Natural Rights

[GePap]

So Bezr, simply by doing the labor of gathering the seeds he is the "rightfull" owner of something, even though he DID NOT commit the labor to plant it or harvest it? The man did the least labor, and yet he is the "owner" just cause he picked the seeds? (which he left anyway?). This is exactly what The Templar asked you: how could you possibly make a moral arguement around what is essentially "first come first serve", becuase if the issue is labor, this is no simple case.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

I see no point to getting into this facet of the argument unless you concede that two humans who recognize each other as human will employ a default inference of equality. Otherwise all I can hope to do is prove that two humans will naturally recognize each other as human, and then you'll just return to the position that these humans won't employ a default inference of equality.

Look, even if we accept that upon seeing each other they will accept that they are both members of the same species, what we are looking at is whether they will think they are morally equal, since they ahve to believe that the other person will act with reciprocity towards them. And I do not think that is a rational things to do upon meeting a perfect stranger: you have zero evidence one way or another to back the belief that a total stranger will share a similar ethical code (he might be a cannibal, no?). The only way to do so is to argue that there is a purely inherent, "natural" innate moral code, which is to an extent what Berz is tyring to do, but that is a huge leap. You seem to accept that there is no given struture to man in his natural social state, so how can he have an innate morality? Since man is a soical being, most of the other humans man would have met pre-civilization woul not be strangers and he would be able to assume they were moral euqal, and act with reciprocity. The chalenge comes when meeting new groups (and hence the endless question about soldiers: for in interactions between groups the rules within groups change, or why soldiers don;t commit "murder" when they kill)

Therefore, since man has no one given heirarchy, he derives his rights from the lack of a natural heirarchy, i.e. his rights are derived from reciprocal equality (and not some "divine right of kings" or whatever).

Ah, but this is not true of interactions between different social bands! Whatever reciprocity you deserve is based on the particualr norms and tabboos of your social unit, so they are not "universal" in any way: they remain socially constructed, even if we want to redefine "rights" so that they could exist pre-law.

As for my use of definitions: I'm not the one who's using justify in too broad a sense. On the contrary, I'm using it in a very narrow sense (I've been careful to use "morally justified" when I intended the term to be used in the broader moral sense), and you're assigning a much broader definition to it. "Rationalize" would be a fine term if not for the "To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one's behavior" definition, which is wholly inappropriate. If you provide me with an alternative term that fits the narrow definition of "justify" that I'm using, then I'll use it. Otherwise, there's not much point in continuing this debate if I'm not even allowed to state my position.

I agree that rationalize would be wrong, becuase of that semi-definition. Validate would also be somewhat wrong, since it introduces the notion of law, but as I said, "justification" adds the notion of justice, and as I pointed out, the word itself has further meanings: and just as one can say "to rationalize" what is not actualy reasonable, you can "justify" what is not actualy reasonable either. So why nto stick to "reasonable"? It lacks all the other meanings, and while more cluncky, it has less baggage.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Gepap
You seem to accept that there is no given struture to man in his natural social state, so how can he have an innate morality?

You're begging the question. Why does man need a social structure in order to have a sense of morality? You've argued that man needs a social structure to enforce morality, but that's a different matter entirely.

So why nto stick to "reasonable"?

Fine, replace "justify X" with "substantiate the claim that X is reasonable."

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

You're begging the question. Why does man need a social structure in order to have a sense of morality? You've argued that man needs a social structure to enforce morality, but that's a different matter entirely.

But man is by nature social: there is no man outside of society in the natural state. And why would man need a moral code anymore than any other solitary creature, if he were a solitary creature? Or are you going to argue that inherent with man;s sentience there is a need to create moral codes just for the hell of it? You need morality to interact with other human beings: that man is always interacting with others makes this crucial. What need does a sociopath have of morality?

Fine, replace "justify X" with "substantiate the claim that X is reasonable."

Ok, so in the route arguement, all you need to susbtantiate your choice of the route is the desire to be there fast (a personal chocie, no need to substantiate further), and the fact that the shortest route between two points on a plane is a straight line between them (mathematical fact already susbtantiated as fas as can be).

[BeBro]

I´m not sure if I can follow the entire debate, but just some notes....

