists to such a degree to render everything meaningless.

Well, like you said before, from the outside one can say it is almost all meaningless. From the inside, it does have meaning. A communist from the USSR (think back a few years) looks in on Americans and sees what they are doing. He could conclude that all that the capitalists are doing are totally meaningless.

From the inside, meaning is what society decides. From the outside, perhaps society's decisions are considered to be meaningless, created-out-of-thin-air things.

Of course nothing has meaning outside of sentient existence, because one has to be sentient to understand the concept of meaning in the first place!

The question that arises is that our thoughts are simply neurochemical reactions. Can we assign real meanings to these? We can postulate that we NEED to assign meaning to it in order to have a functioning society, but can we argue that those reactions have meaning in themselves?

it's real enough that within its confines we must accept a degree of absolutes.

What we must accept (in case this world is real) is different than what we think is true. It's like a Pascal Wager in a way. We may not believe in God, but it is best we do, in case there is a heaven.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, he got that point partially correct (it depends on if you determine I'm talking about society or individual belief systems). When confronted with sillyness, I'll be silly. I have no compunction about sinking down.

The problem is you went silly first. 2+2=5 and all that.

People do believe that human nature is a myth (well mostly commies, but nevertheless).

I've never heard of communists arguing there is no such thing as human nature. Communists argue that rational thinking can overcome human nature, not that it doesn't exist. Human nature is nothing more than our mammalian instincts. Since we can objectively state that instincts exist, we can say that to believe in human nature/instincts is more reasonable than to not believe in them.

That's the point. Though entire societal shifts involve which individuals are in power, and what their beliefs are. It is same with every 'moral change'.

I don't think there is a single leader who has managed to take power in a country and shift the moral compass of the people. Moral changes in societies tend to be slow demographic changes. Certainly leaders can influence and push, but they don't just snap their fingers or issue an edict and actuallty alter the moral fabric of a society.

But the better way (IMO) to analyize societal behavior is from the outside. Inside, yes, it may seem like morals are absolute, I will totally agree with your there, but are they really absolute? After all, if those moral precepts can be changed with a shift in which individuals hold power, are they really absolute?

Again, I don't believe individuals in power can change society's morality like that. But anyway, how would one outside of a society be able to objectively view that society's morals better than someone inside? After all, someone outside is going to have to have existed in some sort of society of there own and will bring their own prejudices and biases to the observation. Why would their outside observation about a society of which they are ignorant be superior to someone within that society who knows how it works and can evaluate what is morally best within that society?

Who cares what the outside observer thinks when it is the inside person who has to deal with the actual consequences of his choices?

If they are absolute for a temporary amount of time, then are they really absolute?

If a person has to make a moral choice in his daily life, it is absolutely pointless to say "but morality may change in 100 years, which would make my decision different." What possible good would that do him?

The one flaw in this analysis is that it is based on the State of Nature arguement. How about if Grog steals from Braag, but then Braag comes to brain him, but Grog comes with the biggest dudes in the land. Grog wins. Society is not in chaos, because Grog is strongest. Therefore he can steal from whoever he wants. Over time, he may wish to set up an order (think depotism), and someone might say that democracy can have better consequences for all involved, therefore democracy is reasonably better.

Of course we all know that Grog can then come and beat the guy down and say, naw, it is reasonably better for me to rule. Now it might not be, but Grog can say this because he has power. Thus, the irrational position has won out, and nothing bad has really happened.

Do you honestly believe nothing bad has happened in the above scenario? If you believe the above is unjust, why do you believe it so? If you believe the above is just, why? And do you think that a society wherein it is moral to steal at will from your neighbor is, when compared to one where such is immoral, going to stand up as being quantitatively superior, or even equal?

Btw, why aren't you on AIM?

I use msn messenger rather than AIM, because AIM sucks worse than a Chelsea boy on E.

From the inside, meaning is what society decides. From the outside, perhaps society's decisions are considered to be meaningless, created-out-of-thin-air things.

But to someone living inside the society, where that is the existence they know, what does it matter if someone outside, who is biased by his own society, thinks that society's morals are meaningless? The person within the society can't function in it unless he abides by its basic principles of operation.

