4 ms·

>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

by 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.
- Kbelicius 2y ago
  > 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. We did not evolve with private property rights thus, by your reasoning, those are not "natural rights". I am at a loss in trying to understand what you are saying. It seem like you are trying to argue for capitalism but arguments that you give seem to favor socialism.
  - zaat 2y ago
    Natural and legal rights are well established terms that are being used, discussed and evaluated since ancient times. The term natural right precede our discovery of evolution by 2 millennia. Whether the right to property is natural right or not is a separate point and debatable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property
    - sudosysgen 2y ago
      The term natural right since ancient times was a religious construct that has little or nothing to do with the modern, post-Renaissance understanding of the term, so tracing a lineage here is a definitional error. In any case, what a natural right is isn't (and cannot be) a well established term, and indeed the rise in atheism is a fundamental threat to the doctrine, as most all ideas of natural law have to rely on a God to avoid the naturalistic fallacy.
      - zaat 2y ago
        God is of very little help (here), as pointed by Plato/Socrates in the Uthyphro dilemma. The naturalistic fallacy is not limited to natural rights, as Hume's is-ought is applicable to legal rights just the same - you can't logically deduce from the fact that there are laws that mandate rights a conclusion that one ought to abide by them. Natural or universal rights does not require theism. Robert Nozick is famous proponent of the secular based position that property is a natural right.
- sudosysgen 2y ago
  > Communist rights, however, are not laws of nature because they do not work with humans. Humans are not beehives. The laws of nature do not include any rights, unless there's some new physics I'm not aware of. > 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. This is an argument from morality. You start with the premise that a good societal outcome is morally good and then use that to justify the rights you advocate for. You fundamentally cannot make an argument for what something should be like without resorting to morality. Without it, you can only make arguments on what things are.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    > You start with the premise that a good societal outcome is morally good I said how well societies work, and have also used words like "thrive" and "prosperous". We have evolved to be that way, it's our local optima just like beehives have evolved a different local optima. > you can only make arguments on what things are. And that's exactly what I did. Humans starve to death under communism - every time it has been tried. Nobody starves due to loose morals.
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.

by bergen 2y ago

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.
Kbelicius 2y ago
> 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. We did not evolve with private property rights thus, by your reasoning, those are not "natural rights". I am at a loss in trying to understand what you are saying. It seem like you are trying to argue for capitalism but arguments that you give seem to favor socialism.
- zaat 2y ago
  Natural and legal rights are well established terms that are being used, discussed and evaluated since ancient times. The term natural right precede our discovery of evolution by 2 millennia. Whether the right to property is natural right or not is a separate point and debatable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property
  - sudosysgen 2y ago
    The term natural right since ancient times was a religious construct that has little or nothing to do with the modern, post-Renaissance understanding of the term, so tracing a lineage here is a definitional error. In any case, what a natural right is isn't (and cannot be) a well established term, and indeed the rise in atheism is a fundamental threat to the doctrine, as most all ideas of natural law have to rely on a God to avoid the naturalistic fallacy.
    - zaat 2y ago
      God is of very little help (here), as pointed by Plato/Socrates in the Uthyphro dilemma. The naturalistic fallacy is not limited to natural rights, as Hume's is-ought is applicable to legal rights just the same - you can't logically deduce from the fact that there are laws that mandate rights a conclusion that one ought to abide by them. Natural or universal rights does not require theism. Robert Nozick is famous proponent of the secular based position that property is a natural right.
sudosysgen 2y ago
> Communist rights, however, are not laws of nature because they do not work with humans. Humans are not beehives. The laws of nature do not include any rights, unless there's some new physics I'm not aware of. > 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. This is an argument from morality. You start with the premise that a good societal outcome is morally good and then use that to justify the rights you advocate for. You fundamentally cannot make an argument for what something should be like without resorting to morality. Without it, you can only make arguments on what things are.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > You start with the premise that a good societal outcome is morally good I said how well societies work, and have also used words like "thrive" and "prosperous". We have evolved to be that way, it's our local optima just like beehives have evolved a different local optima. > you can only make arguments on what things are. And that's exactly what I did. Humans starve to death under communism - every time it has been tried. Nobody starves due to loose morals.

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.