Originally posted by GePap
Ah, but this is not true of interactions between different social bands! Whatever reciprocity you deserve is based on the particualr norms and tabboos of your social unit, so they are not "universal" in any way: they remain socially constructed, even if we want to redefine "rights" so that they could exist pre-law.

But whatever "different social band" you take, all consist of human beings, reasonable beings per definition. And since these humans are all reasonable beings, you can expect that they want to secure their own existence. So what special norms or taboos they ever will develope, they´ll certainly not develope a moral system that it is totally irrational like eg. "we think it is morally right to murder eachother within our group" because then their group would go downhill pretty fast. It makes no sense to assume that this particular group or the individuals of this group would rather be eliminated - this can be seen as "universal" (or even natural, if you wish) for reasonable beings, because you certainly can assume that all of them want to secure at least their survival.

So while you can have special group norms or taboos it doesn´t follow that then different groups cannot share basic "desires" (I´m not sure about the correct expression, but to hell with it ) beside their special group norms or taboos. So these norms or taboos do not rule out the existance of other universal values.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
But man is by nature social: there is no man outside of society in the natural state.

You're claiming that man by nature is social, and that I accept. But then you extend this claim too far by presupposing the presence of a society and all of its trappings (norms, customs, etc.), from which you then conclude that reciprocity is the result of these norms/customs rather than a cause/source of them. I'll accept that "there is no man who is alone in the natural state," but your claim that "there is no man outside of society in the natural state" carries too many unwarranted connotations with it.

Ok, so in the route arguement, all you need to susbtantiate your choice of the route is the desire to be there fast (a personal chocie, no need to substantiate further), and the fact that the shortest route between two points on a plane is a straight line between them (mathematical fact already susbtantiated as fas as can be).

Well, you'd need to also substantiate the claim that the straight-line path is passable (a straight path through a swamp might be slower than a curved path on a paved road), but that's nit-picking -- we can just assume that you're on a flat grassy field or something, in which case the reasoning for your choice of routes is substantiated.

[Berzerker]

Gepap -

So Bezr, simply by doing the labor of gathering the seeds he is the "rightfull" owner of something, even though he DID NOT commit the labor to plant it or harvest it? The man did the least labor, and yet he is the "owner" just cause he picked the seeds? (which he left anyway?).

Yes, and he didn't leave anyway, you said he left for a "moment" and came back (I assume to plant the seeds). He was the first to the unclaimed field and he gathered the seeds, so that makes the field and the seeds his property.

This is exactly what The Templar asked you: how could you possibly make a moral arguement around what is essentially "first come first serve", becuase if the issue is labor, this is no simple case.

I answered his questions (take a cue), and yes, first come, first serve matters. Second, that wasn't what he asked, he presumed the innocence of the party adding their labor to stolen goods, you make it quite clear the late-comers are adding their labor to property they've stolen. Would you argue the last person to show up has the moral claim? How about the gang who arrives just as the field has been harvested and by force of arms, takes the crop? Labor by itself doesn't constitute a moral action, it has to be tied to property or the gang laboring to steal the crop has the moral claim.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger
You're claiming that man by nature is social, and that I accept. But then you extend this claim too far by presupposing the presence of a society and all of its trappings (norms, customs, etc.), from which you then conclude that reciprocity is the result of these norms/customs rather than a cause/source of them. I'll accept that "there is no man who is alone in the natural state," but your claim that "there is no man outside of society in the natural state" carries too many unwarranted connotations with it.

How could society not exist without norms and customs? All social beings have sets of rules that bound how indviduals within a soical structure act towards each other: all social mammals do. Why would man be any different? I can not think how one could infer that human beings, who, born utterly helpless, relly entirely on thier parents for not only survival but education Would, unless they are born sociopaths, not come into adulthood with the customs and norms of the group already inprinted into them. Without norms and customs, how would the group work? Waht decides the leadership? what decides who gets to mate with whom? Social mammals need customs and norms to fucntion as social mammals.

