8 ms·

Nope, that's pretty much all it takes. Society decides itself what rights its members have which is why they are not the same everywhere. Or can you suggest a

Nope, that's pretty much all it takes. Society decides itself what rights its members have which is why they are not the same everywhere. Or can you suggest a better authority to define them?

ikeboy 11y ago
>Society decides itself what rights its members have which is why they are not the same everywhere. Again, that's how you know what rights people in fact have. If you want to decide whether people should have a right, the law is irrelevant. That's an ethical question, not a legal one. Laws get changed all the time, which doesn't mean the underlying ethics changed.
- samastur 11y ago
  I agree with the last sentence, but I wasn't making a legalistic argument. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the difference between us is that you see ethics as something that "lives" outside of society and I don't. Ethics are not one or universally shared so societies themselves decide which ethical norms are shared widely enough to form foundations for laws etc. So right can be any feasible privilege that is widely enough shared.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    How does your model make sense of such statements as "we should have more freedom of speech"? If what should happen is defined by what's already law, then isn't the law by definition already what should be?
    - marrs 11y ago
      Because "we should have more freedom of speech" is not a universal truth. This should become obvious if you compare Israel, where holocaust denial is illegal, to the UK, where it is not. Clearly the 2 nations have different opinions on the limits of freedom of speech. Laws get changed all the time, which doesn't mean the underlying ethics changed. Are you sure about this? I would have thought that laws change precisely because moral and ethical sensibilities do change. If what should happen is defined by what's already law... I don't think that's being argued.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        >Because "we should have more freedom of speech" is not a universal truth. I'm not saying it is, I'm saying under the model presented above, the statement is meaningless, not just right or wrong. But people do make such statements, and mean something by it. >This should become obvious if you compare Israel, where holocaust denial is illegal, to the UK, where it is not. Clearly the 2 nations have different opinions on the limits of freedom of speech. And it would be coherent for someone to say in Israel "we should have the right to deny the holocaust", which shows that "should" is not the same as "it is legal". >I would have thought that laws change precisely because moral and ethical sensibilities do change. "moral and ethical sensibilities changing" != "ethics changing". If you believe murder is right, does that make it right? >I don't think that's being argued. I was talking specifically about whether people "should" have rights. If you refer to laws to answer that, you're equating laws with "should".
        icebraining 11y ago
        "moral and ethical sensibilities changing" != "ethics changing". What evidence do you have that there is any kind of "ethics" outside of what was called "moral and ethical sensibilities"? If you believe murder is right, does that make it right? For the person who believes, it does. I was talking specifically about whether people "should" have rights. If you refer to laws to answer that, you're equating laws with "should". No one said that laws are why people should have rights. What was said was "society decides", as the group of moral agents that it is. Laws are the result of that decision.
        ikeboy 11y ago
        >What evidence do you have that there is any kind of "ethics" outside of what was called "moral and ethical sensibilities"? I myself tend towards error theory, but am fluent enough in typical moral thoughts and arguments to partake in them. So I'm not going to claim that I have evidence for objective morals. What I will claim, is that the sense that people have for morals is not satisfied by law. >For the person who believes, it does. That's a tautology and not particularly useful. >No one said that laws are why people should have rights. Actually, someone asked "Why should you have 'the right to be forgotten'?" You answered "Technically, because the EU countries are sovereign and can decide what rights their own citizens should have." Note the word "should" in there; that statement directly implies that law leads to (whatever you mean by should). >What was said was "society decides", as the group of moral agents that it is. Laws are the result of that decision. Laws are made by a tiny subset of society and rarely consider other cases implied by but not directly mentioned in the law. Case in point, this law in France was made before Google existed.
    - samastur 11y ago
      Neither ethical values of a society nor its laws are static entities. They both change over time. One cause (of many) for change are eventually persuasive parts of society not happy with current agreements. Most of us probably do not completely share values of the society we live in. It is up to us to push it in right direction.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        >Most of us probably do not completely share values of the society we live in. It is up to us to push it in right direction. This seems to me to contradict the earlier statement by icebraining that you defended >Technically, because the EU countries are sovereign and can decide what rights their own citizens should have.
V-2 11y ago
So if society decides that redheads have no right to live, then they have no right to live, end of story? This is a dangerous school of thought, authoritarian in spirit - the state as the source of ethics and the ultimate moral authority (Hegel's view). The opposing concept is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
- marrs 11y ago
  How did you construe that from what samastur said?
- icebraining 11y ago
  Society and the State are not the same; they can, and have often been in conflict over exactly that issue.
  - V-2 11y ago
    Of course, but when it comes to making decisions (including decisions that are granting rights), societies have to rely on institutions they built.
- samastur 11y ago
  OK, let's take the third paragraph of your link as an example, where it basically describes how Natural law forms a philosophical bedrock of US society. Why were documents resulting from it accepted by society (eventually, more or less)? Clearly from the same page there is not just one and societies existed and still do that don't share the same underpinning. They could have turned it down and go with something else. My point is that they didn't because this was close enough to existing shared values. That doesn't mean it matched anyone's perfectly or that you can't move them over time, but they are not imposed. Well, they may be for a while under occupation of a stronger force, but surely that is not what you argue for. In your hypothetical example it would mean yes, they don't in that society. Like converting to a different religion can get you killed in some places even if it is completely unimaginable where I am from. I am certainly not agreeing with or defending choices of every society under sun.

