7 ms·

Mesopothemia was based on morals as far as we know, and they lay the foundation for many technical and scientific advances. And your rights are based on religio

by bergen 2y ago

Mesopothemia was based on morals as far as we know, and they lay the foundation for many technical and scientific advances. And your rights are based on religious and ideological morals. Why do you believe the debate about Roe v. Wade exists? Why do we consider infidelity so bad it can break a contract of marriage? What is marriage? Those are not laws of nature.

WalterBright 2y ago
Your right to not be attacked, robbed, or defrauded by others is inherent, not something conferred by religion or morality. As for abortion, the debate there rests on a conflict of the rights of two people, and there isn't any clear answer to it based on rights. Marriage is tangled up with the rights of children. Children are not fully formed humans and we allot them a subset of the rights of adults. Marriage without children is an issue of morality, not rights. I don't know what mesopothemia is.
- bergen 2y ago
  >Marriage without children is an issue of morality, not rights. It was historically an issue of rights And children rights are a fairly new thing. And no, you are wrong - your right not be attacked is based on morality, you say "attacking someone is wrong" - there is no law in nature preventing this. But you made no point for your argument - just stepping through mine with comments.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    > your right not be attacked is based on morality The very first thing a group does when organized is to protect themselves from attack. They do this because it works. We've evolved that way, which makes it a law of nature for humans. Communist rights, however, are not laws of nature because they do not work with humans. Humans are not beehives. But the most compelling argument for "natural rights" is observing how well societies work that enforce them, and how well they work when other systems of rights are tried. The evidence is pretty clear.
    - bergen 2y ago
      Of course you defend yourself and your kind from harm. But that is completely separate from the fact if it is allowed. There is no law in nature preventing this. Sometimes internal conflict is solved by violence and accepted. Your first paragraph describes a group sharing a common will and organisation based on natural instinct (like a hive of bees), your second paragraph disputes this organisation as a group for humans, decide for one it can’t be both ways.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        > decide for one it can’t be both ways Oh, it can be both ways and is both ways. See my last sentence again, about the compelling evidence that humans thrive with their rights being protected, while a beehive thrives from being a perfect communist society. Communism requires people to behave like bees in a beehive, and that will never work no matter how fervently one believes in communism and no matter how much coercion is used to force people to be good communists.
        bergen 2y ago
        I really don't understand what you are on about. A beehive is the very definition of 100 percent following natural law. A beehive protects it's worker when a worker is attacked, following your line of argument then, this beehive is somehow capitalist and has rights? At the same time you're arguing that this swarm of animals doesn't follow the law of nature and therefore is communist which at best bizarre and at worst delusional. Your mashing togehter things without any coherent explanation what you mean. Also you fail to provide a simple example beyond "the evidence is clear" you don't even say what evidence you're refering to.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        Bees have followed a different evolutionary path than humans, and have reached a different local optima. Communism is "natural law" for bees. Communism works for bees, it does not work for humans, because humans have not evolved into a beehive.
  - zaat 2y ago
    > And no, you are wrong - your right not be attacked is based on morality, you say "attacking someone is wrong" You are mixing morality with justice, which (in the modern world) is based on rights. "Attacking someone is wrong" is a moral statement, it puts the focus and the obligation of individuals to keep moral behavior. My right not to be attacked is not based on moral and not dependent on the morality or the beliefs of any other people, it is based on justice, a social contract that declare a set of a societal or universal rights granted to every individual.
    - bergen 2y ago
      And this societal rights are based on a shared understanding of what is moral and amoral, often dictated by works of religion or historically stemming from such.
- sudosysgen 2y ago
  > Your right to not be attacked, robbed, or defrauded by others is inherent, not something conferred by religion or morality. It most certainly isn't. Inherent from where or what? In nature, I have no right not to be attacked by a lion or a pack of wolves, so surely this right cannot exist outside society, and then how can it derive from something outside society? Without a God, man in nature has no rights, though you can follow Hobbes and assert some principles from an idea of universal morality. I'm not aware of any serious philosopher who pretends to be able to derive any right at all without religion or morality.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    Then how do you explain the universal fact that the communist notion of rights always fails? There are clearly some system of rights that are better than others, for humans. BTW, we kill wolves that attack us.
    - sudosysgen 2y ago
      I don't need to, there simply isn't a universally true notion of rights, it has to be socially defined, whether you're a communist or a capitalist. > There are clearly some system of rights that are better than others, for humans. I certainly agree with you : but "better for humans" is a morally grounded position. > BTW, we kill wolves that attack us. Sure. How is that a problem?
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        > there simply isn't a universally true notion of rights Yet there is. People can temporarily override human nature, but it always reasserts itself. Universal rights are based on human nature. You can socially declare that what's yours is mine, but be both know how that will end up. You can also pay people to be poor, but then you'll wonder why poverty increases.
  - zaat 2y ago
    Rights is well developed subject in modern ethics, and it doesn't require God or morality in the sense of "Doing X is bad and therefore immoral". But any discussion of rights is discussion of moral theory. Modern ethical philosophers have developed ethic theories that propose secular basis for universal rights, moral theory that doesn't rely on God (Rawls is a famous example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice)
torginus 2y ago
Que? First of all, Mesopothamia is a geographical region, not a culture or society. Second, places like Babylon had a very sophisticated legal, financial and administrative system, with tons of written evidence preserved in the form of clay tables surviving. The Code of Hammurabi being cited as one of the most important pieces of written evidence of a code of laws in ancient times.

