What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Setarcos]

Setarcos is one for the ignore list I'm afraid. It's not worth trying to inform him. He's not here to think about new ideas, he's here to jam his ideas down your throat in the most abrasive and pugnacious way possible. He's just angry that biological imperative dictates that he can't jerk-off more than 10 times a day.

Interesting. You are unable to refute, so you ignore and hide, interested only to stroking those who already follow the same dogma as yourself. It's quote prototypical of your religion.

 

[Intense]

But I suspect he just opted to keep it simple; and given the whole Eve thing... he also might have still been fairly pissed at the fems... so he dogged' em for a little while longer.

So you admit that your god is a misogynist.

I mean I've some experience with 'em... As it happens, I own a couple of 'em myself; having given one away already... and they can be a hassle; so I can certainly understand that.

Nice evasion, but you never addressed any other the texts. I accept your concession.

I think that You confuse God with other peoples words. My point here is that God neither needs You or I to speak in defense of, nor is God limited like we are, Setarcos. Maybe You could try to make contact on your own, rather than rely on others. No hoops to jump through, no expectations, Nobody to blame. You cheat only yourself, by denying the source of creation. I'm not selling anything, just pointing out that You are missing out.

 

[Intense]

You a Moral **** Head.

Such a compelling argument

That should have come out, "You are An Amoral **** Head!"

There, that does it. More compelling. Thanks for the Heads Up.

 

[Intense]

Setarcos is one for the ignore list I'm afraid. It's not worth trying to inform him. He's not here to think about new ideas, he's here to jam his ideas down your throat in the most abrasive and pugnacious way possible. He's just angry that biological imperative dictates that he can't jerk-off more than 10 times a day.

Interesting. You are unable to refute, so you ignore and hide, interested only to stroking those who already follow the same dogma as yourself. It's quote prototypical of your religion.

Why limit yourself to any dogma Setarcos, kick off those training wheels! Let Cause and effect keep you on the road between the lines and let your conscience navigate. You seem to know so much and so little of Religion at the same time! Go Figure!

 

[Setarcos]

So you evade, tell me I need your god, and then curse some more (The Holy Spirit at work in you?, I wonder)

such compelling arguments

 

[Intense]

So you evade, tell me I need your god, and then curse some more (The Holy Spirit at work in you?, I wonder)

such compelling arguments

Do I attempt to limit or control You in any way? Do I profess to be better than You? Do I accept You as I find You?

You want better from me, work at it harder.

I do not evade you Setarcos, nor avoid, nor hide. There is something in you still asleep, that will wake in It's own time, you will know when the time of choice comes to you, it's not about buying and selling, or changing horses, or winning or loosing. It is about You recognizing something that has always been with You.

 

[Setarcos]

Are you ever going to address the points made earlier in this thread?

 

[Intense]

Are you ever going to address the points made earlier in this thread?

90 pages of Thread, many posted multiple times over. Can you be specific?

 

[Setarcos]

Any of them. You've been evading since I got here

 

[Intense]

Any of them. You've been evading since I got here

I've been burned out since before you got here, pick any one, two, or three.

 

[Diuretic]

ROFLMNAO... As concessions go... that was a BEAUTY!

So we can dispense with the whole 'Theism is not essential to morality' tripe.

All that notion bears is that morality can be defined as being representative as anything to anyone... AKA: Moral relativism: OKA: Pure Evil...

The gasps of the religious absolutist upon realising that morality doesn't depend on religion for its existence.

ROFLMNAO...

Isn't that cute... it's OPPOSITE DAY on USMB. Prove that moral relativism is not morality and the humanist returns to proclaim that the OPPOSITE was established.

Again, there's a reason for that... With actual, valid and sustainable morality in play... Leftism is untenable. Leftism requires flexibility in terms of morality... and immutable rights endowed by the Creator; inspeparable from the rightful holder; who are duty bound to destroy those who contest those rights... is a REAL problem for Left-think and the sheeple; the weak-minded; the lowest common cultural denominator; the malcontents; the 10%... who feel that they simply need that Nanny-state crutch.

Got nothing of substance to contribute?

