Name something good religion has caused

[AnyOldIron]

No, by that logic, if somebody breaks the contract and is therefore "wrong" or "evil" because of it you are walking into the religious realm over reality. Only people who pretend that religion or abstract philosophy hold no place in society would even get upset over such an idea. Of course they do, that is the ethics (one more time, maybe the third time is a charm here, will he read it? Probably, then forget it two more posts down and attempt again to make morality equal to rights...)

If someone breaks the contract, it isn't evil or wrong per se, any more than if I have a contract with you to pave your driveway and break that, I am evil. I have simply broken the contract, and am liable for the consequences set out in the contract.

There is nothing religious or transcendental about this. The terms of the contract are set out by the society that will use them, according to consensus.

All philosophy is abstract by definition, it isn't valid to equate religion and abstract notions as the same. Religion is an abstract notion, abstract notions aren't religion. It is possible to visualise a society without religion, but not without abstract thought.

And I haven't claimed that rights are morality, I have stated when discussing duties of compassion that morality is more than just rights.

But it still doesn't make sense giving the term rights no meaning whatsoever by making it simply another word for 'to act'.

You once again call it "hollow", this I find hilarious from a person who attempts to say that they proscribe to nihilism. Hollow, is only the value that you assign it, while others may assign it differently.

You are using the term 'rights' to simply mean the ability to act, which leaves the term with no significant meaning. The US notion of interchanging the concept of rights with that of being able to act has absurd consequences, it means that everything you do is a right, from using the toilet to Hitler's extermination of the Jews. Rights cannot mean simply to act.

Just because you have the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean it must be expressed, or that society might not assert their rights over yours. That you have the freedom to breathe is assumed, that you have the freedom to vote is assigned, the reason for it was a moral reasoning. "It is the 'right' thing to do." However, other societies assert different 'rights' as pertains to that particular freedom.

The rights are assigned by the society that draws up the contract, but if we use your (the US) definition of rights, then every act is a right.

Imagine a conversation using the US notion of rights.

"What are you doing today Brian?"
"I'm exercising my right to mow my lawn!"
"You mean you are mowing your lawn?"
"No, I am exercising my right to mow my lawn."

 

[AnyOldIron]

The attempt to give them magic status over that is an abstract morality argument, once again not based in the reality

Where are you getting the notion that magic, or religion or other such nonsense are involved?

If I were to draw up a contract to pave your driveway, Is my duty to pave the driveway magic? Or your right to expect the driveway magic?

Except religions are a defining of morality, it fits within my definition of religion.

Because religions attempt to define morality, doesn't make all attempts to define morality religious????

And once again, society defining your rights is simply putting makeup on it.

Whereas the US notion of rights simply means 'to act'????

 

[AnyOldIron]

Questioning a thing once, or twice, or often, is fine. But you never make a decision regarding the value of life.

That's because there is no right or wrong answer. Value is dictated by the individual adjudicating.

Living in this continual state of questioning is absurd. Oftentimes it seems you have decide NOT to value life, because when I mention my belief that morality is simply behavior which has evolved to increase group survival in social animals, like humans, you seem awestruck, or dumbfounded, or just idiotic.

No, I wasn't. I agree that morality evolved with human socialisation. I just don't believe that morality is absolute, it is dictated by the social group who live under the morality.

You seem to claim that certain morality is always correct if it improves society survival, but what if a society decided it was best for there survival to kill certain groups, like the ancient Germanic tribes did with those too old to produce or fight?


Moral absolutism exists because behaviors which add to group success are determinable.

Like killing those too old to produce for example???

 

[Litmus]

Questioning a thing once, or twice, or often, is fine. But you never make a decision regarding the value of life.

That's because there is no right or wrong answer. Value is dictated by the individual adjudicating.

But as an individual, you never seem to decide.

Living in this continual state of questioning is absurd. Oftentimes it seems you have decide NOT to value life, because when I mention my belief that morality is simply behavior which has evolved to increase group survival in social animals, like humans, you seem awestruck, or dumbfounded, or just idiotic.

No, I wasn't. I agree that morality evolved with human socialisation. I just don't believe that morality is absolute, it is dictated by the social group who live under the morality.

And the commonalities of ingroup morality across civilizations, not stealing, not adulterizing etc, point to a common purpose of those various moralities.

