Conscription

[Velociryx]

It's a raw material. That would be like me having an emotional attachment to the particular pavement that makes up my driveway.

But hypothetically, even if he DID have some sort of bizzare emotional bond with his hunk of gold, too bad. Once it becomes clear that he and the statue maker cannot resolve their differences between themselves, it goes to the courts to be decided. At that moment, it's out of both their hands.

-=Vel=-

[David Floyd]

Vel,

That's one good, valid reason that laws are made, yep. But it does not explain the existence of every law on the books,

You are absolutely right on that point - many laws on the books have nothing to do with preventing people from violating the rights of other people, and those are immoral laws.

and some of those others are there in support of our social contract.

You still haven't told me what this social contract is, what the terms are, and who specifically made it up ("wished" it up was your term, I believe) at what specific time.

As to the existence of the social contract...yes, we created it.

Who? I certainly didn't. And when?

If that is difficult for you to swallow, then I would ask if you could show me an example of a social contract existing outside the bounds of a society?Perhaps find me one walking around in the woods outside?

Oh, you are absolutely right, and in a way that's my point. I believe that the only point of government is to protect natural rights of the individual - certainly not to enforce some social contract that has to be artificially created in the first place. If you want to say that the social contract is simply to not violate the rights of others, then congratulations, but even that isn't a valid social contract, as such, because preventing such rights violations is the sole purpose of government to begin with. If you want to take that definition, which would be palatable to me, then you would also have to admit that the social contract is synonymous with moral laws and moral government, not some separate entity.

Because they do not exist until we create them, based on what we, as a societal group, believe.

So now you are saying that things the majority of society believe should be sorta codified into a social contract, but not actually codified into law, however, the law should be based on the social contract. Only thing I can say to that is "Whahuh?"

You are simply making two assertions here. Number one, that the social contract equals the law. Number two, the social contract can't be immoral because it is simply a reflection of what "society" wants.

Number one is pretty obvious, and I don't see why you don't just grant the point.

Number two implies a couple more things. First of all, it implies the absence of an absolute moral standard, which is a position I categorically reject (as do most Libertarians, I believe). This implies that it is perfectly alright for "society", by which you really mean a minimum of 50% + 1, to do anything it likes, even killing certain parts of the population or robbing them at a whim.

And don't try to pull out the defense that certain individual rights are protected by the courts. First of all, this is only true (or at least supposed to be) in certain systems, such as the US systems, and each system is different, in any case. Further, if courts can override the "social contract", then isn't the social contract again the same as law? Finally, if judges can act contrary to societal beliefs in overriding the social contract, aren't you really saying that the beliefs of society are irrelevant, when it counts, and that society (and thus the social contract) must be held to some higher standard?

We're not living in the same world we were living in a hundred years ago, or even twenty years ago. And as the nature of our society changes, so changes the social contract. Not a big mystery.

Here, though, it seems you are arguing that the "social contract", not, in fact, the courts, is the highest law. In fact, you have to be arguing this, because if you are arguing that the social contract is subordinate to the courts, then you also have to concede that there are certain things the social contract can't require, no matter what the nature of society, until you change the Constitution.

So which is it? Is the "social contract" the final word, or do judges have the final word?

As to conscription being tyrannical...oh yes, letting CO's go without punishment...such harsh tyranny, eh?

If all that it took to get CO status was to unilaterally claim CO status, with no questions asked, then you'd have a point. This would be nothing different than a volunteer system, as anyone who didn't want to go fight wouldn't have to.

But, in fact, this isn't what happens, and you know it.

Kramerman,

I do. Those are the laws. Laws are a reflectio of the contract.

So you are arguing that slaves had no moral right to rebel, and the Japanese-Americans had no right to defend themselves from unjust incarceration?

Does that make it right? I cannot say.

You can't say whether or not slavery is wrong? You don't know whether or not it is wrong for the government to lock up hundreds of thousands of people who committed no crime?

[Kramerman]

So you are arguing that slaves had no moral right to rebel, and the Japanese-Americans had no right to defend themselves from unjust incarceration?

i could care less about morals. Rights are just things written on paper, they mean nothing if no one can enforce them. If slavery laws were in place, then it is lawfully ok in that society to hold slaves.

However, i believe that might makes right. If slaves rebel, well, great for them. If japanese-americans could fight the system thru the court system, then great. All im saying is you can NOT say slavery and japanese-american incarceration was wrong in those societies. UNder their social contract, they were right, but the social contract can always be changed either thru willful abridgement or force.

You can't say whether or not slavery is wrong? You don't know whether or not it is wrong for the government to lock up hundreds of thousands of people who committed no crime?

I personally dont think it is right, but I canot say definatively that it was not right. who am i to say that? again, might makes right.

[David Floyd]

i could care less about morals. Rights are just things written on paper, they mean nothing if no one can enforce them.

Then you can have no basis or grounds for definitely condemning murder.

If slavery laws were in place, then it is lawfully ok in that society to hold slaves.

Of course that's true, but hardly the point.

However, i believe that might makes right. If slaves rebel, well, great for them. If japanese-americans could fight the system thru the court system, then great. All im saying is you can NOT say slavery and japanese-american incarceration was wrong in those societies.

I can very easily say it, because I have a basis for condemning things such as murder, slavery, etc. If might makes right, you are also saying that might makes MORAL right. If that is the case, then you are arguing that the Holocaust was morally right, because the Germans were stronger than the Jews. But then you also have to turn around and argue that the Nuremburg Trials were right, because the Americans were stronger than the Germans. So, in effect, you are arguing that even though the Holocaust was right, it was also right to punish those who perpetrated the Holocaust.

But that's not all you are saying. You are also saying that the Holocaust was both right and wrong at the same time. It was right for the Germans, because they were stronger than the Jews, and it was right for the Jews, because they were weaker than the Germans. However, it was also wrong for the Germans, because it was wrong for the Americans, who ended up being stronger than the Germans.

However, your phrase "might makes right" is pretty ambiguous. On what scale does might make right? If I'm stronger than you, does that make it right for me to kill you? If that's the case, then the Holocaust example can get even more complex. Even though the Holocaust had to be morally right from the perspective of the Jews, because they were clearly the weaker GROUP, an individual Jew who managed to kill an SS soldier in the Warsaw uprising, for example, must have been acting morally correctly, because individually, he was stronger. Yet he was still wrong, because the SS as a whole was stronger than the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto as a whole.

But wait, you say. Might makes right applies to society, not to each individual. Society can say that murder is wrong, because society is stronger than the individual, and one society can say that another society is wrong, if that society turns out to be the stronger party.

But wait a second. How and why was society founded? Your argument has to be that it was founded on the principle of might makes right. That is, through strength (or more likely, the combination of strength, cunning, and intelligence), one person was able to rise to the top of a group of people and make those people do what he wanted, because again, might makes right. Eventually, we got early government, etc., but this was all predicated on the position that might makes right. And if that argument works for an individual (or even a group of individuals) in ancient times, why shouldn't it work for a Jew against an SS officer? Sure, in ancient times, the warlord probably ended up getting killed at some point, but while he was strong enough, his actions were right, weren't they? Similarly, the Jew in Warsaw certainly ended up dying, but did that negate the fact that he was stronger than the SS officer he killed?