 

[Diuretic]

Humans are great experimenters. We learn by various means, mostly social, but a solitary human can learn by using trial and error methods, just like other animals do. We adopt what works, we discard what doesn't work. We, if we are members of even the smallest social grouping, learn from each other as well as learning from our individual experiences.

Before we developed language we (humans collectively) learned by observation and we learned (as individuals) by classical and operant conditioning methods (delivered by others external to us as individuals, usually parents). We learned what helped us to survive as individuals and as collectives.

After language and writing were invented humans could more effectively share the collective knowledge gained from trial and error methods. And importantly we could develop codes of behaviour that were recorded. Having them recorded meant that they could be revised and improved as necessary. What worked was recorded, what didn't work was extinguished. What worked was venerated and passed down from generation to generation, being amended as necessary.

What guides us is the biological imperative. It guides us as individuals. In societies the biological imperative drives individuals and given societies are collectives of individual humans it follows that arrangements must be made to manage the behaviours that are driven by the biological imperative.

First of all, thank you for the thoughtful post. It seems like you are the final remaining voice of reason on your side of the original argument.

Ok, so this 'behavioral selection process' that you propose and I must accept as common sense... driven by Biological Imperative... does it not boil down to a natural process? Doesn't it seek natural ends? Aren't there aspects of the various behavioral codes which are always selected?

I don't pretend to know what all of the aspects of behavioral code that will always be selected. I still maintain that all people will always seek freedom (if society doesn't give it to them, they will eventually take it or die trying, at which point you could say they are truly free). And those who seek to deny others' freedom will have to continue to grow in power to keep control. We know where this ends. Eventually there is no more power and there is nowhere to go but down. Tyranny is forever temporary.

Why do I think that people will always seek freedom?

Freedom affords one the ability to control one's destiny. People are naturally mistrustful, especially when it comes to people outside of their genetic circle and even more so of those outside of their community (people they see every day). As the past 87 pages have shown here, people are generally most trusting of themselves. So why hand over your destiny to another person? Why would you think that they have your best interest at heart? Demagogues and other snake-oil salesmen can sometimes infiltrate our hearts and convince us that they are truly acting in our interest (and may in some cases be), but if we did not believe that they were acting in our interest we would not choose to defer to them.

It's an interesting discussion, I have to say I'm getting a lot out of it.

I'm of the view that human behaviour – individually or collectively – is underpinned (had to be careful there, nearly wrote “determined&#8221 by the biological imperative. I know that's a huge blanket statement and there are holes to be picked in it but that's fine, it deserves to be criticised. Anyway I'm of that view. The individual human, in a state of nature, does what he or she needs to do to survive. This is not – to me at least – an expression of a “right” to survive, it's obeying the biological imperative. Now, from that it seems to me that when humans form a collective that they will also be obeying the biological imperative but with the addition of reproduction. So the collective effort will be driven by the imperative again. So that survival and reproduction chances are enhanced certain behaviours will be developed, probably through trial and error, which support survival and reproduction. For example, it has been reported – I don't have a link – that certain peoples in harsh environments will leave sick and seriously injured companions to die rather than risk the survival of the collective. In a technologically advanced society we regard that as callous. In a primitive, subsistence environment where people survive by hunting and gathering, it makes sense because it supports the efforts of the collective to live and reproduce. From that I suppose I'm arguing that what we call “morality” springs from the biological imperative.

Freedom, I think, is part of the biological imperative. But humans, unlike other animals, with our advanced intelligence, are able to name the concept of being able to act to ensure individual survival. We need freedom to live. The most serious crimes in societies without the death penalty are punished by removing freedom. Before we had the idea of prisons as places to keep people for periods of time (prisons were originally places where offenders were taken to be punished, not incarcerated as punishment) we used exile to protect our collectives from individuals who were not able or willing to adhere to the collective moral code which ensured survival. Freedom is part of human nature as well as animal nature. When we lose our freedom as individuals we become mentally and physically ill.

 

[Intense]

The gasps of the religious absolutist upon realising that morality doesn't depend on religion for its existence.

ROFLMNAO...

Isn't that cute... it's OPPOSITE DAY on USMB. Prove that moral relativism is not morality and the humanist returns to proclaim that the OPPOSITE was established.

