Human Rights

[Dimentio]

Due to recent discussions about animal rights, I was compelled to make a statement about animal rights activism. My position is that animal rights activists want to codify the right of the animal to it's own behavior (no matter the fact that the natural behavior of a fox stands against the natural behavior of a rabbit). Hence, I concluded that animal rights activism is a strange and nonsensical ideology.

Animals have a natural behavior, yes, but their entire existence is a struggle to uphold that natural behavior. We could conclude, from observation, that nature is an evolutionary set of processes decided by the struggle of survival.

On a deeper scale, animal rights-activism represents a set of liberal deviations inside the left. Namely the naïve belief that by struggling for certain laws and regulations, you could change reality, and that the state is a legitime arbiter in upholding "rights" which somehow someway are inherent and "natural" and stands above time.

That mind-set is a product of classical liberalism and monotheism, and is based on the existence of some sort of pre-determined, linear reality with fixed moral values.

I will say something shocking.

Human rights do not exist in themselves.

For the first, they could be violated. That means that they do not exist physically.

For the second, to apply rights, some form of organ with the authority to define reality and the resources to put force upon the violators is needed to enforce it. Otherwise, it would just be text on a paper.

From the perspective of an atheist, it is hard to motivate why "human rights" are an absolute, since an absolute cannot be measured, weighted, or even questioned. And by scientific standards, everything needs to be questionable (by putting up absolutes, we are limiting ourselves).

We could conclude though, that a society based on integrity, empathy, equality and care, is preferable over a society where raw force prevails who is going to procreate. One could also note that when our ability to use a higher energy input into production increases, our society has become more human, and our values has changed corresponding to the material situation.

I challenge any believer in absolute inalienable humans rights to step forth and put a case for absolute human rights.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Serpent,


Human rights do not exist in themselves.

For the first, they could be violated. That means that they do not exist physically.

But, one can violate the 'law of gravity' (think of hot air balloons, aeroplanes, bungy jumping....); does that mean there is no gravity? Or that it is not governed by an absolute 'law'?

Much of the rest of what you say I cannot disagree with; it is just that you do not need this argument to make your case.

[Except, your main point above is susceptible to the question I have been posing in the suicide thread for over a week ; what exactly are you ruling out? What would it be like if human rights did 'exist', 'objectively'? We need to know, or your denial lacks content.]

[Dimentio]

Yes, but gravity does exist as a physically force. "Human rights" don't do that, except for the rights that the humans are fighting for and defending.

I have not actually seen that thread in a long time.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I agree, I was merely saying that this argument did not work, so you should lose it:


Human rights do not exist in themselves.

For the first, they could be violated. That means that they do not exist physically.

As you say, gravity exists 'physically' (although I would not put it that way), but the fact that it can be 'violated' does not detract from that.

So, you can't use this to show that human rights do not exist 'physically'.

Recall, I am not disagreeing with you, merely pointing out that this argument weakens your case.

[Dimentio]

Thanks. :)

The weight of evidence do not lie on my shoulders in this case.

I cannot prove conclusively that God (or Donald Duck) does'nt exist either.

There are people who are beliving in both (heck, some who believe that they are Donald Duck), just like there are people believing in the sacrosanct nature of the human being (something which almost requires a deity to be logically consistent).

It is up to the proprietors to prove that such things exist, not to scientists to disprove them.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 03, 2007 09:00 am

Human rights do not exist in themselves.

For the first, they could be violated. That means that they do not exist physically.

But, one can violate the 'law of gravity' (think of hot air balloons, aeroplanes, bungy jumping....); does that mean there is no gravity? Or that it is not governed by an absolute 'law'?


One cannot violate the law of gravity. In fact, hot air balloons and aeroplanes still follow the laws of gravity.

Human rights can be violated, just like any other human law but unlike the laws of the universe, which are the "physical laws". Human laws do not exactly exist as a physical force and are not absolute, but they are still important.

[CornetJoyce]

The concept of natural rights predates classical liberalism by centuries. Rather, it is the equation of the human world with physics and biological processes that corresponds with liberalism.

Your claim that you have no rights is a great expression of humility but why do you not forthrightly say "I have no rights. I may be tortured and murdered?" Would that not be more convincing to the benighted who cling to such superstitions? May we have some evidence that you abjure any and all claims of rights? Maybe you could demand to be imprisoned at Guantanamo? Put your rights where your mouth is, comrade!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Alcaeos:


One cannot violate the law of gravity. In fact, hot air balloons and aeroplanes still follow the laws of gravity.

Depends what you mean by 'violate'.