The point I'm making is that the principle of "might makes right" isn't logically consistent, because we end up with many - even most - situations being both right and wrong, and both arguments having equal weight. This is stupid.

You can argue that "might makes what is", and I'd agree with that to a large degree. That argument is much easier to make.

[Velociryx]

DF, then the crux of our disagreement is this:

I do not believe that "natural rights" exist.

Show me where they are in "nature."

Pretty elusive, yes?

Rather like Unicorns.

-=Vel=-

[Kramerman]

The point I'm making is that the principle of "might makes right" isn't logically consistent, because we end up with many - even most - situations being both right and wrong, and both arguments having equal weight. This is stupid.

You can argue that "might makes what is", and I'd agree with that to a large degree. That argument is much easier to make.

Saying might makes right isnt logicall is like saying time is not logically consistent because it is relative. Just because right and wrong, like time, is relative (form my POV, remember, this whole arguement is based on POV, which our's differ), doesnt mean it isnt logical. All this means is that it depends entirely on perspective and POV.

And yes, I agree, "might makes what is" is a much better way of putting it.

Ill continue with your example of jews and nazis. A jew is killed by a nazi. the jew thinks this is wrong, but who cares? he is dead. The nazi killed him, and thus the jew is dead. the nazi can then rationalize this as an act of "good" to his people using their moral beliefs that jews are "evil". Likewise, jews and their sympathesizers will lable it "evil" using their morals to rationalize it as such. Remember, to a nazi, killing jews is a good thing. like Osama bin Laden kiling americans is a good thing. We are just as 'evil' to OBL and his followers as he is to most americans. Its relative.

To you, i probably seem like a cold hearted bastard. keep in mind tho i was raised with very similar values as you, so i have a personal bias of 'right' and 'wrong' to. To make our society work, we have to protect the citizens and their property so htey are free to live, work, and innovate. we do this with various laws, such as against murder and theft. before laws, pre-civilized societies just new what was 'good' and 'bad', because they were raised knowing what would hurt their society, such as large scale murdering and stealing that would damage the solidarity necessary in early social groups, as it would damage it today.

Imagine if the world collapsed into anarchy tomorrow. 'morals' against killin and stealing may linger for a time, but as people get hungery and are desperate to survive, they could revert to canibalism, stealing and hording of guns and ammo, killing anyone who threatens them, or killing people to ease one's personal gain and increase chance of survival.

grrr... im mighty busy, and i types this really quickly so its probably really scatter brained.... ill try and get back more on it later.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Velociryx
DF, then the crux of our disagreement is this:

I do not believe that "natural rights" exist.

Show me where they are in "nature."

Pretty elusive, yes?

Rather like Unicorns.

-=Vel=-

I share this thought. There are no such things as natural rights. RIGHTS only exist if you can back them up. Our society tries to make the welfare of our citizens better by garunteing them certain rights, and protecting those rights. If the US dindt protect those rights, then they might not as well exist.

They say we have the right to life, property, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness. I will argue against these as natural. I again bring you to my anarchy model. WHen you are trying to survive, who will protect your life? Your Mad Max sawed-off shotgun, thats what. If this fails, then nothing protects your life. IF the right to life was natural, i would conjecture that people wouldnt be able to die in natural disasters, or by animals looking for food or hosts (including pathogens). This is not the case. People live and die everyday at the whim of others. SOme may argue WE SHOULD HAVE this right be natural, but that is but that is a super cooky idealistic dream, like heaven, not reality.

And the right to liberty... in a state of anarchy, if i had a shot gun and you didnt, i could easily chain you up like a dog and force you to be my slave. The slaves of early america obviously did not have the natural right of liberty. In the same way i could take your food and shelter, and land, and all other forms of property. where are your natural rights now?

Kman

[Kramerman]

To tie this in to the topic:

rights are a creation of man... and i personally love them. I would hate more than anyhting else to have to live in a state of anarchy, where i had no rights, i had no protection from laws.

Because of this, I love them and I would fight for them because they allow me and my loved ones to enjoy a quality of life that most others dream about. If some ass hole threatend that way of life, then fight, fight , fight, or else risk losing your 'rights' that protect you, because your new gov may not be nearly as benevolent.

[The Templar]

Berz, calmly repeat after me: "the statue and the gold are separate entities with different labor entitlements arising out of them".

The minor owns the gold, the sculptor owns the statue. Unfortunately, the statue is dependent on the gold.

Only a few things left to respond to here:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Templar -

You've left out "first come", i.e., actual ownership of the material.

Again, the ownership of the material, on your argument, comes through the admixture of labor. If I come across an unowned tree and say "that's mine" and move on, yet you come by and take the wood and make a sculpture, who owns the wood? I would guess you would say I have no right to the tree since I have not admixed my labor with it. (And yes, you own the sculpture as well here). First-come means that you admixed your labor first.

Can we deal with hypotheticals that can arise in the real world?

These arise, but usually in the context of intellectual property. Material stuff is easier to think about though, so I use the example that I do. Even so, if a property theory fails to account for all possible configurations, then it isn't a complete theory is it?

And finally,

And that's why contemporary property theory is immoral. Just ask the victims looted by the Nazis...

Nazis? Whatever.

There are more claims than just labor and first come that can be made in property. Efficiency, waste, and personality/personal connection are three that often are at odds with labor and often come up in American law. There are more interests than just labor.

As for Vel, he has the right idea on the statue question. In essence, a tribunal will have to balance the moral considerations (and take into account precedent and statute).

Enough of this, back to conscription.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Kramerman


I share this thought. There are no such things as natural rights. RIGHTS only exist if you can back them up.

Might and right are two separate and distinct concepts (hence the distinction between the two). One can have a moral right that he or she cannot enforce via self-help. Right?

WHen you are trying to survive, who will protect your life? Your Mad Max sawed-off shotgun, thats what.

You forget that people can make a moral choice. If I am surrounded by immoral people and have to use my sawed-off shotgun to defend my rights I fail to see how this does not leave the immoral people in the position of being morally wrong.

If this fails, then nothing protects your life. IF the right to life was natural, i would conjecture that people wouldnt be able to die in natural disasters, or by animals looking for food or hosts (including pathogens). This is not the case.

You are confusing moral rights with states of affairs. You are confusing 'is' with 'ought' - Hume's dreaded naturalistic fallacy. Please stop.

People live and die everyday at the whim of others. SOme may argue WE SHOULD HAVE this right be natural, but that is but that is a super cooky idealistic dream, like heaven, not reality.

Murderers have the power to murder. They are still wrong.

Please keep your categories distinct. It will improve your arguments.

[David Floyd]

Vel,

DF, then the crux of our disagreement is this:

I do not believe that "natural rights" exist.

