Where do rights come from?

[jamil]

Well, I'd usually agree, but when someone says :


It seems that there may be an overlap.

I dunno. I kinda think he was just saying stuff people say. I mean, if I'm wrong, and he's serious, okay. But probably he's not all that serious. He's just saying. Why do we have to take every harsh word said as literally as it can be taken?

 

[jamil]

I always thought of eugenics as more like what the Russians (and some other countries) do with some athletes to try to create a new generation of better athletes. A method to "improve" the gene pool by selecting desirable characteristics rather than by removing others.
I can see where a generous definition could include both.

I didn't think that was called eugenics. It's just selective breeding.

 

[jamil]

I never cease to be amazed at how quickly INGO can take a good topic run it down a rabbit trail.

I dunno. I still suspect that rabbit trail is a red herring.

 

[jamil]

Jefferson's words I am familiar with. What you said, no.
By the way, what do you think Gen 9:11 has to do with eugenics? Other than the idea that cleansing the gene pool was needed due to intentional sullying, that is, and the inundation was the chosen method? One way or the other, God saying that He wasn't going to flood it all again was just that and only that.

Okay. Just to put this to bed. I'll go ahead and ask. Are you serious about the genocide statement? I kinda think it's not all that serious and people are being like when is more appropriate.

 

[jamil]

When taken to logical conclusions, any existence of absolute truth, absolute morality, etc. lead to the existence of a Supreme Being as Lawmaker. It is illogical to believe that a universe that results from, what is in essence, a series of cosmic accidents and serendipitous coincidences would yield the formation or existence of such absolute truths or absolute morality. The idea of an "innate sense" of what works based on what has been successful in the past is similarly illogical. One must study and understand the past in order to analyze and evaluate the success of what has been tried in the past.

Further, millennia of human history disprove that humans do any kind of good job of executing such utilitarian evolution.

I agree with T.Lex here. This is not the evident binary you think it is. It's not at all illogical to believe that a universe that results from cosmic accidents would yield absolute truths, or absolute morality. How do you think those accidents happened but by the physical laws, or absolute truths. Only if you constrain definitions to fit your proposed binary can you require a cognizant creator. Absolute morality is a different kind of thing altogether, but to get to your binary through logic, you must assume some constraints that aren't all that evident.

There are subjective morals, and there are objective morals. I agree with that much. Both fit well into the theory of evolution. Maybe the best explanation of that is found in the debate between Harris and Peterson about what is "truth". Loosely paraphrasing Peterson, he argued that Truth is a thing that gets passed down through nature and nurture, that makes humans successful in terms of evolution. Harris regarded truth more as in 1+1=2. Peterson regards truth as something more than just that. It's also the collective wisdom of humanity, embedded in the stories people tell, for example. I don't completely agree with Peterson but that illustration is kinda applicable to morality.

Subjective morals would then be more like tribal morals, passed down in a closely related tribe or culture. I would define objective morals as something that's universally held, or "true" in Peterson's sense. Objective morals would be universal, as those that survived natural selection, extremely old such that they're true for pretty much everyone. Nearly every culture has some concept of not killing people unjustly, and that has helped humans pass on their genes successfully, to become evolutionarily successful. An example of a subjective moral would be something like not having any Gods before the God of Abraham. That's not universally true for everyone, unless you employ some circular reasoning.

 

[T.Lex]

This is now jamil's thread, and we're all just visiting.

 

[jamil]

This is now jamil's thread, and we're all just visiting.

Well. C'mon. I'm sorry, but my time is really limited during the day these days and I don't have time to keep up. I'd multi-quote, but that feature is kinda ****ed up right now. So I'm sorry about post-whoring, but **** it. Fine. Imma whore then.

 

[jamil]

Oh. And just for that I no longer agree with you. I'm on Chip's side now, just to spite you!

 

[T.Lex]

Oh. And just for that I no longer agree with you. I'm on Chip's side now, just to spite you!

Dammit, Janet, now that YOU agree with chip, I think I do, too.

 

[jamil]

Dammit, Janet, now that YOU agree with chip, I think I do, too.

Okay. I disagree with both of you. So now I just agree with jamil.

 

[T.Lex]

Okay. I disagree with both of you. So now I just agree with jamil.

No you don't.

 

[2A_Tom]

Okay. I disagree with both of you. So now I just agree with jamil.

Ah, your just sucking up to him.













































you're

 

[nonobaddog]

I didn't think that was called eugenics. It's just selective breeding.

Huh?

Merriam-Webster
Definition of eugenics
: the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding

 

[BigRed]

If rights come from man ("groups of man" , "society", "agreed upon rules", etc.), how are they rights at all?

 

[NKBJ]

In high school government class I was convinced that people did not have innate rights.
Later I realized that if they don't we're all better off if we pretend they do.
Then I learned what our creator told us to do and realized that what He says goes.
So yeah, those evil old white guys that set up our government knew what God put in His letter to us and knew better than to cross Him and expect good results.

 

[jamil]

If rights come from man ("groups of man" , "society", "agreed upon rules", etc.), how are they rights at all?

Depends how you define rights and the source of rights. One source is rights granted by a legal authority, the boundaries of which are defined in law. Another source is natural rights, the boundaries of which is moral, granted by no one, but exists by the fact of the existence of oneself. For example, morally, my right to exist, isn't dependent on the whims of people. Morally, an individual has a right to life and liberty.

 

[T.Lex]

I guess the related question is, though, by what authority can some people be deemed to have forfeited their natural rights? What is the source of that - natural "fairness"? Is "justice" a natural right?

 

[jamil]

I guess the related question is, though, by what authority can some people be deemed to have forfeited their natural rights? What is the source of that - natural "fairness"? Is "justice" a natural right?

Social contract.

Justice is like porn. You know what it is when you see it. You have a natural right to life and liberty, etcetera. You don't have a natural right to violate other people's rights. The upholding of that, I'd say is justice.

 

[T.Lex]

Social contract.

Justice is like porn. You know what it is when you see it. You have a natural right to life and liberty, etcetera. You don't have a natural right to violate other people's rights. The upholding of that, I'd say is justice.

So the right to liberty is natural, but is trumped by the social compact notion of justice?

 

[jamil]

So the right to liberty is natural, but is trumped by the social compact notion of justice?

The right to liberty is natural, but limited by agreement through a social contract. Justice is the upholding of natural rights, but constrained by agreement through a social contract.