Again, there's a reason for that... With actual, valid and sustainable morality in play... Leftism is untenable. Leftism requires flexibility in terms of morality... and immutable rights endowed by the Creator; inspeparable from the rightful holder; who are duty bound to destroy those who contest those rights... is a REAL problem for Left-think and the sheeple; the weak-minded; the lowest common cultural denominator; the malcontents; the 10%... who feel that they simply need that Nanny-state crutch.

Got nothing of substance to contribute?

I'll bite. I believe that Morality is Absolute and moral relativism blows like the wind, only less reliably.

Moral Absolutism is the Foundation. Variance lies in application, which is directly related to circumstance.

Religion, as in the Study and Devotion to God does keep us from killing each other through the development of Moral Reason, It keeps us safe and sound for the most part, being fruitful, multiplying, and replenishing. Therefore, Us being here, is evidence to the fact that Religion, helps in the understanding and in the development of Morality. I would need to see the first use of the word morality, separate from religion, to understand it otherwise.

Here is a Liberal Study Link, that Truly amazes me because there is no Spiritual Reference here. it is disingenuous, though it does manage to throw a few stones at Geligion later on in the link. Not Compelling at all.



35,000 BC: Cro-Magnons or modern humans emerge in east Africa; they possess contemporary capacities for thought, emotion, creativity, desire, fantasy, motivation, psychology, spirituality, etc.; the minds, hearts, and souls of these intensely individualistic but also highly social creatures are fully in place; as these sentient beings approach adolescence they quickly learn in depth -- thru experience and education -- the two fundamental universal virtues: (1) planning for the long term personally and (2) cooperating socially

8000 BC: the Agricultural Revolution forces self-discipline and moral sophistication upward; these new farmers -- in order to survive and thrive -- are required to be less irascible, unpredictable, out-of-control, and animal-like in their behavior; and as proto-rancher-farmers domesticate their animal and plant food supplies, they become more 'domesticated' themselves; the new personal moral codes they're forced to adopt make them considerably less like traditional tribalist hunter-gatherers -- who basically lived like wolves and chimpanzees, and didn't need nearly as many moral skills

3500 BC: the stunning, wondrous Governmental Revolution and advent of civilization and sophisticated culture in Mesopotamia and Egypt forces the individual to even more (1) plan for the future and (2) be socially friendly/cooperative; the newly-invented city-state forces people to live together in unprecedented closeness with their fellow man as old-style natural freedom and privacy become both much harder to get and more valuable to have; this vast expansion of socio-economic interactivity puts an unprecedented premium on social ethics; people handle this more or less badly, as was probably inevitable; this inept socialization and social morality is manifested thruout the various emerging cultures and societies; it's particularly seen in their rather tyrannical government and the interwoven freshly-created institution of polytheism; the cities of this period are actually rather rich in friends, money, and high culture -- but generally hard on individualism, originality, and eccentricity, all of which end up getting somewhat squashed; de facto social eugenics and the domestication/taming of man increases radically in the city.

History of Morality: Classical Liberalism, Objectivism, and Ethics

 

[Diuretic]

Fair point about variance. But when does variance become relativism? Sorry, rhetorical question only, just to help my own thinking along a bit.

If there can be variance in application then that uproots the idea of absolutism.

Relativism isn't shifting sands of morality, as it is sometimes portrayed. It has to, like absolutism, have roots, but unlike absolutism it can meet various situations without too much trouble. And I don't want to give the impression I'm giving some sort of cartoonish version of absolutism. I know it's not like that, but the soil having shifted in the roots of the idea means that it has to be seen in its own way as tending towards a form of pale relativism.

 

[Setarcos]

The fact remains that has demonstrated the existence of 'natural rights": A;; All responses from Pro have been nothing more than preaching about a religion they csnnot demonstrate to be true in any sense.

 

[Setarcos]

I'll bite. I believe that Morality is Absolute

-and in 91 pages, you've failed to demonstrate that

Moral Absolutism is the Foundation.

demonstrate

 

[Intense]

Fair point about variance. But when does variance become relativism? Sorry, rhetorical question only, just to help my own thinking along a bit.

