4 ms·

> can either party be said to be correct Yes. Tor is correct and Facebook is wrong. I said it. Other people might say otherwise, but I'll say they're wrong. (a

by ratww 5y ago

> can either party be said to be correct Yes. Tor is correct and Facebook is wrong. I said it. Other people might say otherwise, but I'll say they're wrong. (and they are) In societies it is normal to have disagreements. What people do is discuss the issue and potentially reach an agreement. Maybe this will become a law somewhere. Maybe it will go into the Universal Declaration, and most countries will implement it. Maybe not. After becoming a law, people will either follow it or not. If they sort of break the law, a judge or peers will decide if they need punishment. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Who knows. Life is not a computer program or math equation. Life is a bit hard.

marginalia_nu 5y ago
If you say the sky is blue, or that water is wet, or that rock is hard, or that ice is cold, and so forth; I can agree with you because I can use my senses and they tell me the same thing you were telling me. If you tell me the angular sum of a triangle is 180 degrees, I cannot see it directly with my senses, but I can construct a simple proof with pen and paper that shows me it cannot be any other way than what you told me. How do you experience the truth of the human right to privacy?
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  What if I then draw a triangle on the surface of a sphere with an angle sum of 270 degrees? All you're saying here is that we've agreed on a principle that implies what you're saying is true. This is the exact same as what the other commenter is saying.
- ratww 5y ago
  That's a very misleading question. You are comparing law and social constructs with natural science or math equation results. That's not how the world works. Societies are much more complex than that. I can try to convince you that this is right, if that's what you're asking. But no, there won't be a math equation or an scientific measurement that proves that it is correct. Because we're humans, not numbers or bits.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    Right, but the only things I have access to are the things I can experience. I am of a slight empiricist bent, so if I am to be convinced about something, it needs to at least be related to those sorts of things I have experienced or can experience. I can't touch something like a social contract or an ideological standpoint, I don't know where it is are or how long it's been there, when it happened, how intense it is, whether it has any properties, whether it was caused or can cause; these things don't appear to be like anything that in any sense can be said to exist. If these things are gods, then for the sake of this conversation let's call my position an agnostic one. Society is complex, but even complex things are built from the parts we can see and touch, and since our senses are the only means we have for interacting with the world, even impossibly complex things must somehow be relatable back to them (unless there is some additional channel in which knowledge enters our minds?). If something is so nebulous that it is completely built from things we can't experience in any way other than being told about them, then how can they be said to exist at all, how could we tell this tale apart from complete fiction?
    - ido66667 5y ago
      If you are looking for a proven moral system, there are none. The whole idea of human rights is a product of a certain culture (western europe and its dependencies) just like the Quran or the Bible. You can't really prove something is a human rights, much like you can't prove human rights are the 'correct' moral framework. So it's all opinions really.
      - marginalia_nu 5y ago
        Right, but doesn't that inevitably lead to nihilism? If all value systems are equal, then are any value systems meaningful? Why do we assert that this-and-that is a human right in such a context?
        ratww 5y ago
        Why would it lead to nihilism?
- Cederfjard 5y ago