Vel, the problem is that without a concept of natural rights, there is no effective way to morally condemn things such as slavery, the Holocaust, and numerous other examples in history that are clearly wrong. I'm not saying that this alone justifies the existence of natural rights, but then again, because of these examples, you have to either take the position of admitting that either the Holocaust was perfectly OK, or that it was absolutely wrong.

Kramerman,

Ill continue with your example of jews and nazis. A jew is killed by a nazi. the jew thinks this is wrong, but who cares? he is dead. The nazi killed him, and thus the jew is dead. the nazi can then rationalize this as an act of "good" to his people using their moral beliefs that jews are "evil". Likewise, jews and their sympathesizers will lable it "evil" using their morals to rationalize it as such. Remember, to a nazi, killing jews is a good thing. like Osama bin Laden kiling americans is a good thing. We are just as 'evil' to OBL and his followers as he is to most americans. Its relative.

It doesn't matter what all these people think, according to your argument, for one very simple reason. You stated an absolute - might makes right. If this is so, the Jew who is killed by the Nazi cannot condemn the Nazi for killing him, because of your absolute that might makes right. The Jew knows that it is perfectly OK for the Nazi to kill him, and can't object to the concept, even though he might prefer a different outcome.

That's the problem with stating that there are no absolutes. Not only is that an absolute in and of itself, but eventually you do state one, because deep down, everyone but EVERYONE believes in some form of absolute right and wrong, absolute values.

To you, i probably seem like a cold hearted bastard. keep in mind tho i was raised with very similar values as you, so i have a personal bias of 'right' and 'wrong' to.

No, those are only personal preferences, not beliefs of right and wrong, because right and wrong are by nature absolutes. Something can't be "kind of right", or "both right and wrong at the same time". It's either right or it's wrong.

To make our society work, we have to protect the citizens and their property so htey are free to live, work, and innovate. we do this with various laws, such as against murder and theft. before laws, pre-civilized societies just new what was 'good' and 'bad', because they were raised knowing what would hurt their society, such as large scale murdering and stealing that would damage the solidarity necessary in early social groups, as it would damage it today.

What's your point? Of course I support laws against murder and theft. However, you're making a mistake. If I rob you, I'm not harming society - society won't fall apart because of a simple robbery between two people. I'm harming YOU. If I murder you, more than likely your murder doesn't affect "society as a whole" in any meaningful way - but it affects you, violates your rights.

Imagine if the world collapsed into anarchy tomorrow. 'morals' against killin and stealing may linger for a time, but as people get hungery and are desperate to survive, they could revert to canibalism, stealing and hording of guns and ammo, killing anyone who threatens them, or killing people to ease one's personal gain and increase chance of survival.

As Berzerker would say, let's debate real world hypotheticals. However, you speak of hoarding weapons and ammo and using force against those who would violate your rights as a negative thing. How could that possibly be negative?

I share this thought. There are no such things as natural rights. RIGHTS only exist if you can back them up.

Then you think that might makes right. You believe in that absolute. However, your absolute leads to the scenario I described earlier - final result, it doesn't make sense.

WHen you are trying to survive, who will protect your life? Your Mad Max sawed-off shotgun, thats what. If this fails, then nothing protects your life. IF the right to life was natural, i would conjecture that people wouldnt be able to die in natural disasters, or by animals looking for food or hosts (including pathogens).

Rights have nothing to do with animals, diseases, or hurricanes. They have to do with interactions between humans. If a dog could violate your rights, then presumably you could put a dog on trial for biting you. Maybe we can sue cancer.

And the right to liberty... in a state of anarchy, if i had a shot gun and you didnt, i could easily chain you up like a dog and force you to be my slave. The slaves of early america obviously did not have the natural right of liberty.

So you are claiming that because people took advantage of a man made law allowing slavery, that means there is no right to liberty? No, that simply means that people were ignoring it.

Same with your chain example. If you chain me up, you aren't taking anything away from me, nor are you proving that natural rights don't exist. You are simply chaining me up and ignoring my rights.

Rights are not God - they can't shoot lightning bolts at you if you ignore them. Rights do not protect themselves, they simply exist. If you choose to ignore them, and I'm not strong enough to do anything about it, then it's tough for me to exercise my rights. Hence "might makes what is". But the concept of brute strength simply ignores rights - it doesn't take them away.

I would hate more than anyhting else to have to live in a state of anarchy, where i had no rights, i had no protection from laws.

But the problem is that unless you acknowledge absolutes, you have to admit to the fact that if the government decides to shoot you, then you have no moral basis from which to object.

[Kramerman]

DF -

It doesn't matter what all these people think, according to your argument, for one very simple reason. You stated an absolute - might makes right. If this is so, the Jew who is killed by the Nazi cannot condemn the Nazi for killing him, because of your absolute that might makes right. The Jew knows that it is perfectly OK for the Nazi to kill him, and can't object to the concept, even though he might prefer a different outcome.

ok, this totally skews my arguement. my arguement is based on perspective. remember, the nazi thinks he is good, and the jew is evil, and vice versa...

And also, remember, i conceded to you that it isnt might makes right, that is misleading, the phrase is just catchy. I meant "might makes what is" as you suggested, this is a much better wording of my arguement.

That's the problem with stating that there are no absolutes. Not only is that an absolute in and of itself, but eventually you do state one, because deep down, everyone but EVERYONE believes in some form of absolute right and wrong, absolute values.

you cant take verything i type as literal. ask my friends, if anyone knows the paradox of saying there are no absolutes, i do . i did not mean there were absolutely no absolutes, but it just takes too long to clarify everything so well to prevent misinterpretations like this. tho all too often, most take adavantage of ambiguity like that to make arguements based on semantics...

I agree that MOST everyone deep down believe in some right abd wrong. shoot, even I, a fairly hardcore cultural relativist do, at least deep down inside. really, its more of just a bias.

No, those are only personal preferences, not beliefs of right and wrong, because right and wrong are by nature absolutes. Something can't be "kind of right", or "both right and wrong at the same time". It's either right or it's wrong.

i totally disagree. There are MANY shades of grey betwen black adn white. But again, you have the arguement of moral absolutes, and i have the arguement of cultural relativism, and that morality is based on perspective. this is a fundemental difference between us that will not allow us to agree on anyhting else on this matter.

What's your point? Of course I support laws against murder and theft. However, you're making a mistake. If I rob you, I'm not harming society - society won't fall apart because of a simple robbery between two people. I'm harming YOU. If I murder you, more than likely your murder doesn't affect "society as a whole" in any meaningful way - but it affects you, violates your rights.

you miss my point. If one person in a society steals from one person, yeah, nothin much will impact the society. But if EVERYONE steals from everyone, or a large precentage does anyway, then you have a big problem and society is profoundly impacted. IF im afraid of being robbed, im not gonna go to work, im gonna stay home and protect my things. in this scenario Everyone else does the same. our society would not last, that was my point. same thing with murder. one murder, no biggy. large scale murder... big problem.

