Soldiers life threatened by his own side.

[The Grand Nudger]

I just finished reading back through this entire thread, I've gotta say I'm pretty damned disappointed....



This is old news in this thread, but the point of being a soldier, and what you are paid to do, is win. If you have to kill to win that's unfortunate, and this is coming from infantry btw, about as bloodthirsty as you're gonna get. Nevertheless, I'd have rather spent my time in the service not shooting at people, but it doesn't always work out that way (though I have a bunch of buddies who never fired their rifles). You put the bullets downrange and hope that you are one of the living at the end of it all.

[Angrboda]

"Then I will rule summarily based on my findings. Data is a toaster. Have him report immediately to Commander Maddox for experimental refit."
— Captain Phillipa Louvois

You too, liam. Report to engineering for dismantling. Your claim to have biological computation nodes that compute "pain" and "consciousness" does not entitle you to special treatment above that which any other biological device that performs the necessary mapping of inputs to outputs necessary for their survival and reproduction deserves. That you feel these functions that your wetware performs are "special" is neither an objective fact, nor a justified exception. Dismissed!

[Tempus]

Appreciate this answer, it took me a night to think through and write but seriously very well argued thus far sir, perhaps we can keep it shorter in future? my fingers ache...

It's a big reply with a lot of points to address. I'm willing to go there, but in retrospect it's probably better to begin by looking at the assumptions our respective moral philosophies rest upon, and then securing each individual point along the way. All philosophies, if you go back far enough, rest upon assumptions which cannot be proven. Here is mine:

I start with nothing. I then assume that personal happiness is worth pursuing. Now, I can give you reasons why I assume this, why I think this particular assumption is a good one to make, and how a personal (or "selfish") value of happiness doesn't necessitate a parasitic / dystopian society (which I will as it becomes necessary), but ultimately I can't support it without appealing to something else which also ultimately rests upon an assumption or is in some way circular / question begging. So far as I can tell, the assumed value of personal happiness is the only assumption my moral philosophy makes - all other criteria / values are derived from this assumption.

One of your assumptions seems to be that humans have natural rights. This, to me, is a poor assumption. Firstly, what is a natural right and how do we know it exists? Secondly, it's natural? Does that mean it's respected in the natural world (i.e. in the wild)? Humans, in the natural world, are no more valued or respected than any other animal and are killed, eaten, ignored, and fled from in the same manner as other animals. If a natural right doesn't cause you to be treated differently from anything else in the natural world then what is the point of it to begin with? I'd contend rights are granted by society, not adopted from the natural world. If you say it's the natural order of things not to be harmed, then I say you're delusional - you'd be quickly dispelled of this notion after being dropped in the middle of an ocean, desert or jungle. Both our values (happiness and natural rights) are assumed, however, they're not equal; my assumed value, happiness, actually exists whereas I see no reason to believe in a natural right to be assumed valuable in the first place.

[liam]

I start with nothing. I then assume that personal happiness is worth pursuing. Now, I can give you reasons why I assume this, why I think this particular assumption is a good one to make, and how a personal (or "selfish") value of happiness doesn't necessitate a parasitic / dystopian society (which I will as it becomes necessary), but ultimately I can't support it without appealing to something else which also ultimately rests upon an assumption or is in some way circular / question begging. So far as I can tell, the assumed value of personal happiness is the only assumption my moral philosophy makes - all other criteria / values are derived from this assumption.

While my concept of right is drawn from a partially asserted value, there is no moral theory that is not. My assertions are merely that life is so valuable (assertion 1: Life is valuable) that it deserves some inviolable rights (assertion 2: Rights are needed) and acts. Yet again, yours also requires certain assertions: 
-Assertion 1: Happiness is good
-Assertion 2: The many deserve more consideration than the few
-Assertion 3: The consequences of an action should determine whether the act is good or not (while it may be claimed that my argument asserts that the act is what should determine the act's morality. However, it rather asserts that the act may be good or bad, this is no assertion in this, to say that "X is good/bad because of the moral value of X" requires no assertion, it is self-evident, whereas "X is good/bad because of it's moral value derived from it's congruence with Y" implicates Y and the assertion that Y itself is a good thing to be congruent to.)
-Assertion 4: The outcomes that are expected will be those that result from any action
-Assertion 4.1: The outcomes that I expect will be those which produce most Y and least -Y
-Assertion 5: There is an absolute that states that 'we cannot act contrary to the greatest production of happiness'

