Where do rights come from?

[jamil]

Hence why the idea of "rights" is subjective to the whims of man, not God or gods.

I wouldn't say "subjective", nor would I say "whims". I do think rights are based on moral truths, but I think our conception of those moral truths become clearer as we mature morally. You've often argued something to the effect that the founders who owned slaves acted immorally. And I've argued that we can't apply today's moral standards to yesterday's behaviors. Yes. What they did was objectively immoral, as it broke the inherent right of people to pursue life and liberty. It came to a head when more and more people began to understand that the right to liberty extends at least to all humans, not just the ones with light skin. That was a case of right overcoming might. Moral truths are like discoveries. We learn more about them as we study them and incorporate them into our worldview.

 

[jamil]

Thus my assertion that the origin of rights must be binary: either they are endowment from our Creator and thus natural and unalienable, or else they are a creation of man, and thus subject to the whims of man.

Or, they exist as moral truths that we discover through existence, as our moral capacity evolves.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

A long listen but very worth your time. It’s also in podcast form if that’s easier for your life. Extremely pertinent to our discussion.

https://youtu.be/6LIR2zQ-jvQ

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Or, they exist as moral truths that we discover through existence, as our moral capacity evolves.

.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Or, they exist as moral truths that we discover through existence, as our moral capacity evolves.

Discovered truth vs revealed truth. But both still operate under the assumption that there IS truth.

 

[BugI02]

And what is this basis? I hope it's not a book which has been consistently reinterpreted for centuries to fit an ever changing public opinion of what is moral.

I won't be fine with society deciding it no longer values free speech and I hope that doesn't happen, where exactly would a diety step in to protect your right to free speech if this were to happen?

The book hasn't changed, only the justifications used for disobeying it evolve

 

[2A_Tom]

I wouldn't say "subjective", nor would I say "whims".

You see, this is the problem with your take.

Seriously.

 

[jamil]

So now we’re kind’ve full circle back to my reply in the funny pics thread that spawned this discussion.

Nobody lives their life like that, not successfully anyway. Right and wrong springing forth from our imagination and being fluid throughout history is not a foundation to build a society on. It can’t be, literally or figuratively. Foundations don’t move. You treat other people like they have some intrinsic value. Like they have some kind of divine spark within them that is different then any other creature on this planet. You can’t build a society on the idea that we’re just kinda making this up as we go.

If you actually believed that, you would also have to say that pedophilia isn’t wrong or immoral. It’s just a behavior that society has collectively decided to try and subdue by means of punishment.

Paul is right in that people are talking past each other. I don't think anyone is really saying that right and wrong spring forth from our imagination. I won't say it's an intentional oversimplification, but it is an oversimplification.

I think the research into morality has demonstrated well enough to say humans do have innate moral foundations. It's not imagination. It's more like circuitry that is hardwired along with the firmware that runs on top, along with higher level programming that happens through social and biological evolution. Different cultures have different experiences which cause moral beliefs to evolve differently, but there still is enough commonality, and consistency that the moral foundations that form are fairly consistent. Laws tend to follow the morality of people. Every scaled culture in written history has laws against murder. It's not like they copied it from other cultures. They all do it because it's the objective part; a moral truth. Embedded through evolution, in my view, but if you want to believe it was embedded by God, that's not not incompatible with what I'm saying. However that moral circuitry got there, it's evident enough that it's there.

 

[chipbennett]

We're talking about where do intrinsic rights come from. You're taking a pragmatic approach, which is fine, but it's answering a different question. You're saying, it doesn't matter where they come from, it matters most who is willing to honor them. And that's a pretty good argument. But I disagree that it's purely academic. People change their minds through persuasion. The concept comes first though. It's just an artifact of chronology that we don't know everything we'll ever know in the same instant. We grow. We evolve. Morality evolves. It starts out imperfect and gets more perfect as we learn stuff. If it's purely academic then why did people decide to end slavery?

I'm going to throw more differentiation of terms in here: principle-based morality/mores vs value-based ethics/ethos. Morality is absolute right vs wrong, based on absolute truth/standards/principles. Ethics are a given society's standard of right vs wrong, based on subjective, changing values.

Ethics change; morality does not.

If 6,999,999,999 humans decided that it was acceptable to kill the 7 billionth human without justification, the taking of that person's life would still be immoral.