by bergen 2y ago

WalterBright 2y ago

Your right to not be attacked, robbed, or defrauded by others is inherent, not something conferred by religion or morality. As for abortion, the debate there rests on a conflict of the rights of two people, and there isn't any clear answer to it based on rights. Marriage is tangled up with the rights of children. Children are not fully formed humans and we allot them a subset of the rights of adults. Marriage without children is an issue of morality, not rights. I don't know what mesopothemia is.

bergen 2y ago
>Marriage without children is an issue of morality, not rights. It was historically an issue of rights And children rights are a fairly new thing. And no, you are wrong - your right not be attacked is based on morality, you say "attacking someone is wrong" - there is no law in nature preventing this. But you made no point for your argument - just stepping through mine with comments.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > your right not be attacked is based on morality The very first thing a group does when organized is to protect themselves from attack. They do this because it works. We've evolved that way, which makes it a law of nature for humans. Communist rights, however, are not laws of nature because they do not work with humans. Humans are not beehives. But the most compelling argument for "natural rights" is observing how well societies work that enforce them, and how well they work when other systems of rights are tried. The evidence is pretty clear.
  - bergen 2y ago
    Of course you defend yourself and your kind from harm. But that is completely separate from the fact if it is allowed. There is no law in nature preventing this. Sometimes internal conflict is solved by violence and accepted. Your first paragraph describes a group sharing a common will and organisation based on natural instinct (like a hive of bees), your second paragraph disputes this organisation as a group for humans, decide for one it can’t be both ways.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      > decide for one it can’t be both ways Oh, it can be both ways and is both ways. See my last sentence again, about the compelling evidence that humans thrive with their rights being protected, while a beehive thrives from being a perfect communist society. Communism requires people to behave like bees in a beehive, and that will never work no matter how fervently one believes in communism and no matter how much coercion is used to force people to be good communists.
      - bergen 2y ago
        I really don't understand what you are on about. A beehive is the very definition of 100 percent following natural law. A beehive protects it's worker when a worker is attacked, following your line of argument then, this beehive is somehow capitalist and has rights? At the same time you're arguing that this swarm of animals doesn't follow the law of nature and therefore is communist which at best bizarre and at worst delusional. Your mashing togehter things without any coherent explanation what you mean. Also you fail to provide a simple example beyond "the evidence is clear" you don't even say what evidence you're refering to.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        Bees have followed a different evolutionary path than humans, and have reached a different local optima. Communism is "natural law" for bees. Communism works for bees, it does not work for humans, because humans have not evolved into a beehive.
- zaat 2y ago
  > And no, you are wrong - your right not be attacked is based on morality, you say "attacking someone is wrong" You are mixing morality with justice, which (in the modern world) is based on rights. "Attacking someone is wrong" is a moral statement, it puts the focus and the obligation of individuals to keep moral behavior. My right not to be attacked is not based on moral and not dependent on the morality or the beliefs of any other people, it is based on justice, a social contract that declare a set of a societal or universal rights granted to every individual.
  - bergen 2y ago
    And this societal rights are based on a shared understanding of what is moral and amoral, often dictated by works of religion or historically stemming from such.
sudosysgen 2y ago
> Your right to not be attacked, robbed, or defrauded by others is inherent, not something conferred by religion or morality. It most certainly isn't. Inherent from where or what? In nature, I have no right not to be attacked by a lion or a pack of wolves, so surely this right cannot exist outside society, and then how can it derive from something outside society? Without a God, man in nature has no rights, though you can follow Hobbes and assert some principles from an idea of universal morality. I'm not aware of any serious philosopher who pretends to be able to derive any right at all without religion or morality.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  Then how do you explain the universal fact that the communist notion of rights always fails? There are clearly some system of rights that are better than others, for humans. BTW, we kill wolves that attack us.
  - sudosysgen 2y ago
    I don't need to, there simply isn't a universally true notion of rights, it has to be socially defined, whether you're a communist or a capitalist. > There are clearly some system of rights that are better than others, for humans. I certainly agree with you : but "better for humans" is a morally grounded position. > BTW, we kill wolves that attack us. Sure. How is that a problem?
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      > there simply isn't a universally true notion of rights Yet there is. People can temporarily override human nature, but it always reasserts itself. Universal rights are based on human nature. You can socially declare that what's yours is mine, but be both know how that will end up. You can also pay people to be poor, but then you'll wonder why poverty increases.
- zaat 2y ago
  Rights is well developed subject in modern ethics, and it doesn't require God or morality in the sense of "Doing X is bad and therefore immoral". But any discussion of rights is discussion of moral theory. Modern ethical philosophers have developed ethic theories that propose secular basis for universal rights, moral theory that doesn't rely on God (Rawls is a famous example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice)

torginus 2y ago

Que? First of all, Mesopothamia is a geographical region, not a culture or society. Second, places like Babylon had a very sophisticated legal, financial and administrative system, with tons of written evidence preserved in the form of clay tables surviving. The Code of Hammurabi being cited as one of the most important pieces of written evidence of a code of laws in ancient times.