The rights of man

[Judean Zealot]

The entire West (virtually the entire world, as a matter of fact) is sold on an account of government and jurisprudence based on the idea that man has certain 'natural and inalienable rights', and that among them are 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'. I would like to start a discussion on those. I challenge this account, and maintain that rights do not exist in any meaningful sense. I'll start with that. Anybody here cares to defend this account?

---------

I'll say in advance that I'm a humanist and have an alternative paradigm based on stoicism to replace this harmful doctrine of human rights.

[Chapperz16]

If one was to discredit the principles of objectionable rights then how would society rule itself? Rights in of itself give credibility to the importance of the individual and therefore are meaningful as they demonstrate that humans have intrinsic value.

[Judean Zealot]

If one was to discredit the principles of objectionable rights then how would society rule itself? Rights in of itself give credibility to the importance of the individual and therefore are meaningful as they demonstrate that humans have intrinsic value.

Society would govern itself far more effectively should they shift the attention to duties. The government has duties to the people, and the people have duties to one another, and through that, to the government.

[Chapperz16]

Society would govern itself far more effectively should they shift the attention to duties. The government has duties to the people, and the people have duties to one another, and through that, to the government.

Ah but if you study moral ethics and especially Kant, you will see that there is always conflict of duties. One can argue that the duty of a government is to uphold order and security at all costs which allows a surveillance state and brutal purges to occur. On the other hand, if it is to improve the quality of life among the population then which approach is correct? Secondly people are inherently selfish and disregard the duties they should in theory have to one another.

[Judean Zealot]

Kant

Kant was one of the most unfortunate setbacks to human development. It's in Kant that we see the first signs of the modern doctrine of emotion as a moral compass. Stick with Plato and Marcus Aurelius.

you will see that there is always conflict of duties.

One can argue that the duty of a government is to uphold order and security at all costs which allows a surveillance state and brutal purges to occur. On the other hand, if it is to improve the quality of life among the population then which approach is correct?

All particular duties are subsumed into one overarching duty: that of justice. I don't mean that in the punishing sense. I mean it in the sense of giving to each object or idea what befits it - to the good, good, and to the bad, bad.

In any event, that duty is grounded in the Deity, Nature, Reason, or whatever you wish to call that which animates all existence, and can never be truly in conflict, considering as it is all one. Our duties are based on that which serves the greatest utility qua Natural Law (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law), and we must weigh utility vs utility.

In governing, I would insist that any religion be ideologically compatible with a modified version of Robespierre's Cult of the Supreme Being, (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being) as those beliefs are the bedrock of virtue.

Duties are not contradictory, on the contrary, rights are. The entire notion that agents have intrinsic rights that they are entitled in pursuing, even through competing with others, is one of contradiction, of disharmony. What I promote is the narrative is that all of the universe is unified by the Deity, and the place of each organism is to give, not to receive. To be sure, agents receive through the duties of others, but that is not the goal, it is but a side effect. The goal is to achieve virtue through giving and justice.

Secondly people are inherently selfish and disregard the duties they should in theory have to one another.

I mentioned Robespierre above, and I'll invoke him again. The government has the duty to safeguard the public virtue, as well as to be responsive to the qualified members of the public. For those who virtue does not compel, force must.

[Chapperz16]

My question is who decides what is virtue? It seems that virtue is imposed onto people and that it is subjective between varying societies and cultures thus it is a subjective term. Rights on the other hand can in theory be universal at least among a collective conscience.

[Judean Zealot]

My question is who decides what is virtue?

Reason and Natural law, as understood by the majority of the electorate (or their elected representatives). The electorate must only comprise of those who show irreproachable devotion to knowledge and duty.

It seems that virtue is imposed onto people and that it is subjective between varying societies and cultures thus it is a subjective term.

Only as a result of lack of training.

Rights on the other hand can in theory be universal at least among a collective conscience.

Universal perhaps, but (1) untrue, and (2) conducive to egocentrism and conflict.

[Chapperz16]

Reason and Natural law, as understood by the majority of the electorate (or their elected representatives). The electorate must only comprise of those who show irreproachable devotion to knowledge and duty.



Only as a result of lack of training.



Universal perhaps, but (1) untrue, and (2) conducive to egocentrism and conflict.

1. No-one devotes their life to the understanding of knowledge and duty and even those that do are often not going to ever be in a place of political power.
2. With the secular and religious approaches to everything in life, are you suggesting that what the world needs is a new 'correct' ideology?
3. Rights can cause issues true but it is the best we have.

[Judean Zealot]

1. No-one devotes their life to the understanding of knowledge and duty and even those that do are often not going to ever be in a place of political power.

I do.

Regardless, I'm talking about the ideal, against which we ought to measure all other models. You're right, with the electorate comprised of blathering fools this is impossible to attain, nonetheless such a person will see it as their duty to improve civic affairs to the greatest effect possible.

2. With the secular and religious approaches to everything in life, are you suggesting that what the world needs is a new 'correct' ideology?

I'm saying that we need to revert to the shared common ground that was agreed upon by almost every major thinker, from antiquity to modern times, and the cults of ignorance and superstition which reject it must be disenfranchised or, in extreme cases, be rooted out.