Ultimately, slavery ended (in the western world - it still exists elsewhere in the world) because a bunch of Christians forced the issue, first in England, and then in the Americas, based on their conviction that slavery was incompatible with biblical principles and morality.

 

[jamil]

You see, this is the problem with your take.

Seriously.

Please say what you're saying.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Paul is right in that people are talking past each other. I don't think anyone is really saying that right and wrong spring forth from our imagination. I won't say it's an intentional oversimplification, but it is an oversimplification.

You’re right. He did not say imagination. He said right and wrong don’t exist at all. Aside from what we collectively agree on. Posts #323.

 

[2A_Tom]

You leave me in the dust. I just cannot keep up.

Jamil, You believe that morals don.t change.

Chip just said that morals don't change.

Life has always been precious and everyone understands that and morality has always agreed.

Minitru

 

[chipbennett]

Or, they exist as moral truths that we discover through existence, as our moral capacity evolves.

It is a convenient fiction for non-theists (whether agnostic or atheist) to believe that absolute moral standards based on absolute truth can exist without the existence of a law-giving Creator. A self-creating universe from which life developed solely through evolutionary mechanisms is simply incapable of establishing absolute moral standards, especially when those evolutionary mechanisms (e.g. natural selection, survival of the fittest) arguably operate diametrically opposed to the absolute moral standards they ostensibly create (e.g. protection of life of the most vulnerable).

 

[chipbennett]

You leave me in the dust. I just cannot keep up.

Jamil, You believe that morals don.t change.

Chip just said that morals don't change.

Life has always been precious and everyone understands that and morality has always agreed.

Minitru

Which is why I attempted (again) to clarify terminology, because when I say that morals don't change, I'm saying something likely different from when Jamil says that morals don't change. I differentiate between absolute principles/morality and subjective values/ethics.. The latter change. The former do not. I think Jamil recognizes this point, by stating that our understanding of morality changes as our "moral capacity" grows.

I would state that point similarly: our ethics change to match morality, as our understanding of morality changes.

That said: the whole of human history, up to and including today, refutes the assertion that everyone understands that life is precious.

 

[jamil]

I'm going to throw more differentiation of terms in here: principle-based morality/mores vs value-based ethics/ethos. Morality is absolute right vs wrong, based on absolute truth/standards/principles. Ethics are a given society's standard of right vs wrong, based on subjective, changing values.

Ethics change; morality does not.

Good. We mostly agree on that. If you're constraining the definition of morality to the ideation of absolute right and wrong, that's the morality that I call moral truths, which is the basis for natural rights. We mostly but not fully agree on ethics vs morality, but for this discussion, that's not all that relevant.

If 6,999,999,999 humans decided that it was acceptable to kill the 7 billionth human without justification, the taking of that person's life would still be immoral.

Ultimately, slavery ended (in the western world - it still exists elsewhere in the world) because a bunch of Christians forced the issue, first in England, and then in the Americas, based on their conviction that slavery was incompatible with biblical principles and morality.

Another thing we can agree on. Objective morality doesn't change, but as our sense of morality evolves (if you don't like that word you can replace it with "matures") we're more capable of discerning the moral truths that exist. I'm saying the basis of natural rights is moral truths.

The immorality of enslaving other individuals against their will is timeless. It's a moral truth. It's not like Christians have understood this particular truth on both ends of time. Their morality on the matter matured to the point where it was unconscionable. Eventually enough of them felt the same way that eventually right prevailed over might. Would that have happened without the moral maturity of Christians? Maybe eventually.

I have no doubt that Christianity played a large role in the formation of enlightenment principles, including the furthering of the idea of natural rights. Thinking about the trajectory that Christianity took coming out of the dark ages, I think that kinda enabled them to further the idea.

 

[jamil]

You’re right. He did not say imagination. He said right and wrong don’t exist at all. Aside from what we collectively agree on. Posts #323.

That's not how I took it, which kinda supports the idea people are talking past each other.

Outside the realm of interpersonal social interaction? No, there is no such thing as right or wrong. If a person existed in a vacuum - no other people exist anywhere - there is literally no action he could take that could be considered "right" or "wrong". Only within a social framework can the idea even begin to have practical meaning.

Absolute truths? Sure there are...but they are much more pedestrian, like the rules of thermodynamics or the constants found throughout math.