But whatever "different social band" you take, all consist of human beings, reasonable beings per definition. And since these humans are all reasonable beings, you can expect that they want to secure their own existence. So what special norms or taboos they ever will develope, they´ll certainly not develope a moral system that it is totally irrational like eg. "we think it is morally right to murder eachother within our group" because then their group would go downhill pretty fast. It makes no sense to assume that this particular group or the individuals of this group would rather be eliminated - this can be seen as "universal" (or even natural, if you wish) for reasonable beings, because you certainly can assume that all of them want to secure at least their survival.

Ah but Bebro, you speak of not killing within the group: fine, I accept that, sicne you are correct, no group that allowed intercine warfare could make it. BUt see, the prohibition against "murder" is not then created to protect members, but to protect the group and its survival. Why should this reasoning then apply to individuas outside the group, whose deaths mean nothing to the group., or may even benefit the group, by allowing the group to gain greater resources? Every other human band is a competitor to the survival of yours, so why should the same norm you apply inside your group to prevent inntercine warfare then be applied to competitors?

Labor by itself doesn't constitute a moral action, it has to be tied to property or the gang laboring to steal the crop has the moral claim.

And the Saga continues Berz. So you have any agruements to validate your "first come first serve" moral claim? Is that a universal desire?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
How could society not exist without norms and customs?

The problem is that you reject the notion that these norms/customs are derived from reciprocity when you imply that they are "natural" (which is essentially what you're doing when you say that man's natural state is in a society, along with the trappings of that society, which would entail that the trappings are also natural). The point is that the norms/customs are not natural -- they don't just spontaneously arise for no reason or by virture of the fact that people have formed a society, but instead they're derived from reciprocity. That's the point of the natural rights claim -- it attempts to answer the question "how is man a social animal" or "why is man a social animal." Since there is no "natural" heirarchy to man (unlike in the case of, e.g., bees or ants), the proposal is that reciprocity is the only "natural" alternative.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

The problem is that you reject the notion that these norms/customs are derived from reciprocity when you imply that they are "natural" (which is essentially what you're doing when you say that man's natural state is in a society, along with the trappings of that society, which would entail that the trappings are also natural). The point is that the norms/customs are not natural -- they don't just spontaneously arise for no reason or by virture of the fact that people have formed a society, but instead they're derived from reciprocity. That's the point of the natural rights claim -- it attempts to answer the question "how is man a social animal" or "why is man a social animal." Since there is no "natural" heirarchy to man (unlike in the case of, e.g., bees or ants), the proposal is that reciprocity is the only "natural" alternative.

I do reject the notion that these norms, customs come out of reciprocity. People did not form society: they came into being in one (we evolved from previous social apes: we have always been social apes). HOw and Why man is social are both answered by anthropology and biology. As for the "natural hierarchy", wolves, chimps, Gorrillas, and Elephants, fellow social mammals do not have set hierarchices either, but what they do have is a set of behaviors that regulate how and indiviual becomes that leader. They need to have this for the group dynamic to continue, and man is no different. And beyond my belieef that man is naturally social (which I believe is backed up by enought biological, psychological, and anthropological evidence), I have argued in this thread that even if you did believe man was NOT soical by nature, that there was only so far a belie3ef in reciprocity could take you, given limited information about your fellows and thier possible aims.

[DAVOUT]

Ah but Bebro, you speak of not killing within the group: fine, I accept that, sicne you are correct, no group that allowed intercine warfare could make it. BUt see, the prohibition against "murder" is not then created to protect members, but to protect the group and its survival. Why should this reasoning then apply to individuas outside the group, whose deaths mean nothing to the group., or may even benefit the group, by allowing the group to gain greater resources? Every other human band is a competitor to the survival of yours, so why should the same norm you apply inside your group to prevent inntercine warfare then be applied to competitors?

It has been observed that rarely animals fight to death; more often one of the fighter recognizes his defeat. This has been explained by the cost in time and energy of the fight which could prevent even the victor to properly feed his descent.

This could also be true for the hunters gatherers, and consequently the respect of the life of men outside the group could result from a purely practical reason. This is confirmed by the tradition to settle wars, in certain tribes, by a single fight between one representatives of each part to the conflict.

[GePap]

Yes, but most animals don;t have the ability to rationalize killings by thinking that even if a bloody struggle weakens you too, in the long term it opens up great opportunities for the group 9and myself) later on.

