I do not believe that all men have "certain inalienable rights"

[Reaper Man]

If they are truly built into the fabric of reality, where did they come from? God? Evolution? A sense of moral empathy (and where would that come from)?

If they do not exist in a metaphysical/transcendental sense, then they must be understood as a universal concept that serve some valuable social function. If so, what purpose do they serve?

[Reaper Man]

I posted the same thing in the war room, but it might be interesting to see the differing responses I get in the different, though perhaps my initial selection of forums suggests the fact that I feel this is ultimately a political and not philosophical question.

[killemall]

I think your argument is really a counterargument to the current argument in your country that all humans have certain inalienable rights

of course the argument that all humans have certain inalienable rights is stupid imo. Whether you have a right to something or not is totally your opinion, e.g. - "I think i have a right to know if you have been fucking the milkman's daughter or not." Ok, not a very good example, but you get the idea.

[Reaper Man]

I think your argument is really a counterargument to the current argument in your country that all humans have certain inalienable rights

of course the argument that all humans have certain inalienable rights is stupid imo. Whether you have a right to something or not is totally your opinion, e.g. - "I think i have a right to know if you have been fucking the milkman's daughter or not." Ok, not a very good example, but you get the idea.

Yes, it is a counter argument to that argument. And yes, that argument is stupid.

But the implication of that is--why do we owe anything to those outside of our social contract. For instance, why do convicted terrorists deserve any sort of special treatment? Why do we forgive the debts of African nations when we are wallowing in debt of our own? Why do we obey special terms of war and worry about protecting innocents when our attackers do not obey those terms and their "innocents" aid and abet them?

[killemall]

Yes, it is a counter argument to that argument. And yes, that argument is stupid.

But the implication of that is--why do we owe anything to those outside of our social contract. For instance, why do convicted terrorists deserve any sort of special treatment? Why do we forgive the debts of African nations when we are wallowing in debt of our own? Why do we obey special terms of war and worry about protecting innocents when our attackers do not obey those terms and their "innocents" aid and abet them?

dude you aint bant nemore, wassup....

[ninjashoes]

I think this is sorta similar to the thread I made about why have any morals.

I have pretty much the same answer after giving it much thought. It just comes down to who we wanna be and what kind of enviroment we want to live in.

If we are perceptually able to tell what is good and right we have something of an obligation to eachother, our planet and the creatures that live on it. A man can kill his own children but something inside him would rather see them grow and prosper in a happy world.

If you can't get past your petty needs to bring hate or injustice towards others than you are most likely ugly inside on some level.

We are just reflections of our enviroment but we can choose to a degree how we process that information.

I mean you can always ask the question "who do anything at all" or "why does anything exist at all" but at the end of the day life goes on so we might as well make the best of it.

[killemall]

I think this is sorta similar to the thread I made about why have any morals.

I have pretty much the same answer after giving it much thought. It just comes down to who we wanna be and what kind of enviroment we want to live in.

If we are perceptually able to tell what is good and right we have something of an obligation to eachother, our planet and the creatures that live on it. A man can kill his own children but something inside him would rather see them grow and prosper in a happy world.

If you can't get past your petty needs to bring hate or injustice towards others than you are most likely ugly inside on some level.

We are just reflections of our enviroment but we can choose to a degree how we process that information.

I mean you can always ask the question "who do anything at all" or "why does anything exist at all" but at the end of the day life goes on so we might as well make the best of it.

hahahaha

[FLemshady]

I think this is sorta similar to the thread I made about why have any morals.

I have pretty much the same answer after giving it much thought. It just comes down to who we wanna be and what kind of enviroment we want to live in.

If we are perceptually able to tell what is good and right we have something of an obligation to eachother, our planet and the creatures that live on it. A man can kill his own children but something inside him would rather see them grow and prosper in a happy world.

If you can't get past your petty needs to bring hate or injustice towards others than you are most likely ugly inside on some level.

We are just reflections of our enviroment but we can choose to a degree how we process that information.

I mean you can always ask the question "who do anything at all" or "why does anything exist at all" but at the end of the day life goes on so we might as well make the best of it.