*Only* societal cooperation? I think you trivialize the importance and the scope of that feat...

My take on what Paul is saying (he'll correct me where I'm wrong), right and wrong are only relevant to the extent that people interact with each other. If a person is completely alone and has no one to interact with, what can he or she do that's objectively immoral? Something I'm not sure Paul would agree with, but I'll say it for further clarity on this point, at the heart of morality are the moral truths bound to the consequences of how we treat each other. I took what Paul's saying as, if there is no "each other", there's nothing right or nothing wrong you can do.

Of course some Christians might take issue with that by way of the 10 commandments. They're essentially comprised into two consequential truths: Love God, love each other. So in that sense, if you're alone in the universe with no other humans, to you, you still have God. You still have a path to immorality to contend with.

But back to Paul's point, that's just an unrealistic thought experiment, which doesn't really have a lot of meaning in the real world. We are individuals and we are social creatures. There absolutely are absolute morals. And I think I've discovered the language to communicate the point I've been trying to make. That moral truths are bound to the consequences of how we treat each other. Consequences may be different depending on culture, so the moral rules may vary widely. For example, in a monogamous culture, it is absolutely true that ****ing another person's wife will hurt people. That's immoral. In cultures where no one cares about monogamy, you won't find laws against adultery. It's not that the moral isn't absolute. The underlying moral truth may not apply to everyone.

 

[2A_Tom]

2 part question.

Is abortion a right?

Is it moral?

 

[SwikLS]

2 part question.

Is abortion a right?

Is it moral?

No

No

That was easy.

 

[jamil]

Which is why I attempted (again) to clarify terminology, because when I say that morals don't change, I'm saying something likely different from when Jamil says that morals don't change. I differentiate between absolute principles/morality and subjective values/ethics.. The latter change. The former do not. I think Jamil recognizes this point, by stating that our understanding of morality changes as our "moral capacity" grows.

I would state that point similarly: our ethics change to match morality, as our understanding of morality changes.

That said: the whole of human history, up to and including today, refutes the assertion that everyone understands that life is precious.

This is a true statement, but we both might think it's true for different reasons. Anyway more on jamil's idea that morals don't change. I'd say my beliefs on morality have changed after some reading more on moral psychology and evolutionary biology. It's definitely evolved my thinking about morality from a secular perspective. So my expression of that has been imprecise, but is improving.

I still don't think the discussion of ethics is necessary or relevant, except other than as a side note to differentiate. I'll note that yours and other people's objections to what I've been saying is that the morality that I say is the basis for natural rights, doesn't seem to be very universal, or at least not on the surface, to be very objective. I'm talking about moral truths which transcend subjectivity. I think the way I'd describe a moral truth, is if violated, there is usually undesirable consequences for someone as a result. If you're irresponsible, there are negative consequences for that. Screw your neighbor's wife, generally someone's going to suffer. Violating moral truths hurt people, or weaken bonds, or so on.

In my previous post, I gave an example of why a moral truth can exist but not apply to everyone. And I think the example of slavery gives us understanding of why a moral absolute isn't acknowledged universally. If we're going to say that because people don't adhere to moral truths, that morality is too subjective to be a basis for natural rights, then at some point we have to wrestle with the idea that logically, slavery was not immoral at the time because it did not offend the subjective morality of the people enslaving other humans. I don't think anyone wants to say that.

I don't believe society dictates morality, as much as it reflects the moral maturity in the society.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

My take on what Paul is saying (he'll correct me where I'm wrong), right and wrong are only relevant to the extent that people interact with each other. If a person is completely alone and has no one to interact with, what can he or she do that's objectively immoral? Something I'm not sure Paul would agree with, but I'll say it for further clarity on this point, at the heart of morality are the moral truths bound to the consequences of how we treat each other. I took what Paul's saying as, if there is no "each other", there's nothing right or nothing wrong you can do.

What about self-harm? What about ripping a wing off a bird for no other reason than to watch it flop around on the ground? And how far down does that vacuum go? “Well if there were no other humans and no animals and no earth then no morals would exist.” Ok fine. So, in my estimation, even that reductionist argument that morals don’t exist outside of social constructs doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. There are a hundred different things you can do to yourself by yourself that effect nobody but yourself that you know is wrong when you’re doing them.