As Berzerker would say, let's debate real world hypotheticals. However, you speak of hoarding weapons and ammo and using force against those who would violate your rights as a negative thing. How could that possibly be negative?

by hording i infered you would be taking their weapons and equipment by force, i guess i dint make that clear. And as thus, you would be VIOLATING THEIR rights

Then you think that might makes right. You believe in that absolute. However, your absolute leads to the scenario I described earlier - final result, it doesn't make sense.'

you jump to conclusions and put words in my mouth. Again, maybe you missed where i conceded to you that "MIGHT MAKES WHAT IS". as for not making sense, I already explained cultural relativism and POV earlier, i wont cover that ground twice, unless you think something was unclear.

Rights have nothing to do with animals, diseases, or hurricanes. They have to do with interactions between humans. If a dog could violate your rights, then presumably you could put a dog on trial for biting you. Maybe we can sue cancer.

you miss my point. if the right was 'natural' doesnt that mean the right to life should occur naturally in nature? that is what i think it means, but maybe i am misinterpreting it. If means something else than that, i dont think it is natural, rather, the right is MAN-MADE.

So you are claiming that because people took advantage of a man made law allowing slavery, that means there is no right to liberty? No, that simply means that people were ignoring it.

of course there COULD be a right to liberty, if it is man made and enforced by man-made laws, but just as easily there could be a right to SLAVERY, as enforced by man-made laws, no???

Same with your chain example. If you chain me up, you aren't taking anything away from me, nor are you proving that natural rights don't exist. You are simply chaining me up and ignoring my rights.

Well, this now comes down to personal philosphy, and i dont believe we differ on this anymore than on the semantics. i will elaborate:
If i ignore someones rights, as by chaining them up, to you i am merely ignoring them. To me, however, that right, IN THAT SITUATION (remember, rights can be made and enforced at anytime, but they must be backed up or they are meaningless), is non-existant. Do you see that from my POV? By ignoring the right at will, it effectively does not exist, no? You should agree with this, as you see the same thing, but rather the right is there, but it just is being ignored temporarily.

Rights are not God - they can't shoot lightning bolts at you if you ignore them. Rights do not protect themselves, they simply exist. If you choose to ignore them, and I'm not strong enough to do anything about it, then it's tough for me to exercise my rights. Hence "might makes what is". But the concept of brute strength simply ignores rights - it doesn't take them away.

again, this is just a difference in interperation.
You think rights just exist, and they can be ignored at times. I believe they only exist when they are actually WORKING, by being enforced.

hence, might makes what is

Brute strength in your eyes ignores rights, in mine, it either enforces rights, or effectively takes another's away. To different interpretations to the same end: someone is being screwed over because they cant protect themslves or be protected.

But the problem is that unless you acknowledge absolutes, you have to admit to the fact that if the government decides to shoot you, then you have no moral basis from which to object.

you misunderstand my standpoint. If the gov decides to shoot me, from their perspective it may be right, and from mine it may be wrong. Nothing more. My standpoint merely says that morality is relative to POV, and in the end, "MIGHT MAKES WHAT IS".

[Berzerker]

Vel -

But hypothetically, even if he DID have some sort of bizzare emotional bond with his hunk of gold, too bad. Once it becomes clear that he and the statue maker cannot resolve their differences between themselves, it goes to the courts to be decided. At that moment, it's out of both their hands.

It's his gold!!! Where did you get the moral authority to decide what happens to HIS gold? Did the thief who stole the gold give you this authority? Did the statue maker - the recipient of stolen goods - give you this authority? Or did the actual owner of the gold give you this authority?

Templar -

Berz, calmly repeat after me: "the statue and the gold are separate entities with different labor entitlements arising out of them".

The gold was STOLEN! Is that calm enough? Sheesh. Repeat that until it makes sense...

The minor owns the gold, the sculptor owns the statue. Unfortunately, the statue is dependent on the gold.

Hmm...I thought they were separate entities and now you say the statue is dependent upon the gold? Is the gold dependent on the statue? Nope. So, who owns the gold?

Only a few things left to respond to here:

Cool, I assume that means you will respond to my arguments now?

Again, the ownership of the material, on your argument, comes through the admixture of labor.

No it doesn't, ownership began when he staked a claim to the land - you know, mineral rights. These exist even if he mines no minerals. Labor by itself cannot constitute the moral authority to own the ore, the miner must first own the land. That's why the statue maker lacks the moral authority to own the statue, because while he labored to make the statue, he didn't own the gold used to make it.

If I come across an unowned tree and say "that's mine" and move on, yet you come by and take the wood and make a sculpture, who owns the wood?

Geez, you can't stick with your first hypothetical? What exactly do you mean by "and move on"? If you own the land upon which the tree grows, the tree and the wood are yours.

I would guess you would say I have no right to the tree since I have not admixed my labor with it.

Why? Have I not already explained to you that labor need not be mixed with a resource in order to own the resource? If the miner owns the land from which he could extract the ore, he still owns the ore even if he doesn't mine it.

(And yes, you own the sculpture as well here). First-come means that you admixed your labor first.

No it doesn't, it means you are the first to own the land or resource.

These arise, but usually in the context of intellectual property.

I see, someone in world history actually owned all oil deposits?

Material stuff is easier to think about though, so I use the example that I do. Even so, if a property theory fails to account for all possible configurations, then it isn't a complete theory is it?

You didn't even respond to my rebuttal of your oil hypothetical, so let me know if you find a configuration.

Nazis? Whatever.

What's wrong, did I find a configuration that ruins your "contemporary property law"? That configuration doesn't ruin my argument, just yours...

There are more claims than just labor and first come that can be made in property. Efficiency, waste, and personality/personal connection are three that often are at odds with labor and often come up in American law. There are more interests than just labor.

So you believe efficiency creates the moral authority to own what belongs to others? And "waste" does the same? That's why I brought up the Nazis and their efficiency, but your response was "whatever" - real convincing there.

As for Vel, he has the right idea on the statue question. In essence, a tribunal will have to balance the moral considerations (and take into account precedent and statute).

What moral authority do you have to keep stolen goods? I asked him what moral authority he has to take the miner's gold and he didn't answer either.

Enough of this, back to conscription.

Too bad, I was expecting proof and all I got was one long routine. I sure hope you remember this debate the next time you want to shoot off your mouth about your past "victories"...

[Kramerman]

templar, i dont have enough time to look at your points now, maybe later. hopefully my response to DF will clarify lots of stuff.

[Berzerker]

Vel -

I do not believe that "natural rights" exist.

Show me where they are in "nature."

Rights (natural) are moral claims individuals have against other people interfering in their lives. So asking where they can be found in nature is illogical since not all species have the ability to formulate and understand morality. And these moral claims derive from universal desires held by human beings... To deny natural rights is to deny the existence of a morality... As David points out, if the victims of the Nazis had no rights because their "society" said so, then upon what basis would you condemn the Nazis?

[David Floyd]

ok, this totally skews my arguement. my arguement is based on perspective. remember, the nazi thinks he is good, and the jew is evil, and vice versa...

And also, remember, i conceded to you that it isnt might makes right, that is misleading, the phrase is just catchy. I meant "might makes what is" as you suggested, this is a much better wording of my arguement.

Oh dear, now we have an entirely different problem.