If you really believe you're just a brain in a jar, and this is just a computer-generated fantasy, so what? What possible good will come of thinking that way? How will it make your existence in this society any better? Whether or not this is real doesn't matter, because according to your senses, it might as well be. You think, feel, and exist within this realm. Your actions in this realm carry consequences for you in this realm.

If you went around thinking you're the brain in a jar, and nothing that happened here mattered at all, maybe you'd go around and commit murder for fun (you're not killing anyone, it's just a fantasy, after all). Maybe you'll jump into a fiery volcano (you can't die, it's just fantasy). What would thinking this way accomplish? Nothing! The very best you could do would be to maybe somehow free yourself of the fantasy. Then where would you be? You'd be a disembodied brain in a jar! Would that "real" existence be somehow superior to this "fantasy" one?

The question that arises is that our thoughts are simply neurochemical reactions. Can we assign real meanings to these? We can postulate that we NEED to assign meaning to it in order to have a functioning society, but can we argue that those reactions have meaning in themselves?

Who cares? Would recognizing that thoughts are such have any quantitative effect on your existence within your society? Will you be better served if, every time you came to a moral decision, you said "but this is just a matter of neurochemical reactions." Is there any objective benefit to that?

What we must accept (in case this world is real) is different than what we think is true. It's like a Pascal Wager in a way. We may not believe in God, but it is best we do, in case there is a heaven.

Can you explain to me why it is rational to except one thing as true but then live one's life according to another set of truths? Pascal's Wager has already been demolished as philosophical retardedness, so that says a lot about what you're professing to believe right there.

Again--if you live within a society, and you are going to interact with that society, you must accept certain things as absolutes.

2+2 will never equal 5 in our world, and there is no reasonable way in which it could without changing the definition of 5 to mean 4, which serves no point whatsoever.

[Boris Godunov]

Bump, since last post didn't seem to register.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Really quickly, communists (at least that I've spoken too) believe there is no such thing as human nature, and it is simply something made up by capitalists to justify their behavior.

Individual leaders can change the morality of a society. Revolutions and all that change what is considered 'moral' (if they are true revolutions). The morality of a society is inevitably tied up in the leaders of such society, and what they decide morality is.

For Grog and Blog (or whatever), I don't think it is just or unjust... it just is.

And many people 'rationally' believe in one thing and do something entirely different to survive in society. Of course you have to accept that your society has absolutes, but not that those absolutes should be absolutes. I point again to communists, who really don't like the system, don't believe it, and think it is built on lies, but still have jobs and the such... they must accept that society requires them to work, but they don't have to believe that absolute is correct.

Sorry, gotta run to class... hope that helped! BYE!

[Japher]

Human Nature is based on Human Instincts which are a function of survival needs.

Human Rights are based on survival needs which is a function of Societies Ability to supply them.

Most of these rights stem from Religious dogma, which tends to be reflected and/or reflect both insticts, needs, and abilities.

I agree that if one is outside of a society it is hard for them to see the needs of that society, and it is therefore hard for one to see the reason for the restrictions or lack there of for certain rights.

In order to do so one must look at the dogmas, abilities, and needs of the society to determine the underlying instincts that created the laws that determine the rights. I feel that all are justifiable, yet as time changes so do many of the underlying elements that govern what is right and what is a Right.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Really quickly, communists (at least that I've spoken too) believe there is no such thing as human nature, and it is simply something made up by capitalists to justify their behavior.

That may be the case for those few you've talked to, but I haven't read about there being a general denial of human instinct existing among communists. I'm sure all kinds of people have maybe argued such, but it still goes against reason. I'd wager that religious people would be a greater source of such views, as they would reject man being an animal like chimps and such are.

Individual leaders can change the morality of a society. Revolutions and all that change what is considered 'moral' (if they are true revolutions). The morality of a society is inevitably tied up in the leaders of such society, and what they decide morality is.

And yet you say that people living under communism didn't really believe the morality of communism, but just did what they did to survive. Clearly that demonstrates my point that, no matter who is in power, the fundamental morality of the people doesn't alter that dramatically. You're actually confusing the cause and the effect. Successful revolutionary leaders rise because the morality of society has shifted to such a degree that a new moral order needs to be established, not vice-versa. The societal changes that occured in France during and after the French Revolution were a result in a shifting sense of what was morally best among the general population that had been occuring long before the actual revolution took place. Likewise, the American Revolution was a result of moral views towards the government changing, not vice-versa.