You seem to claim that certain morality is always correct if it improves society survival, but what if a society decided it was best for there survival to kill certain groups, like the ancient Germanic tribes did with those too old to produce or fight?

But as society has progressed, become less dependant on brute strength and hunting ability, we came to value the wisdom of the elderly, and hence our morality has changed slightly, but it has STILL remained focus on survivability. And as we have had more abundance, we have allowed more to survive. The past was difficult, for sure.

Moral absolutism exists because behaviors which add to group success are determinable.

Like killing those too old to produce for example???

The absolute is the basis for determination, not the specific decisions. You're exceedingly dense.

 

[Damocles]

If someone breaks the contract, it isn't evil or wrong per se, any more than if I have a contract with you to pave your driveway and break that, I am evil. I have simply broken the contract, and am liable for the consequences set out in the contract.

Which was my point, breaking the contract isn't "wrong" you simply face the consequences.

There is nothing religious or transcendental about this. The terms of the contract are set out by the society that will use them, according to consensus.

There is if you give it more value than that. "It is valueless if you look at it this way, but if you look at it my way it has extra value."

All philosophy is abstract by definition, it isn't valid to equate religion and abstract notions as the same. Religion is an abstract notion, abstract notions aren't religion. It is possible to visualise a society without religion, but not without abstract thought.

I don't, I equate the specific morality concept and enforcement principles as the same.

And I haven't claimed that rights are morality, I have stated when discussing duties of compassion that morality is more than just rights.

But it still doesn't make sense giving the term rights no meaning whatsoever by making it simply another word for 'to act'.

And yet you give it the same meaning as morality and thus do the same thing.

You are using the term 'rights' to simply mean the ability to act, which leaves the term with no significant meaning. The US notion of interchanging the concept of rights with that of being able to act has absurd consequences, it means that everything you do is a right, from using the toilet to Hitler's extermination of the Jews. Rights cannot mean simply to act.

And yet you miss that we allowed that same right to another group, as I have presented before.

The rights are assigned by the society that draws up the contract, but if we use your (the US) definition of rights, then every act is a right.

Imagine a conversation using the US notion of rights.

"What are you doing today Brian?"
"I'm exercising my right to mow my lawn!"
"You mean you are mowing your lawn?"
"No, I am exercising my right to mow my lawn."

Reductio ad absurdam again.

You can have the same conversation with your definition of rights...

(Assuming it would be wrong to keep somebody from excercising their freedom to mow their lawn.)

"What are you doing today, Brian?"
"I'm exercising my freedom to mow the lawn!"
"Blah, blah..."

In each context you have that same right. That you attempt to say that because it isn't enumerated in the contract it doesn't exist is ridiculous. Society chose not to curtail that freedom because it would be wrong for them to do so. Your assignment of special meaning to the word beyond that reality is just propaganda programming. (Do I hear the soundtrack again?)

 

[OrnotBitwise]

But as an individual, you never seem to decide.

To the contrary, he has very clearly "decided." What he has not done is to cease re-examining his position. You seem to want absolutes. We can hope that you grow out of this childish habit someday.

And the commonalities of ingroup morality across civilizations, not stealing, not adulterizing etc, point to a common purpose of those various moralities.

But as society has progressed, become less dependant on brute strength and hunting ability, we came to value the wisdom of the elderly, and hence our morality has changed slightly, but it has STILL remained focus on survivability. And as we have had more abundance, we have allowed more to survive. The past was difficult, for sure.

Have you ever even taken a single class in anthropology? It would seem not. You keep spouting ancient dicta that have been dropped by the field decades ago. Almost as if you learned about the discipline from a high school textbook. An out of date one at that.

The search for cultural universals has yielded precious few results. They do exist but they're not nearly so crude as the kind of thing you're suggesting. "Adultery" for example has many different meanings. It isn't a cultural universal by any measure. And that whole "wisdom of the elderly" thing went out in Margaret Mead's day.

The absolute is the basis for determination, not the specific decisions. You're exceedingly dense.

I nominate this for the Toby-quote of the day award, which I hereby institute.

 

[AnyOldIron]

But as an individual, you never seem to decide.

Who doesn't? Each individual places their own value on things. Accepting that value is not innate and is decided upon by the adjudicator doesn't mean that people don't place value in life.

And the commonalities of ingroup morality across civilizations, not stealing, not adulterizing etc, point to a common purpose of those various moralities.