Kind of like kantian philosophy atleast a lil similar

[amanamagus]

Inalienable rights in all circumstances? Probaby no.

[ninjashoes]

I have concluded that good and evil are just things we project onto situations.

For example if I kill my neighbor it would have negative reprucussions of course but for all I really know 15 years from now he would accidently run over a whole family.

The real reason I don't kill him is because I don't want to let violence grow within myself, why would I need to kill someone unless there is an internal problem? Of course I would feel remorse for my actions still but I think I would look at those emotions differently.

I think these things are more like equations or problems that need to be solved than the concepts of good or evil which mean different things to different folks. We solve them inside ourselves so that we may be more free and have more understanding. If we give in to our "sinful" drives then we only go backwards or are held in place. Theres is always a price to pay, once we understand why we did certain things we are overcome with regret.

Maybe some people are just souless biological robots and never pay any price. They just exist outside if it like machines.

I know what I am saying kinda contradicts itself but its still true to me.

[amanamagus]

The reason I wont kill is because it doesnt seems "right". Maybe its social conditioning. Maybe in a different culture I wouldve killed, hurt raped and did all the things which are considered "bad" and "evil". Are our feelings based on social conditioning or is it something intrinsic? I think a certain part of it is inborn.

I think it depends on the ideals which are adopted by the culture in general and more specifically, the people. The ideals should be measured up against each other. I think more "martial" and "violent" societies are more rigid coz that's more practical. People wont be able to survive the turmoil if they have beauty and bliss and mutual co-existence as their ideal. Like I cant imagine the society in which Ghenghiz Khan grew up to be share the same ideals as buddhists do.

But I think that acceptance is important. Whatever be the situaion, man wants to transcend his condition. He needs to accept that he needs to change himself before he attempts to change the world. This realization will do what's necessary - and what's neesary will serve both his short term and ong term plan. For example, Be non violent - that's the basic tenet of buddhism I think. But this will not be practical if you are facing nazis. You need to try all means possible before resorting to arms. But picking up the sword is pious and just if that's necessary for your survival and to save the way of life of the peope who are being forced to comply and adopt something they dont want to.

I think beauty and discipline and respect and rebellion and probably all such ideals which people think they are following wont contradict each other.


bw, I hope I mae sense. If I didnt, lemme know. Reaper? Anyone?

[Reaper Man]

The reason I wont kill is because it doesnt seems "right". Maybe its social conditioning. Maybe in a different culture I wouldve killed, hurt raped and did all the things which are considered "bad" and "evil". Are our feelings based on social conditioning or is it something intrinsic? I think a certain part of it is inborn.

It is both.

I think it depends on the ideals which are adopted by the culture in general and more specifically, the people. The ideals should be measured up against each other. I think more "martial" and "violent" societies are more rigid coz that's more practical. People wont be able to survive the turmoil if they have beauty and bliss and mutual co-existence as their ideal. Like I cant imagine the society in which Ghenghiz Khan grew up to be share the same ideals as buddhists do.

Now you're getting it.

For example, Be non violent - that's the basic tenet of buddhism I think. But this will not be practical if you are facing nazis. You need to try all means possible before resorting to arms. But picking up the sword is pious and just if that's necessary for your survival and to save the way of life of the peope who are being forced to comply and adopt something they dont want to.

Yes. Indeed, I would argue that most internal strife occurs when one culture with certain social norms lives within a larger culture with very different social norms.

For example, look at contemporary Black American culture. It is more aggressive and warlike with very little in the way of productivity. The only reason it survuves is the liberal fixation with "multiculturalism", so the government helps artificially preserve this culture despite the fact that it is not suited to the current world.

[ninjashoes]

^^^I think it makes sense, my problem is figuring out why we have this internal sense of right and wrong.

Our subconscious see's the big picture, we are somehow able to discern a varying degree of right and wrong even if we are not able to prove it to ourselves in a linguistic fashion.

I feel like if you allow yourself to think about killing your neighbor too much, pretty soon it becomes who you are. So even if its only in your head its wrong do willingly obsess about something like that because it will create internal conflict and perhaps even corrupt you bit by bit. I don't think anyone starts off by saying "I'm a killer", its more like they just open the door to it then walk down that road step by step.