In short, moral changes precede geopolitical ones, not the other way around.

For Grog and Blog (or whatever), I don't think it is just or unjust... it just is.

You're telling me that you would look as an objective observer on these two societies, and not be able to tell me which one you would rather live in? You'd be equally comfortable living in either? I don't believe it.

And many people 'rationally' believe in one thing and do something entirely different to survive in society. Of course you have to accept that your society has absolutes, but not that those absolutes should be absolutes. I point again to communists, who really don't like the system, don't believe it, and think it is built on lies, but still have jobs and the such... they must accept that society requires them to work, but they don't have to believe that absolute is correct.

There's a fundamental difference between living by a code of laws that one doesn't necessarily agree with out of expedience than there is living by a morality one may not agree with out of expedience. As I pointed out with the jar brain situation, it serves no use whatsoever to go around making choices as to what one considers to be the moral thing to do, but then believe "but I am just a brain in a jar and this is a fantasy world, so nothing I do here matters!"

Remember that morality (at least as I and most people define it) goes far beyond questions of doing something legal or illegal. That's because we are all beholding to something other than legal ramifications, which is our conscience. If the law dictated morality, the world would be a vastly different place, after all. But it doesn't, as common morality dictates the law.

And we're still waiting for how 2+2=5...

[Imran Siddiqui]

but I haven't read about there being a general denial of human instinct existing among communists.

Not a denial of human instinct, but a denial that humans tend towards a certain nature. The idea is that humans follow on what they've been taught and this is no a prori 'nature' that they possess.

In short, moral changes precede geopolitical ones, not the other way around.

I disagree. Before the Nazis came to power there was no real anti-semitism in Germany. Hell, Germany was the most Jewish integrated country in Europe! With the Nazis they changed what was moral and got more people to believe that Jews were subhuman.

The American Revolution is a bad example. The shifing morality in the American colonies was a direct result of respected individuals deciding it'd be better if the colonies were free. People followed, it is what people do. It is the herd mentality.

You're telling me that you would look as an objective observer on these two societies, and not be able to tell me which one you would rather live in? You'd be equally comfortable living in either?

What I feel comfortable living in (the clobbered one, what's his name) has no relevance to anything. If that simply isn't what that society is about, then what I want means nothing other than to myself.

There's a fundamental difference between living by a code of laws that one doesn't necessarily agree with out of expedience than there is living by a morality one may not agree with out of expedience.

Perhaps, but I'd argue not a big one (if you hadn't noticed I believe more in written laws than 'higher' laws). Laws after all are legislated morality. Someone has said this is the morality of this society and encapsulated it within a law. If you live by a code of laws that you don't agree with, aren't you in essense living by someone's code of morality that you don't agree with?

And we're still waiting for how 2+2=5

This may help you follow my point:

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/s...th_010111.html

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Not a denial of human instinct, but a denial that humans tend towards a certain nature. The idea is that humans follow on what they've been taught and this is no a prori 'nature' that they possess.

Instinct is exactly what we're talking about here. What's the difference between human "nature" and human "instinct?" It is instinctual to defend your food against theft. How do we know? Because every animal we observe does it. It's something that's hardwired into our brains.

We may be able to overcome this instinct and learn that sharing food is a better alternative, but that won't mean the instinct to protect our food isn't there.

I disagree. Before the Nazis came to power there was no real anti-semitism in Germany. Hell, Germany was the most Jewish integrated country in Europe! With the Nazis they changed what was moral and got more people to believe that Jews were subhuman.

Okay, this is absolutely false. No real antisemitism in Germany before the Nazis?! Antisemitism was rife in Europe, including Germany, well before the Nazis even existed. Hitler didn't change any fundamental aspect of morality when he preached antisemitism--he merely brought to the surface and legitimized things that people had been taught to believe for centuries. In the 1880s and 1890s, Europe was awash in treatises on how to deal with the "Jewish Problem."