These assertions do not necessitate the value of consequential actions and they certainly do not disprove it, but rather call it into question. Furthermore, and this is a matter of personal curiosity, how would you handle a situation whereby two exact amounts of hapiness are in conflict, whereby the two potential benefactors from any decision would benefit and suffer in equal proportions? Would this require naught but random guesswork? thanks

One of your assumptions seems to be that humans have natural rights. This, to me, is a poor assumption. Firstly, what is a natural right and how do we know it exists? Secondly, it's natural? Does that mean it's respected in the natural world (i.e. in the wild)? Humans, in the natural world, are no more valued or respected than any other animal and are killed, eaten, ignored, and fled from in the same manner as other animals. If a natural right doesn't cause you to be treated differently from anything else in the natural world then what is the point of it to begin with? I'd contend rights are granted by society, not adopted from the natural world. If you say it's the natural order of things not to be harmed, then I say you're delusional - you'd be quickly dispelled of this notion after being dropped in the middle of an ocean, desert or jungle. Both our values (happiness and natural rights) are assumed, however, they're not equal; my assumed value, happiness, actually exists whereas I see no reason to believe in a natural right to be assumed valuable in the first place.

Perhaps it would be time for me to adjust my position slightly in terms of rights, this is not to be confused with abandoning it but intrinsic right seems somewhat harder to prove than i initially imagined. But first I must address your claims.
That I state that there is a 'natural right' is to say that it is derived from the nature of man, not to say that it is the right given in natural situations. I would agree that they are drawn, in some sense, from normative attitudes, but rather feel that these rights are drawn from the society and are therefore not subject to relativism of any kind. That we exist in society necessitates the rights that are necessary to maintain society and those within it, to best serve society there must be certain rights ascribed to each member which it is impermissible to violate.

Despite how you have understood what I said, I would not posit that rights come from nature in the sense of the natural world but rather the natural intrinsic value of life and thought. These are the most precious things that we have or know of and so we should, as we do with other precious things, protect them from harm. This may seem an abstract classification of right but because of what life is (i.e- the 'nature' of life, from whence my meaning of 'natural right' stems, my apologies for any misunderstanding ) we have an obligation to protect it. While this may rest on certain assertions, I would argue that the value of sentient life is true because it is rare, valuable (in terms of knowledge, emotion, protection itself etc.) and it is reflexively the very essence of the universe itself. Perhaps I am naively claiming that sentient life (and rather knowledge, reason and understanding more specifically) is important but there seems to me to be nothing else of intrinsic value in the universe and the condition of rationality and consciousness must be allowed to exist, thus to preserve this, from either a consequential or absolutist perspective, we must grant onto these things an absolute right.


Thank you for the debate so far, whilst it has been heated it has been very productive and my movement towards the social base of right seems testament to that. Here's to hoping it continues

[The Grand Nudger]

A right drawn from any given society is not subject to relativism? News to me.

Society exists therefore rights must necessarily exist? News to me.

Isn't the notion that we must do what "best serves society" just an assumption on your part?

[liam]

A right drawn from any given society is not subject to relativism? News to me.

It certainly isn't news to you, I am sure you have heard of 'human rights'.
The problem I encounter in cultural relativism are as follows:
-It proposes the idea that morals are determined by society (as cultural relativism would propose), yet morals determine the way that members of society behave so we arrive in the circle of morality being due to culture formed by morality formed by culture formed by morality etc etc so either we must dismiss cultural relativism or accept infinite regression (an illogical concept).
-Cultural relativism would allow for the acceptance of completely immoral customs simply because they are the norms (such as murder, slavery and rape). These are bad actions but would not only be permissible but, according to cultural relativism, potentially moral. This is abhorrent behaviour and cannot be permissible.
-Cultural relativism asserts that cultural customs may make acts moral but this would also allow for sub-cultural norms to be permissible, including counter-cultures, meaning that an act may be moral and immoral in the same social situation and may be further reduced to sub-sub-cultures and so on, meaning that we encounter examples whereby conduct within certain groups to be multiple levels of contradictory (moral and immoral and moral and immoral &c &c). This would mean that in posing the question 'is X moral?' we encounter an answer of both yes and no, one of the most fundamental logical impossibilities in philosophy.
(there are more but I'm trying to moderate my response length)

Thus we are far better concerning ourselves with universalisable morals than cultural ones as these are dysfunctional.