[Reaper Man]

But the point is that you are not born with any right to do anything. When you are young, you are protected by your parents' interest in your survival and wellbeing and the fact that your parents have rights in the social contract that they belong to. Then after you learn and accept the rules and norms within the social contract(s) that you belong to, you acquire the rights granted by the contract.

Those outside the contract do not contribute, and therefore are owed nothing--they do not have the "right" to anything. They may be given charity, but no one has the RIGHT to charity.

[amanamagus]

But the point is that you are not born with any right to do anything. When you are young, you are protected by your parents' interest in your survival and wellbeing and the fact that your parents have rights in the social contract that they belong to. Then after you learn and accept the rules and norms within the social contract(s) that you belong to, you acquire the rights granted by the contract.

Is it being implied here that without what's considered good in contemporary society wont be the norm if its not enforced by law? I don't know but I often wonder about it. I'm reminded of Abu Ghraib and Stanford Prison Experiment (not sure if its relevant to the discussion so I digress from further rants.)

Those outside the contract do not contribute, and therefore are owed nothing--they do not have the "right" to anything. They may be given charity, but no one has the RIGHT to charity.

I do agree that there are no inalienable rights in all circumstances - a man who has just mugged someone wont be entitled to his freedom which I would consider essentially an inalienable right of every individual.

Should we be indifferent to the needs of the outgroup. I dont think so. The reason for that might be that every society has something to offer. Ummm... ok, its a belief. But maybe we don't need that reason too. Look at Free Software Movement... The Open Source Guys.

They contribute to the collective well being of the world hoping that this selflessness might be helpful and serve their purpose in the long run but they essentially do it out of charity.

The point I'm trying to make is sharing (not imposing) what we consider good and cool and nice readies us for more goodness although it might not be immediately apparent. You're increasing the number of members in your ingroup and they might have something new to offer. Like teaching kids in africa might bring you the next scientific revolution or some other really cool idea.

You're not bound to do it. But you should. I dunno if the fact that one isn't bound to give some right to some person means that its not inalienable. I mean do our bodily processes have to force us to act in a certain way for it to be considered inalienable. Cant I give some right to some person out of my own free will.

Lemme know if I made sense.

[Reaper Man]

Is it being implied here that without what's considered good in contemporary society wont be the norm if its not enforced by law?

Absolutely not. How did you get that?

I do agree that there are no inalienable rights in all circumstances - a man who has just mugged someone wont be entitled to his freedom which I would consider essentially an inalienable right of every individual.

This is different--a person was part of a social contract and violated its norms (in this case, explicitly named through law). The society is therefore punishing him for this violation.

Should we be indifferent to the needs of the outgroup. I dont think so. The reason for that might be that every society has something to offer.

You're probably right, but until they do offer something, I don't see what they are owed.

I am by no means suggesting we slaughter other people for fun or anything like that. Indeed, I do not think that we should harm anyone--it is to our detriment. After all, everyone has the capacity to contribute something and being unnecessarily cruel to outsiders might deter them from joining the social group and contributing.

Look at Free Software Movement... The Open Source Guys.

They contribute to the collective well being of the world hoping that this selflessness might be helpful and serve their purpose in the long run but they essentially do it out of charity.

Actually, I wouldn't say what they are doing is charity, because they aren't helping anyone in particular. I'd say it is more akin to the motivation of an artist--you are creating something for public viewing to be enjoyed (and maybe admired) by all.

The point I'm trying to make is sharing (not imposing) what we consider good and cool and nice readies us for more goodness although it might not be immediately apparent. You're increasing the number of members in your ingroup and they might have something new to offer. Like teaching kids in africa might bring you the next scientific revolution or some other really cool idea.

Okay, now we're talking about something different. Expanding your social group is different from helping those out of it. Giving billions of dollars in aid money to Sudan is charity, bringing an Sudanese person to the USA to learn and absorb our customs, norms, and rules and contribute to the social contract--that's expanding the social group. Very different. In the first scenario, the giver gets nothing, in the second the giver gets a person who can contribute to the society in a very direct way.

You're not bound to do it. But you should. I dunno if the fact that one isn't bound to give some right to some person means that its not inalienable.