  You can’t, so you just have to accept that in some senses, reality is imperfect, in shades of gray, and sometimes irreconcilable with itself. You will not find a neat proof showing how to make everyone live in peace, harmony and happiness. But as humans we can try to do the best we can, which inevitably will be a long series of compromises.
- johnisgood 5y ago
  I do not know why you are being down-voted, the whole subject is interesting. The question could lead to great discussions.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    It's understandable. It's uncomfortable to have the things you believe to be true brought into the light and scrutinized. They killed Socrates for asking too many of these types of questions.
    - davidgay 5y ago
      It's a distraction from the main discussion. And your comments are boring, because this is one of the most discussed epistemological questions and you are bringing exactly zero new insights to it.
      - johnisgood 5y ago
        But others may have brought some insights into it, right? To me, that would be a "success".
    - ratww 5y ago
      It's not uncomfortable. It's just that the questions are boring and littered with fallacies and incorrect assumptions. People isn't having a rich discussion, as we have to correct a lot of misconceptions. The downvotes are perfectly understandable. This is the opposite of Socrates. He started from the premise that he knew nothing. In this discussion here, you're asking questions from the premise that already know most things about the subject. Also, this is not why Socrates was killed, please do some reading instead of jumping on another meme. Also: comparing yourself to Socrates for asking fallacious questions is peak Hacker News. Don't think I ever saw such arrogance.
      - johnisgood 5y ago
        The way I read it, it was already obvious to me that analytic propositions are different from synthetic propositions (using the terms as used by Kant or David Hume). I merely just wished to have a discussion on how we do determine what right "should be" a human right, and what makes it a human right, or simply, a right to begin with? It is actually quite a lengthy topic, and for example Rothbard has written a lot on how human rights are property rights and so forth. We could have gotten to animal's rights as well! I suppose one could brush it all under the rug with the term "subjective", but I would rather not stop there. But in any case, this is my only defense for the OP. I have no idea how one would "experience the truth" of a human right, I would need some more answers before I get to know what the OP has meant by it exactly. As for the Socrates stuff, I have no comment on that. --- Allow me to quote some Rothbard: > There are several aspects of this important truth. In the first place, each individual, according to our understanding of the natural order of things, is the owner of himself, the ruler of his own person. Preservation of this self-ownership is essential for the proper development and well-being of man. The human rights of the person are, in effect, a recognition of each man’s inalienable property right over his own being; and from this property right stems his right to the material goods that he has produced. A man’s right to personal freedom, then, is his property right in himself. > But there is another sense in which human rights are really property rights, a sense which is much obscured in our time. Take, for example, the human right of freedom of assembly. Suppose that a certain group wants to demonstrate for a particular idea or bill in a street meeting. This is an expression of the right of assembly. > On the other hand, suppose that the police break up the meeting on the ground that traffic is being disrupted. Now, it is not sufficient simply to say that the right of assembly has been abridged by the police for political reasons. Possibly, this was the case. But there is a real problem here, for maybe traffic was disrupted. In that case, how is one to decide between the human right of free assembly and the "public policy" or "public good" of clear and unobstructed traffic? > In the face of this apparent conflict, many people conclude that rights must be relative rather than absolute and have to be curbed sometimes for the common good. Taken from https://fee.org/articles/human-rights-are-property-rights/ https://fee.org/articles/human-rights-are-property-rights/.