You just admitted that might does NOT make right, or at least that might doesn't necessarily make right. It simply makes what IS. Presumably, then, you agree that "what is" is not necessarily "what is right". To say that the two are the same would require that you concede that slavery is perfectly right, and you just rejected the only basis on which you could do so (might makes right).

But more than that, you're missing the point of the debate. I'm not arguing WHAT IS, I'm arguing WHAT'S RIGHT. Yes, in 1944 you could say that the Holocaust is happening, but could you also say that the Holocaust is right? Certainly not, as you rejected the only argument in favor of saying the Holocaust is right - the argument that might makes right.

I suppose you could then go on to argue that sometimes might makes right, and sometimes it doesn't, but that also doesn't make sense, because making that distinction requires an appeal to some higher sense of morality - thus, it isn't the might that is making something right, but something else. The "inherent rightness", or morality.

you cant take verything i type as literal. ask my friends, if anyone knows the paradox of saying there are no absolutes, i do . i did not mean there were absolutely no absolutes, but it just takes too long to clarify everything so well to prevent misinterpretations like this. tho all too often, most take adavantage of ambiguity like that to make arguements based on semantics...

I agree that MOST everyone deep down believe in some right abd wrong. shoot, even I, a fairly hardcore cultural relativist do, at least deep down inside. really, its more of just a bias.

So, then, the question remains: What absolutes do you believe in? Why do they exist? Why are they absolutes in particular?

i totally disagree. There are MANY shades of grey betwen black adn white. But again, you have the arguement of moral absolutes, and i have the arguement of cultural relativism, and that morality is based on perspective. this is a fundemental difference between us that will not allow us to agree on anyhting else on this matter.

But you just admitted that moral absolutes exist.

But if EVERYONE steals from everyone, or a large precentage does anyway, then you have a big problem and society is profoundly impacted. IF im afraid of being robbed, im not gonna go to work, im gonna stay home and protect my things. in this scenario Everyone else does the same. our society would not last, that was my point. same thing with murder. one murder, no biggy. large scale murder... big problem.

The problem lies with one individual robbing/killing another individual, and this being repeated x number of times. The problem does not lie with an individual robbing/killing society. Sure, on a large enough scale, robbery and murder will affect more than one or two people, but just because I affect society isn't a good reason to criminalize my activity.

Now, before you make the distinction of negative vs. positive effects, remember that I'll just bring up absolutes again, and refer you to the above arguments

by hording i infered you would be taking their weapons and equipment by force, i guess i dint make that clear. And as thus, you would be VIOLATING THEIR rights

If that's what you meant, fine, you are correct that theft violates the rights of others. At least according to my theory of morality - not according to yours, curiously enough.

In any case, I fail to see how hardship is any excuse to rob or kill people, and I fail to see why a lack of government justifies those actions, either.

as for not making sense, I already explained cultural relativism and POV earlier, i wont cover that ground twice, unless you think something was unclear.

What is unclear is your concession that absolute morals exist, but your continued use of the phrase "cultural relativism", and your idea that a person's point of view has anything to do with inherent right and wrong. The two beliefs are mutually exclusive.

if the right was 'natural' doesnt that mean the right to life should occur naturally in nature? that is what i think it means, but maybe i am misinterpreting it.

First of all, life DOES occur in nature. Secondly, the idea of a right to life doesn't mean that I can't die, only that you can't kill me.

but just as easily there could be a right to SLAVERY, as enforced by man-made laws, no???

No there could not. A right is something that everyone has (the right to life, the right to money, the right to a blowjob, whatever). If there is a right to slavery, then everyone has the right to enslave others. But if someone who is a slave has the right to enslave others, but he can't enslave his master because his master has the guns, then it comes back to an argument of might makes right - which, I point out once again, you've already rejected.

If i ignore someones rights, as by chaining them up, to you i am merely ignoring them. To me, however, that right, IN THAT SITUATION (remember, rights can be made and enforced at anytime, but they must be backed up or they are meaningless), is non-existant. Do you see that from my POV? By ignoring the right at will, it effectively does not exist, no? You should agree with this, as you see the same thing, but rather the right is there, but it just is being ignored temporarily.

That's the ostrich argument - it's like saying that if I bury my head in the sand and ignore you, you aren't really there.

I believe they only exist when they are actually WORKING, by being enforced.

You can't enforce a right, because that implies that you are forcing me to exercise my rights. The point of law is to prevent and punish rights violations.

However, I suspect this is simple semantic confusion, as you pointed out earlier, so I'll give you a pass, with the simple acknowledgement of the clarification.

In any case, you are making a couple of arguments. First, that rights are created by society, and second, that someone who is violating your rights is actually taking your rights away.

You are saying that rights are created by society in that if a society ceases to "enforce rights" (punish rights violations) then it is actually stripping away rights. If rights are created by society, then again, you have no argument against the Holocaust. It comes back to might makes right - but I'm not allowing that argument anymore, since you already admitted that it's an incorrect assertion.

Secondly, you are saying that even if you normally have, say, the right to property, and "society" (as some here would put it) recognizes this, your right to property can be simply taken away by someone who decides to rob you. But if you don't anymore have the right to property, then you have no ground to stand on in objecting to being robbed.

If the gov decides to shoot me, from their perspective it may be right, and from mine it may be wrong. Nothing more. My standpoint merely says that morality is relative to POV, and in the end, "MIGHT MAKES WHAT IS".

This is the same as saying "might makes right". The morality of a situation and the existence of a situation are two very different things, as I've already pointed out. Furthermore, if you believe in this concept of morality being relative to POV, then why do you admit to believing in absolutes?

[quote]

[Kramerman]

im on my way to bed, ill address your stuff tomorrow. but i read the begining of your deal and there are some major misunderstandings. besides we need to scale this down big time... to much time reading and sorting thru cross-aruements. Ill restate my view simply. so you can then address it simply.


moral absolutes:
Cultural relativism. Basically a nazi kills a jew. The nazi firmly believes this action is good. He thinks killing jews is good, maybe even holy. A jew, sees this as bad, and sees nazis as evil. The act of killing the jew has two perspectives now. one of good, one of evil. 'Morally', the nazi felt justified because 'jews are bad'. to the jews, this action was bad because they were murdered and they dont like that.

So. This brings me to POV. Morality is relative to perspective. Killing can be good, it can be bad, depends on the culture and the circumstance.

I cannot imagine any moral absolutes when looking at morality from an objective view like this. It is all just relative. However, just because i dont know there are no moral absolutes, does not mean there arent any. I cannot say there are absolutely no moral absolutes, i just dont know. I just dont know of any.

i would be interested in knowing what you think are moral abslutes


on "might makes what is" formerly "might makes right":

I like the 'might makes what is' wording better for semantic reasons. basically, I originally made the mistake of thinking well, whatever the victor imposes on the defeated, this is right, because, who is to say it is wrong? However, those being opressed can still see it as wrong, but just from their unimpactful perspective. Thus you have the victor saying one thing is right and ultimately having the power to enforce it as "right", the opressed saying its wrong but not being able to enforce it, but none-the-less they still think it.... the end result is WHAT IS. I misleadingly called this what is right, but i cannot say this with correct semantics from my POV, because what is "right" is purely relative to the POV of the parties involved, even tho only the victors truly have say in what is 'right', they cant keep the opressed form thinking what they think is 'right'.

ok, i think that somewhat clearly states my postion, instead of it being a hodgpodge of scattered posts that could easily be misinterpretd, both form poor and incomplete writing and confused reading.