In ancient Rome, adultery was commonplace, yet it didn't bring down the civilisation. There is no absolute as to what morality should fit all societies, as I mentioned with the Germanic tribes, it is dictated by the society.

But as society has progressed, become less dependant on brute strength and hunting ability, we came to value the wisdom of the elderly, and hence our morality has changed slightly, but it has STILL remained focus on survivability. And as we have had more abundance, we have allowed more to survive. The past was difficult, for sure.

You are agreeing with me without knowing it. You are stating here that, as societies differ from one to another the relevant morality differs, and thus morality isn't absolute.

I'm not sure you could pin it all on survivability. Homosexuality hinders production of future generations and could be said to interfere with survivability. (I don't believe it does). Yet it was considered morally right in the civilisations of ancient Greece, check out the 'Beloved' brigades of Thebes, for example.

 

[Litmus]

To the contrary, he has very clearly "decided." What he has not done is to cease re-examining his position. You seem to want absolutes. We can hope that you grow out of this childish habit someday.

Has he? what is his position on valuing life, or survival?

Have you ever even taken a single class in anthropology? It would seem not. You keep spouting ancient dicta that have been dropped by the field decades ago. Almost as if you learned about the discipline from a high school textbook. An out of date one at that.

So you're saying codes of behavior are not based on how they effect survival of the group? They demonstrably are. What goes on amongst academic dishonest wankers is of little interest to me.

The search for cultural universals has yielded precious few results. They do exist but they're not nearly so crude as the kind of thing you're suggesting. "Adultery" for example has many different meanings. It isn't a cultural universal by any measure. And that whole "wisdom of the elderly" thing went out in Margaret Mead's day.

I disagree. Pro survival behavioral codes are not crude or irrelevant. And adultery doesn't have nearly as many meanings as you wish.

 

[AnyOldIron]

In each context you have that same right. That you attempt to say that because it isn't enumerated in the contract it doesn't exist is ridiculous.

Far less ridiculous than the notion that a right simply means 'to act'. You can still have the ability to act without having the right. It is a false association to state that they are the same.

Lets go back to my contract to pave your driveway. The contract states that I have a duty to pave, you have a right to expect it paved. Now, I am free to build a wall across your driveway out of the slabs, but I have no right to do so, because my corresponding duty is to pave it, not build a wall.

To say I have a right to do as I like, and build a wall, and you have the right to take vengence upon me simply means that the term 'rights' is meaningless. I am able to build the wall, and you are able to take revenge, but we don't have those rights. You have the right to have a driveway paved and a duty to pay for it, I have the duty to pave your driveway and a right to expect payment.

To act doesn't mean you have the right.

 

[Damocles]

In each context you have that same right. That you attempt to say that because it isn't enumerated in the contract it doesn't exist is ridiculous.

Far less ridiculous than the notion that a right simply means 'to act'. You can still have the ability to act without having the right. It is a false association to state that they are the same.

Lets go back to my contract to pave your driveway. The contract states that I have a duty to pave, you have a right to expect it paved. Now, I am free to build a wall across your driveway out of the slabs, but I have no right to do so, because my corresponding duty is to pave it, not build a wall.

To say I have a right to do as I like, and build a wall, and you have the right to take vengence upon me simply means that the term 'rights' is meaningless. I am able to build the wall, and you are able to take revenge, but we don't have those rights. You have the right to have a driveway paved and a duty to pay for it, I have the duty to pave your driveway and a right to expect payment.

To act doesn't mean you have the right.

No, society has chosen to curtail those rights. It isn't that we don't have them, it is that they have chosen to assert their rights over ours in that context.

You can choose to exercise a curtailed right and thus meet the consequences of society or you can choose to use the path contractually assigned. Either way you are exercising the same right to enforce payment as society dictates that their right to refuse to pay shall be curtailed.

Giving special status to a right because it is enumerated is once again simply propaganda programming. It makes those involved in the contract proud of that contract, but it doesn't take away any particular right, it just assigns consequences for not taking the chosen path assigned in the contract.

 

[AnyOldIron]

Damo, we aren't going anywhere until we address this notion that simply being able to do something equates to doing that being a right.

A lion pounces on a gazelle. It acts. Does this mean the lion has the right to pounce on the gazelle, or does it just act?