If I violate the traffic laws, do they cease to exist?

And that is how I meant it....

And how do balloons 'follow' the law of gravity?

Do they know what they are doing, like you do when you follow the law?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cornet, you reall must learn to read with more care:


Your claim that you have no rights is a great expression of humility but why do you not forthrightly say "I have no rights. I may be tortured and murdered?" Would that not be more convincing to the benighted who cling to such superstitions? May we have some evidence that you abjure any and all claims of rights? Maybe you could demand to be imprisoned at Guantanamo? Put your rights where your mouth is, comrade!

If you read what Serpent posted he did not deny we had rights -- only that they are set by law not nature (whatever that means).

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Nothing can violate gravity, which, by the way, is not strictly a force, but a consequence of matter occupying space-time.

Hot-air baloons merely give an unusual outcome - Gravity is still acting on them exactly as it would any other object.

-Alex

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 07:10 pm
The concept of natural rights predates classical liberalism by centuries. Rather, it is the equation of the human world with physics and biological processes that corresponds with liberalism.

Your claim that you have no rights is a great expression of humility but why do you not forthrightly say "I have no rights. I may be tortured and murdered?" Would that not be more convincing to the benighted who cling to such superstitions? May we have some evidence that you abjure any and all claims of rights? Maybe you could demand to be imprisoned at Guantanamo? Put your rights where your mouth is, comrade!
Theoretically, I could be mugged and murdered. It could happen tomorrow. There are of course laws there to stop such things from happening, but they are happening anyway. I could confess and say that I do never feel righteousness or guilt. I have empathy, but I am not trying to build some universal dualistic system of "right and wrong" to support my own personal ethics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


Nothing can violate gravity, which, by the way, is not strictly a force, but a consequence of matter occupying space-time.

Hot-air baloons merely give an unusual outcome - Gravity is still acting on them exactly as it would any other object.

I have already answered this one Burn!

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Not quite.

Traffic laws are obviously different to the laws of physics, since traffic laws can be violated.

And no, it doesn't follow the law of gravity by choosing to.

None of that really changes the fact that hot air baloons don't "violate" gravity, and in fact could not.

They might act in an unusual way, but gravity is not affecting them any less.

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn, thanks for that but I think you have missed the point. I was addressing the assumption that a law cannot be violated, not its ontological concomittants.

But now I will.

Now traffic laws exist just as much as, or even more than, the 'law' of gravity, but in an entirely different way.

We have traffic laws written down, and uniformed officers enforce them.

Eminently objective.

But, who wrote the 'law' of gravity, and who enforces it?

'God'?

If you reply: 'nature', then that would amount to its anthropomorphisation -- and, as you know, we have been down that route many times before.

Now, when we 'counteract' gravity (to use a neutral term here just for now), we use other forces to do so: uplift, hot air, etc.

And, as any Physics book will tell you, if there is no change in motion (no acceleration), the counteracting force and gravity must have a resultant of zero.

So, in that local system (say a balloon moving at a constant velocity relative to some inertial frame), as far as local movement goes there are zero forces acting on that balloon -- with respect to its motion.

Colloquially we say that gravity has been 'cancelled'.

Now 'violated' is a hair's breadth from 'cancelled'.

I am quite happy to use that word if it causes you less problems (although I prefer the former -- but I do not wish to get hung up on a terminological dispute).

Now, you might want to say that gravity has not been cancelled, and that it still exists in that local system.

But this cannot be so.

And for good reason: the resultant force on the balloon (in the above scenario) is zero. Now, if we have the original two forces (provided by the hot air and gravity) and this resultant, then we would now have three forces, not two (with the added complication that this would create energy from nowhere).

So, we are forced to conclude that gravity does not exist in this local system.

Which is, of course, one reason why Physicists over the last 150 years or so have preferred to edit fores out of the universe, and talk of exchange of momentum.

[Sure, they still refer to forces in school and college physics since it is easier to do so, but any graduate Physicist soon learns to drop them.]

So, there is no force of gravity, only the movement or otherwise of bodies along geodesics in spacetime (as you noted earlier).

And since motion can cease (i.e., be equal to zero) in one some inertial frame, and we can say so without postulating that any of the original components of motion still really 'exist' somewhere (as we have to assume that the force of gravity, say, still exists when it has been cancelled -- which assumption still clouds your vision), this is surely a less fraught view of nature.

So, I stand by my original claim: not only can gravity be cancelled, it can be violated, like any law -- or it is not a law, but something else.