Hitler used WWI and Germany's dire straights to exacerbate these feelings, but he didn't create them. People who believed Jews were subhuman bubbled to the surface and took prominent positions. People who didn't feel that way were silenced, often through fear of their own well-being. But Hitler didn't get to power and then create antisemitism--he used the existing antisemitism to get to power, combined with fearmongering and ubernationalism, and wild-eyed promises of a return to glory for the country.

The American Revolution is a bad example. The shifing morality in the American colonies was a direct result of respected individuals deciding it'd be better if the colonies were free. People followed, it is what people do. It is the herd mentality.

I disagree. While it's certainly true that those who provoked the revolution were not supported, at first, by a majority of the colonists, there is little doubt, IMO, that by that time the common morality of the colonists had already shifted away from viewing monarchal rule from Britain as a colony as their best option. Many of those who clung to the monarchy did so either out of tradition of financial self-interest, but they didn't do so out of a question of the moral superiority of the distant monarchy.

What I feel comfortable living in (the clobbered one, what's his name) has no relevance to anything. If that simply isn't what that society is about, then what I want means nothing other than to myself.

Are you kidding? Of course it's relevant! If you feel it is better to live in society X over society Y, you are making a moral distinction between those societies! You are going to make, I assume, a reasoned choice based on which society would please you more.

And it does matter more to just yourself, since someone who sees you make such a choice is, if they are reasoned, going to try to evaluate why you made your choice. You've never been asked to commit genocide (I hope), but you've been confronted with stories of people who were. I certainly hope that you evaluate their choice in that matter and apply that to your own morality. Would you tell me that the choice and consequences of the people you read about in such a situation would be meaningless to you and your own sense of morality? Do you really feel you live in such a moral vacuum

Perhaps, but I'd argue not a big one (if you hadn't noticed I believe more in written laws than 'higher' laws). Laws after all are legislated morality.

Not necessarily. Laws are also legislated practicality. They are also, as you yourself said, the legislated whims of a particular person, should that person have the power to make his whims law. But just because someone makes a law does not mean that the law is just or moral. If all of a sudden Congress decided to pass a law stripping all Arab-Americans of their citizenship and confining them to concentration camps, that law wouldn't magically be moral. You have a bizarre sense of morality if you think it and the law are interchangeable.

Someone has said this is the morality of this society and encapsulated it within a law. If you live by a code of laws that you don't agree with, aren't you in essense living by someone's code of morality that you don't agree with?

Not at all, because no matter what the laws dictate, they cannot dictate truly what is moral, because law and morality are not interchangeable. David Floyd is not acting counter to his moral code by paying taxes, even though he believes taxes are immoral. He is simply doing what he knows he must to function in this country, since that's the law. The existence of the law isn't changing his belief in its immorality.

However, it is completely irrational to profess to believe something that is counter to one's morality. That's why Pascal's Wager is a fraud, because it doesn't ask one to just live in a way that conflicts with your beliefs, it's asking you to believe something you don't believe for a purportedly "practical" reason, when there is nothing practical about believing in something you don't believe in. In fact, it's a patent impossibility!

This may help you follow my point:

No, that didn't help at all, because it didn't address anything about the fundamentals of object enumeration.

If you have two objects X, and I have two objects X, and I give you my Xes, you will have four Xes. There is NO WAY to say you won't:

X X + X X = X X X X

There is absolutley no way in which you could have two Xes, and if I give you two Xes you will magically end up with five Xes.

X X + X X != X X X X X

Any system of arithmetic that would make the premise that 2+2=5 would find itself in an untenable position, as never ever would that expected result hold true. Some alien is always going to be sorely disappointed that when he has two pieces of fruit and then picks two more, for some reason he ends up with four instead of five. Some alien architect is going to be really bewildered when the building he tries to make simply can't stand up because the basic tenets of his arithmetic are wrong.

Meanwhile, in our wacky world where 2+2=4, nobody bats an eye when they end up with four pieces of fruit, because that's what we expect and that's what we get.

[Berzerker]

Boris -

Instinct is exactly what we're talking about here. What's the difference between human "nature" and human "instinct?" It is instinctual to defend your food against theft. How do we know? Because every animal we observe does it. It's something that's hardwired into our brains.

We may be able to overcome this instinct and learn that sharing food is a better alternative, but that won't mean the instinct to protect our food isn't there.