If by should you mean we ought to morally, then it would be binding in a moral sense.

I mean do our bodily processes have to force us to act in a certain way for it to be considered inalienable.

That is certainly not what Jefferson meant when he wrote the Declaration of Independence.

[amanamagus]

Absolutely not. How did you get that?

kk. I thought all that talk about parents being bound by social contract made me think that people were somehow compelled to repay them. I didn't quite like the idea.

This is different--a person was part of a social contract and violated its norms (in this case, explicitly named through law). The society is therefore punishing him for this violation.

Does the person owes it to his social group or should he be expected to act in a certain way with everyone?

You're probably right, but until they do offer something, I don't see what they are owed.

Agreed. Nobody owes nothing to nobody.

Actually, I wouldn't say what they are doing is charity, because they aren't helping anyone in particular. I'd say it is more akin to the motivation of an artist--you are creating something for public viewing to be enjoyed (and maybe admired) by all.

They are not doing it explicitly in the name of charity but they are putting in time and resources into doing things of interest they could get paid for.

Okay, now we're talking about something different. Expanding your social group is different from helping those out of it. Giving billions of dollars in aid money to Sudan is charity, bringing an Sudanese person to the USA to learn and absorb our customs, norms, and rules and contribute to the social contract--that's expanding the social group. Very different. In the first scenario, the giver gets nothing, in the second the giver gets a person who can contribute to the society in a very direct way.

k. But it is certainly increasing the circle of well-wishers and friends - whether their ways of life are similar or not.

[Reaper Man]

kk. I thought all that talk about parents being bound by social contract made me think that people were somehow compelled to repay them.

You are only compelled in the sense that you are compelled to pay back a friend if he lends you money or helps you out--if you don't pay him back he won't help you out or lend you any more more (and you're probably lose a friend)

Agreed. Nobody owes nothing to nobody.

I owe plenty to a lot of people.

They are not doing it explicitly in the name of charity but they are putting in time and resources into doing things of interest they could get paid for.

Maybe, maybe not. But presumably they are doing it because they enjoy it. It's like a guy who writes poetry on a blog. Sure he might be able to sell the poetry or maybe he could use that time to make money, but he is probably just writing because he likes writing poetry and the more people who can see it, the better.

k. But it is certainly increasing the circle of well-wishers and friends - whether their ways of life are similar or not.

Is it? Do you think recipients of welfare care about the government any more than those who don't get it? Frequently, charity inspires resentment for those giving it--a sort of "how dare you have so much more than me that you can give like this" attitude. I see it quite often.

Moreover, after you give charity to someone for an extended period of time, they come to expect and rely on it. If you take it away, they will hate you for it. I see this even more often.

[amanamagus]

Is philanthropy a leisure pursuit. Probably yes. Atleast in most cases it is. But there is an inherent urge to serve the society at large and contribute to the general well-being of people. I don't think selfishness or survival is the reason for this. Although it could be the reason why we this urge developed.

There is this story of Bhai Kanhaiya who used to give water to hurt/dying enemy soldiers during wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhai_Kanhaiya

I'm pretty confused right now. No. I'm very confused. I agree that nobody has a right to charity - that we shouldn't expect people to be charitable. But another conclusion of there being no inalienable rights could be that nobody is immune to subjugation. Right?

[Reaper Man]

But there is an inherent urge to serve the society at large and contribute to the general well-being of people. I don't think selfishness or survival is the reason for this.

More than likely it is a general sense of charity that humans developed from living in tightly knit tribes, where any sort of kindness would be almost certainly repaid--sort of where the sense of karma came from.

But if we are talking about inherent urges, I can also name some not so nice ones.

There is this story of Bhai Kanhaiya who used to give water to hurt/dying enemy soldiers during wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhai_Kanhaiya

But another conclusion of there being no inalienable rights could be that nobody is immune to subjugation. Right?

Of course no one is immune. Naturally someone with sufficient power can subjugate anyone. If you're asking a moral question of whether we should--that is a broader moral question for the society. I would argue that it is probably not a useful practice on the whole as a free man typically contributes more and is more useful than an enslaved one.