4 ms·
I said should and should not are useless "in the absence of a specific objective". But, as you suggest, they are useful in the context of an objective, e.g. I s
by psb217 13y ago
I said should and should not are useless "in the absence of a specific objective". But, as you suggest, they are useful in the context of an objective, e.g. I should not push old ladies into heavy traffic (implicitly: because I prefer not to live in a world where old-lady-traffic-pushing is a commonly accepted pastime and I believe that not indulging in old-lady-traffic-pushing makes such a world more likely to exist in the future, given some assumptions about the dynamics of social systems).
So, I agree that morals express should and should not sentiments. I also agree that individuals can hold morals, in the sense of personal codes of behavior. However, my original point of contention was whether or not natural and human rights exist in the state of nature. A discussion of morals ensued because you implied that an acceptance of the existence of morals was somehow related to an acceptance of the existence of n/h rights.
Morals and n/h rights are fundamentally different in that morals are intra-personal, while rights are necessarily inter-personal. So, while I would accept that morals can exist, in the sense that individuals can desire particular states and derive codes of behavior for making these states more likely to occur, these sorts of morals are not the sort needed to make the functional similarity between morals and n/h rights that you previously suggested meaningful.
These form the key points of our disagreement: that morals act like n/h rights and that n/h rights exist. While you may not have intended to support absolutism, based on the way in which people typically discuss n/h rights, and based on the formal definitions of these terms that I've seen, I'd say that any support of n/h rights is implicitly support of absolutism.
- foobarbazqux 13y agoThanks for explaining, that was quite thorough. I don't understand the distinction between intrapersonal and interpersonal here. Are you essentially saying at least two people have to agree upon something before it's a right, either legal or n/h? But that can't be, because although you can take away my food, clothing, and shelter, you can't take away my belief that I have a human right to those things (i.e. I deserve them), regardless of whether or not anybody agrees with me. Or does it have to do with morals being about my behavior with respect to others, whereas n/h rights would be about others' behavior with respect to me (and others)? I do understand that it's the absolutists who harp on about n/h rights, I'll try to be more careful about that in the future. It is somewhat absolutist of me to believe that everybody on the planet deserves food, clothing, and shelter in that it's a belief that applies universally, but I won't go so far as to say that you should adopt my beliefs simply because it's somehow incorrect for you to have other beliefs, nor do I expect that our laws will ever satisfy this ideal.
- psb217 13y agoWhile I can't take away your belief in a human right to something, I can take that something (given sufficient capacity for force). Belief in n/h rights can exist independently of whether or not the rights exist, in the same way that belief in Odin can exist independently of Odin himself. Though, through morally-guided action you can possibly cause the n/h rights which you believe in (but which don't exist) to be reified as legal rights. Now, given sufficient capacity for force, I may still subvert those rights, but through their codification they have nonetheless gained existence. The second part of your second paragraph actually closely matches my stance. And, it's precisely the prevalence of (implicit) absolutists who continually frame arguments founded on the assumption that some n/h right or another exists that leads to my irritation when these terms are used (relatively) carelessly. Such arguments are fundamentally flawed and, yet, continue to dominate most discussions concerning politics and economics.
- foobarbazqux 13y agoMy claim is simply that much as force causes legal rights to exist, belief causes n/h rights to exist. Since you cannot take away my belief (except through brainwashing, but even then I can recover it), you cannot take away my n/h rights. Or, might makes legally right, belief makes morally right. It's interesting, because if you look back far enough you'll see I had the opposite argument with somebody else, where I was explaining that force was the only thing that caused legal rights to exist, and he was accusing me of immorality on that basis.