[Kramerman]

This is the same as saying "might makes right". The morality of a situation and the existence of a situation are two very different things, as I've already pointed out. Furthermore, if you believe in this concept of morality being relative to POV, then why do you admit to believing in absolutes?

*quickly answers this important question that i left unclearly answered earlier*

I do not admit to any such thing. I have merely admited to having a bias on morals.

I was raised on judeo-christian morals, and such morals were instilled in me since birth. Because of this, I naturally lean toward these morals in many situations. Because in my culture, there are rights and wrongs, only these right and wrongs are nt universal. I dont believe any right or wrong can be said to be universal.

for example. I personally think slavery is wrong, because i never would want to be enslaved (this is because iwas strongly raised on the 'golden rule'). So am very glad the US deinstitutionalized slavery way back then, because i find it repulsive. However, I am aware this is not an absolute. If i were raised in a slave society, i bet i would think slaves were dandy. You must admit, if you were brought up on a plantation, do you actually think you would be an abolitionist? no, not hradly. You are raised with a different set of values.


does my standpoint seem more clear now?

[Kramerman]

also, outa curiosity, do you just read a little bit of my posts and then respond, bit by bit? or do you read it all the way thru first before breaking it down and responding?

[Berzerker]

Cultural relativism. Basically a nazi kills a jew. The nazi firmly believes this action is good. He thinks killing jews is good, maybe even holy. A jew, sees this as bad, and sees nazis as evil. The act of killing the jew has two perspectives now. one of good, one of evil. 'Morally', the nazi felt justified because 'jews are bad'. to the jews, this action was bad because they were murdered and they dont like that.

So. This brings me to POV. Morality is relative to perspective. Killing can be good, it can be bad, depends on the culture and the circumstance.

Who is right? They can't both be right or morality is meaningless.

[Velociryx]

So again, I ask....where do these "Natural Rights" come from? Who grants them? Who protects them when you are separated from the state?

If you are alone in the wilderness, what "rights" do you have, naturally? What rights does nature grant you?

The right to live? Hardly. Nature does not give a rat's a$$ if you live or die. Try arguing that point with a grizzley bear....I daresay you will not last long if you spend your time wailing and gnashing your teeth about how he's not acknoledging your "natural rights."

"Natural Rights" and Morals are two separate entities.

Human beings are capable of having morals. What morals our western values have given us today are different from the moral code of three hundred years ago.

In medieval Europe, it was not morally wrong to behead someone for looking cross-eyed at the King. Today, it's unacceptable. "Nature" didn't effect that change, human beings did. Thus, "morality" shifts and changes over time. What is "morally right" today, may not seem so three hundred years hence.

So....if the cornerstone of your argument is that government exists to service and protect natural rights, then I would label you an anarchist. If nautral rights do not exist, then government should not exist.

-=Vel=-

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Vel -

The gold was STOLEN! Is that calm enough? Sheesh. Repeat that until it makes sense...

Hmm...I thought they were separate entities and now you say the statue is dependent upon the gold? Is the gold dependent on the statue? Nope. So, who owns the gold?

The miner owns the gold, the sculptor the statue.
Separate things can depend on each other. I.e. a child is separate from the parent, but depends on the parent for food (i.e. its existence).

And yes, the gold is stolen. But that is, as I point out, the complicating factor in the story - you wrongly turn it into the solution.

Cool, I assume that means you will respond to my arguments now?

I've responded since the beginning.

No it doesn't, ownership began when he staked a claim to the land - you know, mineral rights. These exist even if he mines no minerals. Labor by itself cannot constitute the moral authority to own the ore, the miner must first own the land.

Well then, by what moral right does the laborer claim the rights to the minerals? He stakes a claim? Are you saying staking an initial claim is morally sufficient for a moral right to the thing claimed?

That's why the statue maker lacks the moral authority to own the statue, because while he labored to make the statue, he didn't own the gold used to make it.

You have merely restated the problem, not given a solution.

What exactly do you mean by "and move on"? If you own the land upon which the tree grows, the tree and the wood are yours.

By "move on" I mean walk by a tree that no one owns (presumably this means no one owns the land on which the tree sits (or land ownership does not entail tree on land ownership, whatever). So if I walk by an unowned tree, make the initial claim, and then leave the site forever, I own the tree against all other comers?

You seem to have changed your position. Initially you talked about owning spears due to the labor invested. Now you are saying making the initial claim to something grants moral authority over it.

No it doesn't, it means you are the first to own the land or resource.

Again, where does this ownership come from? Labor, first claim, what?

I see, someone in world history actually owned all oil deposits?

I already answered your objection to counterfactual hypotheticals. A theory that can't explain counterfactual occurances is not a complete theory. The state of the real world can be explained by many theories, counterfactual argumentation weeds out many of the bad ones.

What's wrong, did I find a configuration that ruins your "contemporary property law"? That configuration doesn't ruin my argument, just yours...

I only discuss Nazis when the topic is genocide. The minute someone starts discussing the Nazis or Hitler lightly is the point at which civil argumentation has been brought to an end. A better (and less incendiary) point you could make is about the abuse of eminent domain laws in the US. But no, you go right for the Nazis.

There is more to property than both labor and first claim - the moral universe is wider than that. Property is an attempt to balance moral claims.

BTW, you probably hate the concept of adverse possession. Noentheless, it is a staple of the common law tradition.

So you believe efficiency creates the moral authority to own what belongs to others? And "waste" does the same? That's why I brought up the Nazis and their efficiency, but your response was "whatever" - real convincing there.

Save the Nazis for genocide arguments. Now, the oil hypothetical points to the problem of resource mismanagement under a robust private property system. By what right does the owner of a resourse deprive the community of the benefits of that resource for idiosyncratic reasons if the community is willing to pay for the resource? This is the root of the idea of eminent domain. And despite abuses, it is a sound concept.

Talk about the real world - I think perhaps you need to come back to the real world from libertarian fantasy land and look at how property actually works in the real world.

What moral authority do you have to keep stolen goods? I asked him what moral authority he has to take the miner's gold and he didn't answer either.

The theif has no moral authority to take the miners gold. The gold belongs to the miner. Quit arguing the points on which we agree. But the miner does not own the statue considered as apart from the gold. What right does the minor have to infringe on the sculptor's right to the statue apart from the gold. Again, consider the statue and leave the gold out for the moment.

[Berzerker]

Vel -

So again, I ask....where do these "Natural Rights" come from? Who grants them? Who protects them when you are separated from the state?

They come from that which created the universe, life, and us. If there is no state, it's up to you to protect yourself and anyone willing to help.