Besides, in this example, respect for life (though not a notion the other should NOT be killed) is based purely out of pragmatic choices: if the danger of a deadly battle is lessened, so is the pragmatic choice. Far less people try to kill somone by stabbing than by shooting. Stabbing is much mroe dangerous to the one doing the stabbing than using a stand-off weapon.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Gepap
I do reject the notion that these norms, customs come out of reciprocity.

If you're arguing that wolf/ape societies are inherently non-reciprocal, then I reject this claim -- an Alpha male/couple does not have arbitrary powers of life or death over the rest of the society, and the Alpha male/couple would be quickly destroyed if he/they attempted to exercise such powers. This is because the society defaults to reciprocity, after which the heirarchy is decided by practical differences -- thus superiority in strength and speed do not equate to "moral superiority."

If you're not making the claim that (e.g.) wolf/ape societies are inherently non-reciprocal, then the claim that humans (and human society) evolved from more primitive organisms (and more primitive societies) is irrelevant.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

If you're arguing that wolf/ape societies are inherently non-reciprocal, then I reject this claim -- an Alpha male/couple does not have arbitrary powers of life or death over the rest of the society, and the Alpha male/couple would be quickly destroyed if he/they attempted to exercise such powers. This is because the society defaults to reciprocity, after which the heirarchy is decided by practical differences -- thus superiority in strength and speed do not equate to "moral superiority."

To speak of reciprocity and morality within wolf society is not going to get us very far, but I would agrue that the notion you put forwards is flawed. The alpha pair does not have power over life and eath of other wolves ebcuase it can only count on it's very force to "enforce" anything. I can not count on the support of toher wolves to back its alpha claim, since all the ohter wolves seek it for themselves, and will not spend energy to aid another in keeping what they seek. So, the fact that the alpha lacks arbitrary power of life over any other wolf is a result of the fact that one wolf is very unlike to be strong enough to be abl tyo arbitrarilly kill any other wolf without weakening itself to the point that a third party will unseat it from power. If the alpha could call on the srvices of other subordinates to keep in line those that disagree, it would have the arbitrary power over life and death.

If you're not making the claim that (e.g.) wolf/ape societies are inherently non-reciprocal, then the claim that humans (and human society) evolved from more primitive organisms (and more primitive societies) is irrelevant.

You claim reciproicity is absed on some inherent moral choice. I say that such an inherent moral choice does not exist. As i said above, a wolf does not kill another becuase, as DAVOUT pointed above, a confrontation will likely also damage the vicor, and in the "dog eat dog" world of wolves, a weakened leader will not last long. Wolves avoid confrontation out of purely pragmatic choices, not moral choices. As I said, it is not reasonable to act under the notion of recirprociy if you are totally ignorant of the other's values. It would be unreasonable to conclude the other will act with recirpocity. Only if you have a reasonable expectation of what the other's beliefs might be is it reasonable to believe that they wll act with reciprocity, and such a belief can only be established if you have a social structure, since it allows you do assume that a member of a social band will share the values of the social band: any fellow members of your band will share your values, and thus it is reasonbale to expect reciprocity form them. The same is not true for utter strangers.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by GePap
Yes, but most animals don;t have the ability to rationalize killings by thinking that even if a bloody struggle weakens you too, in the long term it opens up great opportunities for the group 9and myself) later on.

One can question what long term is for a primitive man, and also the chance to survive a serious wound. I would bet that the longest conceivable term for a wounded primitive warrior was the next day.

But it is certainly true that any technological advantage (bow against spear for instance), or advantage or other sort, such as sheer numbers, reducing the risk to be wounded or killed, induced a will to take advantage of it, until it was matched by the potential enemies.

As there were numerous and ceaseless primitive wars, it means that men outside the group were not protected by the tabou, and that the tabou was a condition for the survival of the group.

Can a tabou established for the benefit of the group be said reciprocal ? I would think yes, since everybody exchange a power to kill any other against the right not to be killed by any of them.

[GePap]

But tabboos are rare, and they are not even universal. Incests and Cannibalism are the tow biggest NO NO's, but neither are universal.