As I sit here at my desk with my legs crossed, am I exercising my right to cross my legs or am I just doing it?

If you state that every act you make is a right, the notion of rights loses all meaning.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, we aren't going anywhere until we address this notion that simply being able to do something equates to doing that being a right.

A lion pounces on a gazelle. It acts. Does this mean the lion has the right to pounce on the gazelle, or does it just act?

As I sit here at my desk with my legs crossed, am I exercising my right to cross my legs or am I just doing it?

If you state that every act you make is a right, the notion of rights loses all meaning.

It is your concept of natural rights that I am using here, AOI or do you deny promoting such a concept?

Assigned rights are just a contractual agreement where some natural rights are agreed to be curtailed, others are enumerated for protection. Giving them extra-special status because of that is once again propaganda. Society being the stronger of the two, between individual and society, can exercise their rights from a position of strength. We seek to live in a place that least curtails personal rights through exercise of the strength of society, and enforces other persoanl rights, all of which are extensions of those natural rights.

In your argument in other threads, you even use that word to explain natural rights. All rights are extensions of those rights, and a judgement on when one's natural rights curtail another's. Such as in murder, or theft.

I'm amazed at the turn-around in your predicated natural rights to the point where you even refuse to recognize that they exist.

 

[AnyOldIron]

It is ironic that the notion of natural rights was a humanly created construct designed soley to curb the power of autocratic monarchs.

 

[Damocles]

It is ironic that the notion of natural rights was a humanly created construct designed soley to curb the power of autocratic monarchs.

The whole idea of "rights" are simply an ethics judgement based on where overlapping rights create a problem of "right or wrong". To present your ideation as to be "better" than another we allocated a stronger term, then presented it in propaganda. People took pride in the allocated rights.

"We are Free", etc.

There is nothing inherently wrong in doing so either. IMO, there is really nothing wrong with such a pride. It doesn't change that all "rights" are simply enumerated sections of a contract given special stressed importance due to that propaganda.

"We are better because we allow free press and people to keep guns in case they need to overthrow the government. We are more free!"

 

[AnyOldIron]

It is your concept of natural rights that I am using here,

I don't subscribe to natural rights. The notion of natural rights was a tool created to batter autocratic monarchs into submitting soveriegnty to the people. I haven't turned anything round. I have maintained the contractual position that rights and duties are agreed by society, not that they are innate through some mystical force.

If anything holds a transcendental position, it is the notion of natural rights, that we are all endowed with innate rights. On what basis are these rights granted? Innate human value? Granted by some great law-giver?

The truth is, rights don't exist unless they are created by humans, much as the notion of natural rights was.

You could simply call another phenomenon 'rights', a la describing 'to act' as 'has the right' but that just makes the term meaningless.

Jeremy Bentham decribed the notion of natural rights best... "Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense -- nonsense upon stilts."

 

[AnyOldIron]

To present your ideation as to be "better" than another we allocated a stronger term, then presented it in propaganda.

It is valid to present something as better, or more realistic, if you present reasoning as to why you claim so.

I have no problem that the concept of natural rights was created as a rhetorical tool, because under an autocratic regime, no contract and no rights or duties are allowed.

But to claim it as reality, rather than a rhetorical tool for calling to action doesn't fit, because it forces us to make too many assumptions, for example that all human life has innate value, when in reality innate value doesn't exist....

 

[Damocles]

It is your concept of natural rights that I am using here,

I don't subscribe to natural rights. The notion of natural rights was a tool created to batter autocratic monarchs into submitting soveriegnty to the people. I haven't turned anything round. I have maintained the contractual position that rights and duties are agreed by society, not that they are innate through some mystical force.

If anything holds a transcendental position, it is the notion of natural rights, that we are all endowed with innate rights. On what basis are these rights granted? Innate human value? Granted by some great law-giver?

The truth is, rights don't exist unless they are created by humans, much as the notion of natural rights was.

You could simply call another phenomenon 'rights', a la describing 'to act' as 'has the right' but that just makes the term meaningless.

Jeremy Bentham decribed the notion of natural rights best... "Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense -- nonsense upon stilts."

No, the attempt to extend them beyond their boundaries is what you disagree with.

You have stated on many threads before that natural rights do exist and have even defined them. That you do not suddenly "subscribe" to them is simply a dodge. They do not have any need for your subscription.