If you are alone in the wilderness, what "rights" do you have, naturally? What rights does nature grant you?

If you're alone in the wilderness, you have no rights. They are moral claims against others interfering in your life, not immunities to other creatures or the physical laws.

The right to live? Hardly. Nature does not give a rat's a$$ if you live or die. Try arguing that point with a grizzley bear....I daresay you will not last long if you spend your time wailing and gnashing your teeth about how he's not acknoledging your "natural rights."

Did you read my post? I'm already repeateding what I said to you.

"Natural Rights" and Morals are two separate entities.

No they aren't, they're the same thing since rights are moral claims.

Human beings are capable of having morals.

Then why bring grizzlies into the discussion?

What morals our western values have given us today are different from the moral code of three hundred years ago.

No, just how some people viewed morality. It may have seemed "moral" to some people to enslave others, but that doesn't mean slavery was moral. Jesus offered a moral code that transcends time - the Golden Rule.

In medieval Europe, it was not morally wrong to behead someone for looking cross-eyed at the King. Today, it's unacceptable.

So, who was right? If you say both or neither, then morality has no meaning in your life.

"Nature" didn't effect that change, human beings did. Thus, "morality" shifts and changes over time. What is "morally right" today, may not seem so three hundred years hence.

Morality at it's most basic level is based on universal desires. This "king" certainly would not have wanted to be executed nor would slaveowners want to be enslaved, so figuring out who was immoral is simple deduction.

So....if the cornerstone of your argument is that government exists to service and protect natural rights, then I would label you an anarchist. If nautral rights do not exist, then government should not exist.

Anarchists want government to exist? I'd accept that label, but most people don't understand what anarchism is about. As for the last part, I believe that was from David, but a "just" or moral government exists to preserve natural rights. If a government exists and violates these natural rights, then that government should not exist. Read the Declaration of Independence for more information...

[Berzerker]

Templar -

The miner owns the gold, the sculptor the statue.

The gold was STOLEN! How many times does that have to be pointed out?

Separate things can depend on each other. I.e. a child is separate from the parent, but depends on the parent for food (i.e. its existence).

The child doesn't require the parent for food, others can feed him. Now, who, if anyone, has the moral authority to raise that child? The parent or the person who received a stolen child? My addition there of a stolen child makes your analogy logical...

And yes, the gold is stolen. But that is, as I point out, the complicating factor in the story - you wrongly turn it into the solution.

Why is it wrong to involve that all important "complicated" factor in the "solution"? Tell me Templar, if the statue maker didn't receive stolen gold, but mined it himself from his land, would that solve your dilemma? Of course! Why? Because the solution depends on identifying the rightful owner of the gold. You've introduced theft into your hypothetical for an obvious reason only to argue that theft shouldn't be considered when solving the hypothetical.

I've responded since the beginning.

No, you've been responding to Locke, and you haven't actually responded to him either other than asserting his "labor theory" has been refuted (no proof for that one either). I've repeatedly asked you to explain how my argument is flawed and I keep getting ambiguous "responses" about "efficiency", Robert Nozick and Locke, "labor theory", "contemporary labor theory", etc...

Well then, by what moral right does the laborer claim the rights to the minerals? He stakes a claim? Are you saying staking an initial claim is morally sufficient for a moral right to the thing claimed?

First come, first serve. Remember?

You have merely restated the problem, not given a solution.

No, I've restated the problem with your argument that the statue maker owns the statue, and I've given you the solution several times now.

By "move on" I mean walk by a tree that no one owns (presumably this means no one owns the land on which the tree sits (or land ownership does not entail tree on land ownership, whatever). So if I walk by an unowned tree, make the initial claim, and then leave the site forever, I own the tree against all other comers?

No, you've abandoned the claim.

You seem to have changed your position. Initially you talked about owning spears due to the labor invested. Now you are saying making the initial claim to something grants moral authority over it.

I haven't changed my position, you own the spears because you made them, and you own the wood to make them because of first come. Is this where you introduce stolen wood into my argument? My argument about owning the spears presumes the spearmaker owned the wood.

Again, where does this ownership come from? Labor, first claim, what?

First come, first serve. And since you own your labor, what you do with the resource is yours too.

I already answered your objection to counterfactual hypotheticals. A theory that can't explain counterfactual occurances is not a complete theory. The state of the real world can be explained by many theories, counterfactual argumentation weeds out many of the bad ones.

Fine, how does your counterfactual hypothetical show the my argument is incomplete? You offered the hypothetical and ignored my response..

I only discuss Nazis when the topic is genocide. The minute someone starts discussing the Nazis or Hitler lightly is the point at which civil argumentation has been brought to an end. A better (and less incendiary) point you could make is about the abuse of eminent domain laws in the US. But no, you go right for the Nazis.

Hmm...you offer up fanciful hypotheticals to ostensible refute me but chastise me for offering up real world examples to refute your position? You just said a theory is incomplete if it can't deal with your fantasies, so why is your theory complete
when it can't deal with the real world?

There is more to property than both labor and first claim - the moral universe is wider than that. Property is an attempt to balance moral claims.

Does this "balance" mean overturning a moral claim for a non-moral claim? As for this "moral universe" being wider, I've yet to see you defend your claim that "efficiency" creates moral authority.

Save the Nazis for genocide arguments.

What genocide argument? I was talking about the Nazis looting their victims. We can certainly add in all their other crimes too, but that sure won't help your case.

Now, the oil hypothetical points to the problem of resource mismanagement under a robust private property system.

So what? If I "mis-manage" my resources, that doesn't create for you the moral authority to steal my resources. Otherwise, the Nazis were justified when invading less efficient countries.

By what right does the owner of a resourse deprive the community of the benefits of that resource for idiosyncratic reasons if the community is willing to pay for the resource?

I assume this means the owner of the oil refuses to sell oil if it's used to make polymers? That's his right because he has the moral authority to make contracts and if the buyers don't like it, then they can find other ways to accomplish their goal. That's also why I reject this argument that we have a "social contract" to be conscripted - contracts are made between people willing to enter into the agreement.

This is the root of the idea of eminent domain. And despite abuses, it is a sound concept.

Ah, so that's why you want me to be "reasonable" instead of asking you to explain why the Nazis don't shoot down your argument. You've just said eminent domain is abused, so why doesn't that mean your theory is incomplete? Btw, eminent domain was allowed by the Constitution only for the building of forts, munition depots, and other government facilities, not to force people to sell or give their resources to other citizens who see a more profitable or efficient use for them. Eminent domain is usually used to take land from people to build shopping malls, new housing developments, stadiums, etc., not actual government facilities required for the operation of government functions.

Talk about the real world - I think perhaps you need to come back to the real world from libertarian fantasy land and look at how property actually works in the real world.

You've got to be kidding! You offer up hypotheticals that can't ever happen in the real world and complain about me pointing to the Nazis who did happen in the real world?

BTW, you probably hate the concept of adverse possession. Noentheless, it is a staple of the common law tradition.

I don't know what "adverse possession" means, and just because something is in common law doesn't mean it's moral.