by ratww 5y ago

marginalia_nu 5y ago

If you say the sky is blue, or that water is wet, or that rock is hard, or that ice is cold, and so forth; I can agree with you because I can use my senses and they tell me the same thing you were telling me. If you tell me the angular sum of a triangle is 180 degrees, I cannot see it directly with my senses, but I can construct a simple proof with pen and paper that shows me it cannot be any other way than what you told me. How do you experience the truth of the human right to privacy?

actually_a_dog 5y ago
What if I then draw a triangle on the surface of a sphere with an angle sum of 270 degrees? All you're saying here is that we've agreed on a principle that implies what you're saying is true. This is the exact same as what the other commenter is saying.
ratww 5y ago
That's a very misleading question. You are comparing law and social constructs with natural science or math equation results. That's not how the world works. Societies are much more complex than that. I can try to convince you that this is right, if that's what you're asking. But no, there won't be a math equation or an scientific measurement that proves that it is correct. Because we're humans, not numbers or bits.
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  Right, but the only things I have access to are the things I can experience. I am of a slight empiricist bent, so if I am to be convinced about something, it needs to at least be related to those sorts of things I have experienced or can experience. I can't touch something like a social contract or an ideological standpoint, I don't know where it is are or how long it's been there, when it happened, how intense it is, whether it has any properties, whether it was caused or can cause; these things don't appear to be like anything that in any sense can be said to exist. If these things are gods, then for the sake of this conversation let's call my position an agnostic one. Society is complex, but even complex things are built from the parts we can see and touch, and since our senses are the only means we have for interacting with the world, even impossibly complex things must somehow be relatable back to them (unless there is some additional channel in which knowledge enters our minds?). If something is so nebulous that it is completely built from things we can't experience in any way other than being told about them, then how can they be said to exist at all, how could we tell this tale apart from complete fiction?
  - ido66667 5y ago
    If you are looking for a proven moral system, there are none. The whole idea of human rights is a product of a certain culture (western europe and its dependencies) just like the Quran or the Bible. You can't really prove something is a human rights, much like you can't prove human rights are the 'correct' moral framework. So it's all opinions really.
    - marginalia_nu 5y ago
      Right, but doesn't that inevitably lead to nihilism? If all value systems are equal, then are any value systems meaningful? Why do we assert that this-and-that is a human right in such a context?
      - ratww 5y ago
        Why would it lead to nihilism?
Cederfjard 5y ago
You can’t, so you just have to accept that in some senses, reality is imperfect, in shades of gray, and sometimes irreconcilable with itself. You will not find a neat proof showing how to make everyone live in peace, harmony and happiness. But as humans we can try to do the best we can, which inevitably will be a long series of compromises.
johnisgood 5y ago
I do not know why you are being down-voted, the whole subject is interesting. The question could lead to great discussions.
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  It's understandable. It's uncomfortable to have the things you believe to be true brought into the light and scrutinized. They killed Socrates for asking too many of these types of questions.
  - davidgay 5y ago
    It's a distraction from the main discussion. And your comments are boring, because this is one of the most discussed epistemological questions and you are bringing exactly zero new insights to it.
    - johnisgood 5y ago
      But others may have brought some insights into it, right? To me, that would be a "success".
  - ratww 5y ago
    It's not uncomfortable. It's just that the questions are boring and littered with fallacies and incorrect assumptions. People isn't having a rich discussion, as we have to correct a lot of misconceptions. The downvotes are perfectly understandable. This is the opposite of Socrates. He started from the premise that he knew nothing. In this discussion here, you're asking questions from the premise that already know most things about the subject. Also, this is not why Socrates was killed, please do some reading instead of jumping on another meme. Also: comparing yourself to Socrates for asking fallacious questions is peak Hacker News. Don't think I ever saw such arrogance.
    - johnisgood 5y ago
      The way I read it, it was already obvious to me that analytic propositions are different from synthetic propositions (using the terms as used by Kant or David Hume). I merely just wished to have a discussion on how we do determine what right "should be" a human right, and what makes it a human right, or simply, a right to begin with? It is actually quite a lengthy topic, and for example Rothbard has written a lot on how human rights are property rights and so forth. We could have gotten to animal's rights as well! I suppose one could brush it all under the rug with the term "subjective", but I would rather not stop there. But in any case, this is my only defense for the OP. I have no idea how one would "experience the truth" of a human right, I would need some more answers before I get to know what the OP has meant by it exactly. As for the Socrates stuff, I have no comment on that. --- Allow me to quote some Rothbard: > There are several aspects of this important truth. In the first place, each individual, according to our understanding of the natural order of things, is the owner of himself, the ruler of his own person. Preservation of this self-ownership is essential for the proper development and well-being of man. The human rights of the person are, in effect, a recognition of each man’s inalienable property right over his own being; and from this property right stems his right to the material goods that he has produced. A man’s right to personal freedom, then, is his property right in himself. > But there is another sense in which human rights are really property rights, a sense which is much obscured in our time. Take, for example, the human right of freedom of assembly. Suppose that a certain group wants to demonstrate for a particular idea or bill in a street meeting. This is an expression of the right of assembly. > On the other hand, suppose that the police break up the meeting on the ground that traffic is being disrupted. Now, it is not sufficient simply to say that the right of assembly has been abridged by the police for political reasons. Possibly, this was the case. But there is a real problem here, for maybe traffic was disrupted. In that case, how is one to decide between the human right of free assembly and the "public policy" or "public good" of clear and unobstructed traffic? > In the face of this apparent conflict, many people conclude that rights must be relative rather than absolute and have to be curbed sometimes for the common good. Taken from https://fee.org/articles/human-rights-are-property-rights/ https://fee.org/articles/human-rights-are-property-rights/.