[Dimentio]

One funny thing about traffic, and that is that the departments of traffic in most countries count the victims of traffic accidents in relations to what a typical human being earn for society. That more or less shows that the current system is very collectivist and authoritarian, and that human rights cannot be provided by it in a way that corresponds to the interests of the people.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

So, in that local system (say a balloon moving at a constant velocity relative to some inertial frame), as far as local movement goes there are zero forces acting on that balloon -- with respect to its motion.

Yeah, as far as local movement goes. This doesn't mean that gravity just magically goes away though, does it? It acts on the balloon without any manifest physical results, due to it being exactly counteracted by the hot air. If you could remove gravity from the equation, the balloon would presumably shoot upwards, so gravity must still be acting on the balloon.

Or am I still missing the point? Damn it Rosa, I always miss the point with you. :P


And for good reason: the resultant force on the balloon (in the above scenario) is zero. Now, if we have the original two forces (provided by the hot air and gravity) and this resultant, then we would now have three forces, not two (with the added complication that this would create energy from nowhere).

I don't understand this bit. What's the third force, and where does energy from nowhere come in? :unsure:


So, I stand by my original claim: not only can gravity be cancelled, it can be violated, like any law -- or it is not a law, but something else.

I suppose we only refer to gravity as a law for ease of understanding, and it is something else, i.e. The consequence of matter occupying space-time. Ah, so do you mean that if gravity is only a consequence, which it technically is, then as soon as the consequence doesn't occur, as with the hot air balloon, gravity isn't there?

-Alex

P.S. Just while we're here, was reading Bertrand Russell last night, and I think I might have clicked what you mean when you say that it doesn't make sense to say morals do or don't exist. I think, anyway. He says something like:

"Suppose I say to you 'The Golden Mountain does not exist',and you say 'What is it that does not exist?', and I say 'It is the Golden Mountain', then I seem to be attributing some form of existence to it."

Is that on the right lines? I had a slight eureka moment when I read it, and wondered if that's what you'd been trying to say.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:10 pm

Theoretically, I could be mugged and murdered. It could happen tomorrow. There are of course laws there to stop such things from happening, but they are happening anyway. I could confess and say that I do never feel righteousness or guilt. I have empathy, but I am not trying to build some universal dualistic system of "right and wrong" to support my own personal ethics.
Theoretically mugged and murdered?
You guys sure do take theory seriously!
But seriously, you surely don't imagine that natural rights theory claims to prevent traffic accidents? That's not even a strawman, more like a non sequitur.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


This doesn't mean that gravity just magically goes away though, does it?

That is what the mathematics tells us. [Unless you think there are now three forces where there were only two before?]

But, if there are no 'forces' anywhere in nature, this ceases to be a problem, and it just becomes one of relative motion, and exchange of momentum.


It acts on the balloon without any manifest physical results, due to it being exactly counteracted by the hot air. If you could remove gravity from the equation, the balloon would presumably shoot upwards, so gravity must still be acting on the balloon.

And you know this how?

The reason the balloon does not move (or rather, its velocity is constant) is because there are no 'forces' now operating on it (the resultant is zero).

But there were none to begin with! Just relative velocities and exchanges of momentum.

But, as I said, that is one reason why Physicists have moved away from speaking about 'forces', so this is no longer a problem for them, even if it is still one for you -- you seem to be locked into this ancient world view. :o


I don't understand this bit. What's the third force, and where does energy from nowhere come in?

The two original 'forces' we can depict as combining in some way.

There are three possibilities:

[Let the first force be F1, and the second, F2.]

1) F1 + F2 < 0.

2) F1 + F2 = 0.

3) F1 + F2 > 0.

In cases 1) and 3) there will be a change in motion and thus an energy change/exchange somewhere, too. But, the only &#39;force&#39; working here is the resultant. The other two cannot also be working alongiside it, or there would be two resultants (the first one and the one now created by the two original &#39;forces&#39; which still exist), then three, then....

Now that cannot fail to affect the energetics of the system -- all out of nowhere....

In case 2) the resultant is zero, and gravity no longer operates (it was never a &#39;force&#39; anyway, so we won&#39;t miss it too much).

I argued this at length in Essay Eight Part Two.

With regard to the other things you asked: Modern (UK) Analytic Philosophy began with Russell asking these sorts of questions (although it had kicked in earlier when Frege, and Balzano before him, asked even more penetrating questions).

So, yes they are connected with my annoying query, but Russell was rather confused on this.

Wittgenstein solved this problem (but by dissolving it, the way I do), showing that philosophical questions like this are all nonsensical.

You can read an excellent summary of how he did this in that book I recommended several months ago:

R White: "Wittgenstein&#39;s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" (2006, Continuum Books).