The theif has no moral authority to take the miners gold. The gold belongs to the miner. Quit arguing the points on which we agree.

Rather shortsighted of you, we don't agree that the statue maker gets to keep his statue just because of his labor. Why? Because the gold was stolen, so emphasising the fact the gold was stolen becomes key to your hypothetical. You knew theft was important when you designed your hypothetical, so acting like it doesn't matter now is illogical.

But the miner does not own the statue considered as apart from the gold. What right does the minor have to infringe on the sculptor's right to the statue apart from the gold. Again, consider the statue and leave the gold out for the moment.

I've answered this several times, the miner doesn't have a moral claim to the statue, just the gold. Therefore, the statue maker has the moral authority to melt down the statue before the miner takes possession of his property. But you keep ignoring my response for some reason...

[Velociryx]

Berz....actually that post was aimed at DF....I'm not calling you an anarchist...

However, I do disagree that natural rights exist. You are essentially saying that natural rights are those rights granted by god (ie "that which created the universe") - in which case, the codification and definition of those rights is subjective, dependant upon what particular religious interpretation you subscribe to, yes?

-=Vel=-

[Berzerker]

Yeah, the last part of your post sounded like David was your target, but since he and I largely agree...oh well...

However, I do disagree that natural rights exist. You are essentially saying that natural rights are those rights granted by god (ie "that which created the universe") - in which case, the codification and definition of those rights is subjective, dependant upon what particular religious interpretation you subscribe to, yes?

No "god" or religion is necessary and usually just complicates the matter. Someone or something did create the universe (which one doesn't matter to me), so we can observe our little corner of the universe to detect any "patterns". And universal desires are, in my mind, evidence of a pattern upon which to base morality. No one, excluding special circumstances, wants to be murdered. Therefore, we have a universal desire as the basis for a moral claim against being murdered. No one wants to be enslaved, so we have another universal desire as the basis for a moral claim against being enslaved. The Golden Rule adaquately applies this morality based on universal desires to human interaction which is the only realm for rights - moral claims - to exist...

Now, you say natural rights don't exist. So, where do rights - moral claims against interference by others - originate? Many here say "society", i.e., other people. For those who accept "democracy", that is majority rule. But even they reject this origin for rights when the majority commits immoral acts against a minority. But even though they will reject their own argument, they still reject natural rights even though that is the ultimate basis upon which they condemn majorities that commit acts of evil.

[Velociryx]

Yep....my contention is that society is responsible for the moral code of a particular group.

Why?

Because, as you yourself have said, a man, alone in the wilderness HAS no rights.

Does this mean that he suddenly lacks the desire not to be killed? Of course not, but the wilderness does not care.

Only when that man finds himself in the company of other men, does his desire (and all their desires) not to be killed gain any merit whatsoever.

If man's universal desire not to be killed stems from whatever power created the Universe, then it should universally apply, whether the man is alone or not.

It does not.

Look back in time....before states existed, when man was purely tribal.

One of the first, and most common "spoils of war" between tribes was the taking of slaves from defeated warriors.

This was important for two reasons: 1) Because it ensured that the losing tribe was in a weaker position, and thus, less able to threaten the victorious tribe (protecting your own is not an immoral act, and thus, the taking of slaves from the warriors and women of the losing tribe was hardly immoral in this frame and time because it amounted to an act of self-preservation). 2) Our tribal ancestors worshiped gods who demanded blood, and slaves (those captured from elsewhere) were frequently the ones chosen for such blood sacrifices. These sacrifices were seen by the tribe as a means of ensuring plentiful crops and other favors from the gods themselves. Now a blood "sacrifice" is merely a religiously dressed up way of saying "killed" or "murdered" but again, in this frame and time, such an act was hardly immoral. In fact, NOT doing so--not giving these bloodthirsty gods their due for the betterment of the tribe--would have been considered both hightly irresponsible and immoral.

-=Vel=-

[Ben Kenobi]

This thread is still going on.

Just a couple points, then I want to rebut Velociryx's last point

Kidicious:

A man can be conscripted for the good of the state and for the good of those who cannot fight for themselves. A man cannot be conscripted for his own good, his own self interest becomes better served by avoiding the draft at all costs. This is why your distinction between different types of conscription means little.

Vel:

If man's universal desire not to be killed stems from whatever power created the Universe, then it should universally apply, whether the man is alone or not.

Interesting point, with lots of consequences if one follows this logic. First of all, where does man's value come from? Why do people have worth and value? People should not be killed simply because they desire not to be killed, but because of what they are, an intrinsic quality.

Only when that man finds himself in the company of other men, does his desire (and all their desires) not to be killed gain any merit whatsoever.

To gain merit among men requires the presence of men. The merit still exists even if no other men are around, our value is not based on the presence of others, but in ourselves.

1) Because it ensured that the losing tribe was in a weaker position, and thus, less able to threaten the victorious tribe (protecting your own is not an immoral act, and thus, the taking of slaves from the warriors and women of the losing tribe was hardly immoral in this frame and time because it amounted to an act of self-preservation).

How can slavery be an act of self-preservation? Slavery requires a long term confinement of another person. One must first degrade the other tribe before one can take them as slaves.

The neat part about this argument is that both sides justify their conduct, to take slave since each tribe should favour their own. This only leads to a cycle of violence between both tribes.

not giving these bloodthirsty gods their due for the betterment of the tribe--would have been considered both hightly irresponsible and immoral.

So why then have our morals changed? Why do we not value blood sacrifices?

[Velociryx]

Obiwan:

If man defines his own value, then some will, no doubt, have a higher value of self than others. Your argument would seem to indicate then, that those who value themselves little would be of lesser value (since it stems from the self) than those who think very highly of themselves.

But that's not what we see today....the most ardent humanitarians will argue that ALL humans have high intrinsic value, regardless of what they think of themselves, or how much they value themselves.

In ancient tribal societies, slavery WAS an act of self-preservation because it ensured that the rival tribe would be less able to commit further acts of violence against my tribe. We fought, my tribe won, and took the warriors captured as slaves. Rival tribe has less warriors, so next time, they'll be less likely to try and pick on my tribe. Self preservation.

As to why blood sacrifices are no longer required....that too, is a fairly new phenomenon.

Once tribes grew larger and more complex, their communal natures fell by the board, to be replaced by a highly centralized, Feudalistic governing structure....the notion of the bloodthirsty gods fell by the way, to be replaced by (in the West) the Christian God, who was supposedly kinder and gentler, but in the absence of blood sacrifices to the savage gods, the notion of the god-king, or the devine right of Kings grew, and they became the "new gods" to which blood sacrifices were made, and many were every bit as savage as the old gods....countless wars to satisfy their personal ambitions = countless blood sacrifces made to them.

And....they were right. In their day, under the conditions they lived in, day in and day out, under the structure of their society (grim tho it often was), it was right for them.

To our modern moral sensibilities, it surely seems shocking (and it is), but that's on account of the changes in the moral code between then and now. It has innundated us all our lives. We don't know anything else.

-=Vel=-

[Kramerman]

DF, you PM box is full