Nope, that's pretty much all it takes. Society decides itself what rights its members have which is why they are not the same everywhere. Or can you suggest a better authority to define them?

ikeboy 11y ago

>Society decides itself what rights its members have which is why they are not the same everywhere. Again, that's how you know what rights people in fact have. If you want to decide whether people should have a right, the law is irrelevant. That's an ethical question, not a legal one. Laws get changed all the time, which doesn't mean the underlying ethics changed.

samastur 11y ago
I agree with the last sentence, but I wasn't making a legalistic argument. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the difference between us is that you see ethics as something that "lives" outside of society and I don't. Ethics are not one or universally shared so societies themselves decide which ethical norms are shared widely enough to form foundations for laws etc. So right can be any feasible privilege that is widely enough shared.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  How does your model make sense of such statements as "we should have more freedom of speech"? If what should happen is defined by what's already law, then isn't the law by definition already what should be?
  - marrs 11y ago
    Because "we should have more freedom of speech" is not a universal truth. This should become obvious if you compare Israel, where holocaust denial is illegal, to the UK, where it is not. Clearly the 2 nations have different opinions on the limits of freedom of speech. Laws get changed all the time, which doesn't mean the underlying ethics changed. Are you sure about this? I would have thought that laws change precisely because moral and ethical sensibilities do change. If what should happen is defined by what's already law... I don't think that's being argued.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      >Because "we should have more freedom of speech" is not a universal truth. I'm not saying it is, I'm saying under the model presented above, the statement is meaningless, not just right or wrong. But people do make such statements, and mean something by it. >This should become obvious if you compare Israel, where holocaust denial is illegal, to the UK, where it is not. Clearly the 2 nations have different opinions on the limits of freedom of speech. And it would be coherent for someone to say in Israel "we should have the right to deny the holocaust", which shows that "should" is not the same as "it is legal". >I would have thought that laws change precisely because moral and ethical sensibilities do change. "moral and ethical sensibilities changing" != "ethics changing". If you believe murder is right, does that make it right? >I don't think that's being argued. I was talking specifically about whether people "should" have rights. If you refer to laws to answer that, you're equating laws with "should".
      - icebraining 11y ago
        "moral and ethical sensibilities changing" != "ethics changing". What evidence do you have that there is any kind of "ethics" outside of what was called "moral and ethical sensibilities"? If you believe murder is right, does that make it right? For the person who believes, it does. I was talking specifically about whether people "should" have rights. If you refer to laws to answer that, you're equating laws with "should". No one said that laws are why people should have rights. What was said was "society decides", as the group of moral agents that it is. Laws are the result of that decision.
        ikeboy 11y ago
        >What evidence do you have that there is any kind of "ethics" outside of what was called "moral and ethical sensibilities"? I myself tend towards error theory, but am fluent enough in typical moral thoughts and arguments to partake in them. So I'm not going to claim that I have evidence for objective morals. What I will claim, is that the sense that people have for morals is not satisfied by law. >For the person who believes, it does. That's a tautology and not particularly useful. >No one said that laws are why people should have rights. Actually, someone asked "Why should you have 'the right to be forgotten'?" You answered "Technically, because the EU countries are sovereign and can decide what rights their own citizens should have." Note the word "should" in there; that statement directly implies that law leads to (whatever you mean by should). >What was said was "society decides", as the group of moral agents that it is. Laws are the result of that decision. Laws are made by a tiny subset of society and rarely consider other cases implied by but not directly mentioned in the law. Case in point, this law in France was made before Google existed.
  - samastur 11y ago
    Neither ethical values of a society nor its laws are static entities. They both change over time. One cause (of many) for change are eventually persuasive parts of society not happy with current agreements. Most of us probably do not completely share values of the society we live in. It is up to us to push it in right direction.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      >Most of us probably do not completely share values of the society we live in. It is up to us to push it in right direction. This seems to me to contradict the earlier statement by icebraining that you defended >Technically, because the EU countries are sovereign and can decide what rights their own citizens should have.

V-2 11y ago

So if society decides that redheads have no right to live, then they have no right to live, end of story? This is a dangerous school of thought, authoritarian in spirit - the state as the source of ethics and the ultimate moral authority (Hegel's view). The opposing concept is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

marrs 11y ago
How did you construe that from what samastur said?
icebraining 11y ago
Society and the State are not the same; they can, and have often been in conflict over exactly that issue.
- V-2 11y ago
  Of course, but when it comes to making decisions (including decisions that are granting rights), societies have to rely on institutions they built.
samastur 11y ago
OK, let's take the third paragraph of your link as an example, where it basically describes how Natural law forms a philosophical bedrock of US society. Why were documents resulting from it accepted by society (eventually, more or less)? Clearly from the same page there is not just one and societies existed and still do that don't share the same underpinning. They could have turned it down and go with something else. My point is that they didn't because this was close enough to existing shared values. That doesn't mean it matched anyone's perfectly or that you can't move them over time, but they are not imposed. Well, they may be for a while under occupation of a stronger force, but surely that is not what you argue for. In your hypothetical example it would mean yes, they don't in that society. Like converting to a different religion can get you killed in some places even if it is completely unimaginable where I am from. I am certainly not agreeing with or defending choices of every society under sun.