If there can be variance in application then that uproots the idea of absolutism.

Relativism isn't shifting sands of morality, as it is sometimes portrayed. It has to, like absolutism, have roots, but unlike absolutism it can meet various situations without too much trouble. And I don't want to give the impression I'm giving some sort of cartoonish version of absolutism. I know it's not like that, but the soil having shifted in the roots of the idea means that it has to be seen in its own way as tending towards a form of pale relativism.

There is the concept of Universal Truth. There is where We find Ourselves. Let Circumstance determine the Remedy for what You Face, Through Conscience. There are like and unlike characteristics in similar circumstance, that which is relevant and that which is not. When making a determination on "C", is it more just that I apply what My reason Dictates in relation to cause and effect, anticipated and unanticipated consequences, what is realized, or should I base my decision on "A" or even "B", because that is how they were done before. Can I not just use the Experience from "A" and "B" to put me in a better position to relate to "C".

Though there are similarities, there are also differences. So any Application poorly considered may in fact do harm unintentionally, even when trying to do good, because of dissimilarities. Inaccurate, One Size Fits All Remedies, often don't work because of Specifics. This is not Relative to Principle but Circumstance. Each Circumstance being Unique, would by definition have a unique formula to rectify. The Principle Remains Absolute, The Circumstance Requires Specific Action, unique and specific.

This is not to be confused with Moral Relativism, which lends respect to Persons rather than Principle. Example, is A Guilty or Innocent? Answer. 1a). Who is A? 1b). Who is A related to? 1c). Who will we Offend if A is found Guilty? 2a). Maybe the problem is not A, but the Problem is the Law. Moral Relativism.

Moral Absolutism. Taking a Principle and applying it to a Specific Circumstance, would address the relevant factors by priority on a good day, resolving all concerned equitably, without corrupting the process. Principle is not compromised.

Moral Relativism. As I see it Justifies "The End Justifies the Means". I can't subscribe to Principle being corrupted. Think harder for a resolution. All Action Must be Justified. It will be repeated. Better to repeat a Right, than a Wrong. It will come back and bite you in the ass.

 

[Intense]

I'll bite. I believe that Morality is Absolute

-and in 91 pages, you've failed to demonstrate that

Moral Absolutism is the Foundation.

demonstrate

Every thought, word, action, Pause, is Born of Natural Right. The Evidence is in everything You do. The Limits, be it Your ability, or the Restrictions of others, are also evident. John Lock wrote a book on it. Try reading it. You may find Yourself pleasantly surprised, then again you may not be ready for it. I'm here now exercising My Natural Right to Communicate, I'm Alive and Free, unrestrained by Totalitarian Restraint. That is Proof. I am Happy Here, another Right I Pursue. You have no effect on that. Nor should you. You deny and ask for Proof of what We live Every Day. There is Natural Right, and Constructed Right. Life, Liberty, Happiness, what I Possess Nobody has a Right to Take, without due Process. Do Process only Covers both Natural and Constructive Rights when We Submit to it. Unless I Forfeit, through crime. Any Society that Pisses on The Weak, is in no way civil. That would set the Society up as a Target.

 

[Setarcos]

It's quite sad that you're unable to discuss the matter, instead doing nothing but quoting another man (who has been refuted countless times) because you do not grasp the subject and care therefore unable to think for yourself or forward any original thought.

It has been explained time and again that ability =/= "right"

Let us know when you can do more than parrot a 17th century sophist

 

[Setarcos]

In Chapter 2, "Of the state of nature", Locke describes the "state of nature" in which men exist before forming governments:

....a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man.

Except for depending on the other man to not kill or steeal from him

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another;

Really?
So this man

was born in an equal state compared to this child

?

he was born with and possesses no more than the child prior to his induction into the social contract?

there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection....

Clearly, the man knows nothing of most species' social structures. From queen ants to silverbacks, the natural state is far from equal

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it,

might makes right

which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent,

The man is delusional

no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions....

Should? Wherefrom comes this should

He jumps froma gross misrepresentation of the word to prescriptive moral assertions.


Locke is a joke.