The notion of reciprocity you mention is based nmore on status quo and pragmatism: I certainly think it can work, but it runs counter to the claim that repciprocity is inherent and derived from some moral sense.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Gepap
To speak of reciprocity and morality within wolf society is not going to get us very far

I thought that it was unusual to bring wolf/ape societies (and ostensibly wolf/ape norms/customs) into the debate, but since reciprocity/morality applies as much (if not more) than norms/customs I didn't see the need to question where the debate was going.

So, the fact that the alpha lacks arbitrary power of life over any other wolf is a result of the fact that one wolf is very unlike to be strong enough to be abl tyo arbitrarilly kill any other wolf without weakening itself to the point that a third party will unseat it from power.

This is incorrect -- an alpha could kill pups without any difficulty. Yet the alpha never does so, even when the pups are not its own (i.e., when the alpha has just unseated the previous alpha, which would biologically be the time that an alpha would benefit from killing off the pups for purposes of furthering its own genes).

You claim reciproicity is absed on some inherent moral choice.

You've reversed the order -- the inherent moral choice is based on reciprocity, not the other way around. Reciprocity derives from equality and consistency, morality derives from reciprocity.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by GePap
Ah but Bebro, you speak of not killing within the group: fine, I accept that, sicne you are correct, no group that allowed intercine warfare could make it. BUt see, the prohibition against "murder" is not then created to protect members, but to protect the group and its survival.

Protecting the members is the key for group survival, so I don´t think you can easily separate one goal from the other.

Why should this reasoning then apply to individuas outside the group, whose deaths mean nothing to the group., or may even benefit the group, by allowing the group to gain greater resources? Every other human band is a competitor to the survival of yours, so why should the same norm you apply inside your group to prevent inntercine warfare then be applied to competitors?

You seem to imply that group norms and identities are fixed forever. But there´s a lot of historical evidence that this is not the case, think eg. about the development from local to national identities from the dark ages to the 17/18th century in Europe. So it is absolutely possible that certain groups go through a learning process while interacting with other groups. Former competitors can even get merged together, so that they form new identities with common values, norms, beliefs etc. then they are not interested in endless competition any longer, at least not in military ways.

Why can they such things, despite their specific norms and their role as at least potential competitors etc? And if they do it then there´s theoretically absolutely the chance that this happens also worldwide, at least I´d say that this is not ruled out per se.

Also, regarding group survival: basically, if several groups do still compete, you have two possibilities - wipe out your opponents, or come to a kind of agreement. Thing is, at a certain level of warfare open confrontation makes no sense anymore, especially if your group had tried that before. Violent conflicts (especially conflicts between individuals or very small groups) always have a certain risk for my own group too. It is not that everyone is clearly superior to his potential competitors. (Here I could use exactly the same arguments you brought up for the wolves, I think your separation of pragmatism and moral in this example is problematic, since eg. a law against murder in human societies is of course not only a moral thing, but also highly pragmatic)

So is it then wiser to risk enormous losses or the entire group for a relatively small chance to reach total victory? No, I think at a certain point it is absolutely logical to accept at least the other group insofar that you accept their right of existance (or, if "right" is too strong, their fundamental interest - survival) as well as your own. If you do that, if follows then that you do not try to act against this fundamental interest, and you certainly expect then that the others treat you in the same way.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

I thought that it was unusual to bring wolf/ape societies (and ostensibly wolf/ape norms/customs) into the debate, but since reciprocity/morality applies as much (if not more) than norms/customs I didn't see the need to question where the debate was going.

I brought them in as examples from where humans come from. As social mammals ourselves it only follows that we would share some charateristics, specially with apes.

This is incorrect -- an alpha could kill pups without any difficulty. Yet the alpha never does so, even when the pups are not its own (i.e., when the alpha has just unseated the previous alpha, which would biologically be the time that an alpha would benefit from killing off the pups for purposes of furthering its own genes).

I seriously doubt the adult wolves that take care of the pups would be very enthused about their genetic herritage ebing wiped out, and do nothing to stop such acts. Interstinghly, Male lions, members of another social mammal gorup do attempt to kill males cubs from time to time, to cut out possible competitors. But since we do not know why the wolves do what they do, its moot.

You've reversed the order -- the inherent moral choice is based on reciprocity, not the other way around. Reciprocity derives from equality and consistency, morality derives from reciprocity.