Society exists therefore rights must necessarily exist? News to me.

That is not my argument? I was simply concurring that rights can be drawn from society.

Isn't the notion that we must do what "best serves society" just an assumption on your part?

I did not say that we must do what serves society best, I do not believe you understood me correctly. Rights, by their nature, do best serve society as they maintain the moral integrity of the people which constitute the society itself. Let us say that a society of 100% deontological people exists (thoroughly hypothetically of course), these people will, through their moral behaviour, benefit society as they will enforce no dogmatism on others, manipulate no others and commit no acts that are generally detrimental to society (such as murder, rape or theft, for example). Thus we can say that these rights do best serve society, but not that we must act to best serve society.

[The Grand Nudger]

-Doesn't propose it, it observes that this appears to be the case. Whether or not it should be, meh, not my bag.

-Slippery slope.

-Again, this is precisely what we see.

-They are, and they can be, but as with the above, so what?

-Except rights like the right to own slaves, right?

[liam]

-Doesn't propose it, it observes that this appears to be the case. Whether or not it should be, meh, not my bag.

-Slippery slope.


-Again, this is precisely what we see.

-They are, and they can be, but as with the above, so what?

-Except rights like the right to own slaves, right?

Please elaborate on this and point out what you're referring to because this seems a pretty useless list. I can't reply if I don't know what you're talking about...

[The Grand Nudger]

I would have imagine it would be easy to understand, what with rehashing some of the same phrases and being arranged in a format that mimics the post you made identically...

Here,let me help you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism

Even though you aren't entirely clear on what cultural relativism actually is I understood what you were trying to say (you are criticizing moral relativism), and cultural relativism does make observations like the ones you mention (although you interestingly decided to call them proposals, probably due to confusion) as it is a methodology used to study cultures. This would be what I was referring to at 1 and 3.

2 is me calling you out on an appeal to consequences.

4 is my offering a right that I'm guessing you wouldn't say "by [it's] nature, do best serve society as they maintain the moral integrity of the people which constitute the society itself." Some specific right might be able to accomplish that, but not all do, and I'm not sure why you think that they do, by their nature, considering the sorts of batshit (to you and me-cultural relativism-) "rights" we so often enjoy. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the value (using the metric above about serving a society and integrity and whatnot) of any given "right" is measured by whatever it confers to whomever it confers it and not by it's "nature", whatever the nature of a right is in the first place? It's what is contained in the right, not some whispy "nature of a right" that serves society (however it might do so).

We back on track?

[liam]

I would have imagine it would be easy to understand, what with rehashing some of the same phrases and being arranged in a format that mimics the post you made identically...

Here,let me help you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism

Even though you aren't entirely clear on what cultural relativism actually is I understood what you were trying to say (you are criticizing moral relativism), and cultural relativism does make observations like the ones you mention (although you interestingly decided to call them proposals, probably due to confusion) as it is a methodology used to study cultures. This would be what I was referring to at 1 and 3.

Ah, my apologies, I must have worded it wrong, regardless of the wording, the relativism part is what I was getting at. I consider them proposals because they are proposed ideas, if this is incorrect then feel welcome to clarify for me.

4 is my offering a right that I'm guessing you wouldn't say "by [it's] nature, do best serve society as they maintain the moral integrity of the people which constitute the society itself." Some specific right might be able to accomplish that, but not all do, and I'm not sure why you think that they do, by their nature, considering the sorts of batshit (to you and me-cultural relativism-) "rights" we so often enjoy. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the value (using the metric above about serving a society and integrity and whatnot) of any given "right" is measured by whatever it confers to whomever it confers it and not by it's "nature", whatever the nature of a right is in the first place? It's what is contained in the right, not some whispy "nature of a right" that serves society (however it might do so).

right to slavery is not one that I advocated, I am talking of simple rights, mainly the right to autonomy and other fundamental rights that I feel lifr deserves. I agree that there are some rights in society that are bullshit but I didn't advocate those either. I support rights that are from the nature of man, society or universalisation, not the rights that are granted to people by society as these simply govern because these aren't necessarily moral.
I said nothing of the nature of the right, but rather that it stems from one of the three aforementioned things, I feel that the only thing that stems from the nature of right itself is that (in terms of the types of right I mentioned before, these being such rights as the right to not be murdered etc.)

We can be back on track if you'd like. If not then I'm happy to keep conversing over these issue