Remember asking what these observable universal natural phenomenon were? You just identified why property is a natural right. Although not all creatures, including humans, can successfully defend their food from theft, they certainly would if they could. Natural rights are products of this hardwiring...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Boris -

Remember asking what these observable universal natural phenomenon were? You just identified why property is a natural right. Although not all creatures, including humans, can successfully defend their food from theft, they certainly would if they could. Natural rights are products of this hardwiring...

Instinct and rights aren't the same thing. Rights are an abstract concept, instinct is not. Some animals (possibly early humans) instinctually fight, even to the death, over a sexual partner. That doesn't mean you have the natural right to kill someone over your lover, now does it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Instinct is exactly what we're talking about here. What's the difference between human "nature" and human "instinct?" It is instinctual to defend your food against theft. How do we know? Because every animal we observe does it. It's something that's hardwired into our brains.

But is this present 'self-interest' hardwired? Many (well anarchists mostly) would argue that the instinct is to share your bounty with your friends. That would functionally mean there is no theft.

While it's certainly true that those who provoked the revolution were not supported, at first, by a majority of the colonists, there is little doubt, IMO, that by that time the common morality of the colonists had already shifted away from viewing monarchal rule from Britain as a colony as their best option.

The American revolution is a history of great men, not a 'real' uprising of the people. Using propaganda, people like Sam Adams and Tom Paine got Bostonians to view morality in their way. They defined the debate and pulled the people to them.

In the rest of country, which was much less radical than Boston, people simply followed the respected leaders of the community. Because they said so, the people followed. That is essentially what happened in New York and Virginia.

Are you kidding? Of course it's relevant!

How are my moral views relavent if the majority moral view (or leading moral view) is diametrically opposed to mine? It holds no water, except within my head... unless it becomes the majority moral view.

And it does matter more to just yourself, since someone who sees you make such a choice is, if they are reasoned, going to try to evaluate why you made your choice.

Doubtful. Mostly, if your views are not in lock step with the morality of the state, you don't tend to say it that easily, ESPECIALLY, if that can get you into trouble.

And most people, when hearing someone who has a 'wierd' view, immediately dismiss it as being from a crazy.

You can try to convince others of your views to get your ideas in the majority, but until then, it doesn't matter.

But just because someone makes a law does not mean that the law is just or moral. If all of a sudden Congress decided to pass a law stripping all Arab-Americans of their citizenship and confining them to concentration camps, that law wouldn't magically be moral.

I must disagree. Laws are how the leaders of society assert their morallity.

If a law was passed by Congress and approved by the President, stripping Arab-Americans of rights, that, because of Congress' moral mandate (and believe me, in every democratic government, the legislature has a moral mandate... if the government isn't democratic, then the people's idea of moral doesn't matter nearly as much) makes it moral in that society.

because law and morality are not interchangeable. David Floyd is not acting counter to his moral code by paying taxes, even though he believes taxes are immoral.

A. I believe they are (for the most part interchangable).
B. I believe he is (acting counter to his moral code).

No, that didn't help at all, because it didn't address anything about the fundamentals of object enumeration.

The article asserts that our knowledge of numbers is based on our biological environment and the rules that it follows. Humanity having one form of biology, doesn't mean alien beings must have the same.

And basic math doesn't ALWAYS work. Quantum physics for example is extrodinarily randomn, in which our object enumeration would not work.

[SnowFire]

Imran, this is getting silly. You're so contradictory to your own framework. I really don't like taking stances that I don't agree with, but your laws=morality thing is just silly, and how it would be moral if Congress passed a law interring Arab-Americans doesn't make sense. Assuming societal morality (a position I do NOT hold), then there have been countless societies throughout the aeons that have disagreed with the actions of a government they throught was immoral. Look at the breakup of the Caliphate, the English Civil War, or peasants in Bohemia under the Austrians. Wouldn't a relativist hold what the people actually throught higher than a law on the books?

The concepts behind law and morality are fundamentally different. Just because there's some crossover doesn't mean they're the same thing.