And as I said, it is not reasonable to assume that an utter stranger will view you as an equal, since you have no evidence to show that, nor do you have none to disprove it either. Which only leaves pragmatic decisions as being reasonable under that circumstance. If you had a reaosnable expectation that they would view you as an equal, maybe, but as I said, I do not think that human beings inherently view their all their fellow species members as equal, not in the natural state.

Protecting the members is the key for group survival, so I don´t think you can easily separate one goal from the other.

So you have norms against fellow members killing each other, and do things against outsiders to secure fellow members, including killing them.

So is it then wiser to risk enormous losses or the entire group for a relatively small chance to reach total victory? No, I think at a certain point it is absolutely logical to accept at least the other group insofar that you accept their right of existance (or, if "right" is too strong, their fundamental interest - survival) as well as your own. If you do that, if follows then that you do not try to act against this fundamental interest, and you certainly expect then that the others treat you in the same way.

What you are describing is a pragmatic choice, a policy choice, and not somehting driven by morality at first. As for the second part: there is a differnce between seeking extermination, and assimilation, on YOUR terms. The most logical thing for any gorup is to make the others part of your group, for then your group is stronger: the only time you may have an interest inleaving a group alone is if you vies them as too weak to be an issue, which means your 'respect for them" is again driven by pragmatic decisions, and not by a feeling that they have some inherent reason to survive.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
Interstinghly, Male lions, members of another social mammal gorup do attempt to kill males cubs from time to time, to cut out possible competitors.

Admittedly going more off-topic than usual, but the difference here is that, unlike wolves, apes, and humans, lions do have a natural social heirarchy. A pride can only support one or two males, since males aren't able to hunt (the mane makes stalking all but impossible) and thus are essentially nothing more than sperm factories.

And as I said, it is not reasonable to assume that an utter stranger will view you as an equal, since you have no evidence to show that, nor do you have none to disprove it either.

At this point it comes down to a matter of dialogue -- if two people (or two groups) are fundamentally incapable of communicating with each other, then there really is no way of knowing that the other person/group isn't going to stab you in the back (or whatever) since their thought processes remain quite alien. But in order for communication to be possible, the two people/groups must reciprocate, for the reasons that I'd previously given. Whether or not it's possible to "choose" not to communicate in this day and age is a difficult question ("I cannot communicate with you" is a contradictory statement), but I agree that in the past it would have certainly been possible for a person/group to conclude that communication with another person/group was impossible.

[Berzerker]

To go even more off topic, male lions are the real killers in prides. Whenever real muscle is needed, that's when the males get off their butts. They deal with males from other prides, but I saw a film about "Eternal Enemies" - lions and hyenas - and the female lions often get pushed around by the more numerous hyenas. During one encounter, the male lion came running in and tracked down the lead female hyena and broke her back when tackling her - game over, game over man! Those male lions are brutal!!!

[GePap]

I think the language barrier most certainly is a big chasm for peoples to ovecome, speically back when langages were far more numerous.

I would disagee a bit over how little social hierarchy wolves and some apes, like Gorrillas, have. Akllg roups kbnow there will be one leader (or a leading pair for wolves), the question being who gets to be that alpha team, or who gets to be the leader of the band (what are gorrila bands called?) Even within lion gorups, the males are not secure (which is why they kill possible opponents as cubs). Then there are groups like Elephants, which don;t really kil thier own in any way, but do have well set matriarchal herds.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by GePap

What you are describing is a pragmatic choice, a policy choice, and not somehting driven by morality at first.

Again, I don´t see how you can separate moral from pragmatism. Law against murder is pragmatic too. Moral and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive. I would even say moral rules that are not at least somehow pragmatic have no chance in society.

If you had a reaosnable expectation that they would view you as an equal, maybe, but as I said, I do not think that human beings inherently view their all their fellow species members as equal, not in the natural state.

The pure fact that all humans (and so far only humans) are basicly reasonable beings does more support a view were you see others as somehow equal. Whatever they are, more or less intelligent, strong or weak, they are able to act reasonable. To think they are not equal in this point, you must assume that they are not reasonable beings first, which is not reasonable in itself, so it means it is totally contradictory.