And you once again have assigned a different definition than I have given rights throughout the thread. This attempt to redefine it and then say that is what I have presented is a logical fallacy. You build a strawman.

Rights do exist previous to that, we just chose to enumerate some of them, the others to assert society's rights above the individuals, and others to assume based on no mention of the contractual importance of them, and still others to give a different path toward the same result (courts instead of duels, interestingly it used to be perfectly within your rights to have a duel so long as it was fairly fought, we progressed to a different understanding, duels are now relegated to words in a courtroom otherwise society can assert their right over yours.)

Creating a new term for an "agreement" is exactly equal to what you proscribe to me within this thread. Instead I took the concept of "natural rights" as you described them and placed them over society to see if it fit. I extended some rights of society, some of the individual, watched as it progressed over time and saw that it fit history and reality far better than the idea of this speciality of rights that cannot exist until the government blesses them.

 

[AnyOldIron]

That you do not suddenly "subscribe" to them is simply a dodge. They do not have any need for your subscription.

Never claimed they did need my subscription. We are having a debate???

And you once again have assigned a different definition than I have given rights throughout the thread. This attempt to redefine it and then say that is what I have presented is a logical fallacy. You build a strawman.

You defined rights as the freedom to act????? Where's the strawman?

You talk of a 'right to duel', yet all that means is that they had the ability to duel. I have the ability to duel now, according to this, that means I have the right to.

This is the whole point. Simply having an ability to do something doesn't mean you have the right to do something. If it did, the term right is empty, it is just another word for being able to act.

If natural rights exist, where do they originate from? Innate human value? Or simply the ability to be able to act?

 

[Damocles]

That you do not suddenly "subscribe" to them is simply a dodge. They do not have any need for your subscription.

Never claimed they did need my subscription. We are having a debate???

And you once again have assigned a different definition than I have given rights throughout the thread. This attempt to redefine it and then say that is what I have presented is a logical fallacy. You build a strawman.

You defined rights as the freedom to act????? Where's the strawman?

You talk of a 'right to duel', yet all that means is that they had the ability to duel. I have the ability to duel now, according to this, that means I have the right to.

This is the whole point. Simply having an ability to do something doesn't mean you have the right to do something. If it did, the term right is empty, it is just another word for being able to act.

If natural rights exist, where do they originate from? Innate human value? Or simply the ability to be able to act?

The strawman, is the idea of "natural rights being those enumerated".

The concept that I present in this thread is different than the concept you describe in your rant against "natural rights".

I have specifically kept my definition of "rights" within your description of what "natural rights" would be. The ability to assert yourself onto others...

You are rejecting another's position, but attempting to assign it to me.

 

[Litmus]

But as an individual, you never seem to decide.

Who doesn't? Each individual places their own value on things. Accepting that value is not innate and is decided upon by the adjudicator doesn't mean that people don't place value in life.

You don't decide. You say individuals place their own value on things. But i still don't know if you personally value life. You're an individual, not a disembodied group consensus machine.

And the commonalities of ingroup morality across civilizations, not stealing, not adulterizing etc, point to a common purpose of those various moralities.

In ancient Rome, adultery was commonplace, yet it didn't bring down the civilisation. There is no absolute as to what morality should fit all societies, as I mentioned with the Germanic tribes, it is dictated by the society.

A society can tolerate a certain amount of individual violation of the established mores. rome eventuall did fall. through sinking into tyranny and allowing too many immigrants.

But as society has progressed, become less dependant on brute strength and hunting ability, we came to value the wisdom of the elderly, and hence our morality has changed slightly, but it has STILL remained focus on survivability. And as we have had more abundance, we have allowed more to survive. The past was difficult, for sure.

You are agreeing with me without knowing it. You are stating here that, as societies differ from one to another the relevant morality differs, and thus morality isn't absolute.

If you'd read and think, you'd see that Im stating that conditions which lead to survivability change. With more success, and more food, there was more to go around, thus they stopped judging individuals so harshly. Morality being survival enhancing traits didn't change.

I'm not sure you could pin it all on survivability. Homosexuality hinders production of future generations and could be said to interfere with survivability. (I don't believe it does). Yet it was considered morally right in the civilisations of ancient Greece, check out the 'Beloved' brigades of Thebes, for example.

They believed homosexuality enhanced army solidarity and commitment to the battle. It was a survivalistic thing.