As for math, you misunderstand math. Math can't be wrong; we can only be mistaken. By a priori I don't mean instinctual; I mean it can be figured out without experience. In any case, I am talking of math in the abstract, and even though Boris was giving concrete examples, it frankly doesn't matter if you can bring up any number of tiny situations where people have been mistaken about math, or where math is unhelpful. Math is still true, because it is defined to be. From Peano's axioms, 1+1=2 is a logical consequence. 1+1=3 is either a mistake or somebody who understands the symbol "3" as meaning the concept of the number "2." No matter how subjective you claim the world is, definitions must be true, and nothing shows the power and breadth of definitions than math. I suppose I can see your hesitance though, because once you accept math, it's not much more of a step to extend definitions into other fields.

[Imran Siddiqui]

then there have been countless societies throughout the aeons that have disagreed with the actions of a government they throught was immoral. Look at the breakup of the Caliphate, the English Civil War, or peasants in Bohemia under the Austrians. Wouldn't a relativist hold what the people actually throught higher than a law on the books?

Once the people overthrow the government that they disagree with, then the morality changes. Simply having a lot of people believing the government is wrong doesn't do anything for the societal morality. The people in charge in the society decide what morality they will follow.

Why would a relativist say that what people thought is higher than laws? Morals are equal in weight from an outside view, and from the inside, those morals that the leadership has set in place (mostly in the form of laws) are 'higher'. People that disagree with that don't matter, unless there is a threat that those people may be able to take power.

So basically, think of it as a 'might makes right' type of view.

because it is defined to be.

That's not what I was arguing in the first place. I was arguing that math is totally subjective because societies (in this case the human society) define what it is. If you define it differently, then it is different. At one point the number 0 existed in Islam and China, but not Europe. Different society did different things with numbers.

Just because it turned out one way, doesn't mean it had to. If the European view won out, then maybe today we wouldn't have a 0, and maybe that'd be all right, because society would just define nothingness into it. THAT is what I was talking about.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I was arguing that math is totally subjective because societies (in this case the human society) define what it is.

Are you admitting that individual people cannot arbitrarily redefine terms, since society defines the terms?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Individuals can arbitrarily define terms if they wish, but it is not worth anything (except to themselves) until they have enough people to control society.

Society isn't a sentient being, it is made up of individual beliefs, and those that rule are those that define.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Society isn't a sentient being, it is made up of individual beliefs, and those that rule are those that define.

Could you provide an example of a ruler who has redefined logic, e.g. who has declared that A == ~A, and who had the masses actually redefine logic to his/her whim (i.e. who from that point onward acted as though A == ~A)?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Pope... though he is not a traditional ruler, I admit.

A == ~A is shorthand for saying illogical thought (in the end, the formula didn't work). The whole idea of 'faith' in the face of science is totally illogical.

In shorthand: scientific proof == ~scientific proof.

Oh, and arguing the Bible is totally correct (infalible), even though it is self-contradictory, and having millions upon millions believe that.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The Pope... though he is not a traditional ruler, I admit.

So you're claiming that the Pope created religion and/or religious faith?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you're claiming that the Pope created religion?

He created the Christian religion (Jesus didn't do it).

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
He created the Christian religion

He single-handedly created the Christian religion? I'd always thought that there weren't bishops/cardinals/etc. in the early Christian church. I'm also pretty sure that the bishop of Rome didn't ascend to dominance over the other bishops until several hundred years after Jesus's death (especially since Christianity was initially outlawed by the Romans, meaning that Rome would not be a particularly popular hangout for Christians in the early days).

Also, weren't there religions before Christianity? Even if the Pope single-handedly created the Christian religion, he could hardly be accused of creating all religion (and thus of redefining logic)...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Paul is considered the first Pope. The Pope's trace their authority back to St. Paul.

He may not be a true Pope, but he is considered the first Pope, and he basically created the religion.

Before that you had a cult belief called Christianity, but not a religion.

Of course, Mr. Paul had some help, but he was the main guy.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
He may not be a [i]true[i] Pope, but he is considered the first Pope, and he basically created the religion.

So before Paul, none of the early Christians had religious faith?

Also, was there no such thing as religious faith prior to Christianity?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well of course there was religious faith. People tend to follow those that believe they can explain things and seem genuine enough (and performing miracles is a BIG plus). The herd follows the guy with the plan. The people like illogical answers to things they can't explain.

What's you point?