3. Rights can cause issues true but it is the best we have.

That is precisely what I'm disputing.

[StoppingTom]

"Take the universe, and grind it into the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy.."

Ideas like justice, duty, and virtue are as made up as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Justice today is different from the justice that King Hammurabi or Solomon decided on, and the individual rights of man protect us from the changes in our justice, and virtues, and duties. You can't train all of humanity to be unselfish, because we are slaves to our base instincts, and there are some who realize this and resist them, and others who don't. Altruism only exists because we are surrounded by selfishness, and while admirable to perform your duties for the good of others, it's purely idealistic to assume one can make the entirety of mankind think in that way.

[sqishy]

The entire West (virtually the entire world, as a matter of fact) is sold on an account of government and jurisprudence based on the idea that man has certain 'natural and inalienable rights', and that among them are 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'. I would like to start a discussion on those. I challenge this account, and maintain that rights do not exist in any meaningful sense. I'll start with that. Anybody here cares to defend this account?


Do you mean that these "inalienable rights" are in fact a societal structure, and have no absolute/fundamental existence? Just want to know what angle you're taking on this.

I don't see myself caring to defend this account you have portrayed, no. This does not mean I am against it.


I'll say in advance that I'm a humanist and have an alternative paradigm based on stoicism to replace this harmful doctrine of human rights.

Alright.

Kant was one of the most unfortunate setbacks to human development. It's in Kant that we see the first signs of the modern doctrine of emotion as a moral compass. Stick with Plato and Marcus Aurelius.


Why is Kant this, to you?

[tovaris]

Persuit of happines? What kind of recicled bovine waste is that? Thats just plane stupid.

Now about rights. We humans give echother rights ower laws, this is derived from tabis which were created to keep erly societies from colapsing. To me personaly the right to dignety is wery important, also the rigjt to live. But rights (all rights) can be striped away if the situation (criminal actions) so demand it

[Judean Zealot]

You can't train all of humanity to be unselfish, because we are slaves to our base instincts, and there are some who realize this and resist them, and others who don't. Altruism only exists because we are surrounded by selfishness, and while admirable to perform your duties for the good of others, it's purely idealistic to assume one can make the entirety of mankind think in that way.

You are absolutely correct, am I am not claiming otherwise. I am, however, saying that all those others should be disenfranchised, with the rest forming a Republic of aristocrats. I should point out that I'm not seeking perfect people, only those who have significantly improved themselves to the extent that they may admirably perform for the public good.

Do you mean that these "inalienable rights" are in fact a societal structure, and have no absolute/fundamental existence?

Yes. Morever, I am claiming that the doctrine of rights is not optimal even so far as social utility is concerned. Rights promote egocentrism, the perogative to take, and in no way encourage altruism unless for the sake of further material gain or retention. Now, I'm not arguing that people shouldn't try and make money, only that they realise that material gain is not an end in itself, but a means to something much greater, virtue. When one makes money he enables himself to support himself with dignity, to pay taxes for the common upkeep of the state, to support local communal institutions to the extent that he is able etc. That is it's true value, not the amount of porn he can buy with the money.

Why is Kant this, to you?

His divorcing of humanity and reality as is is wrong and has been the cause of a jaded cynicism against philosophy and ethics, while his own account of ethics places their truth pretty much in human hormones.

[lliam]

Those rights are like the meaning of life. And this meaning doesn't exist, unless you define your own meaning of life. Therefore, human rights are arbitrary. Just arbitary defined ideals that can be pruned or redefined at any time.

[dxcxdzv]

Robespierre... Robespierre...
Didn't we decapitate that guy?

http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/140468Jibril.jpg

I never really understood this idea of duties, in my head it sounds like "you were born to do that".
Unless you are imposing yourself these duties to your own person this idea looks pretty weird to me.
May be I'm ego-centrist as fuck but in middle school when I was told the values of the Republic that every citizens agree with I was saying "Who the fuck can say I agree with that shit unless me?"
Hm. yeah. I'm that kind of guy who spit on cops, they are awful douchebags here.

I apologize in advance but, could you precisely define this idea of virtue?

When one makes money he enables himself to support himself with dignity, to pay taxes for the common upkeep of the state, to support local communal institutions to the extent that he is able etc. That is it's true value
You think rights don't promote (or incite to) virtue, virtue that you more or less describe as making the good around you. Al I right?
So the virtue you are telling here is primordial and surpass the idea of rights itself. Am I right?

[Judean Zealot]

Robespierre... Robespierre...
Didn't we decapitate that guy?

Yeah, one of the worst moves France made. Pretty much sealed the fate of the revolution.

I never really understood this idea of duties, in my head it sounds like "you were born to do that".
Unless you are imposing yourself these duties to your own person this idea looks pretty weird to me.
May be I'm ego-centrist as fuck but in middle school when I was told the values of the Republic that every citizens agree with I was saying "Who the fuck can say I agree with that shit unless me?"
Hm. yeah. I'm that kind of guy who spit on cops, they are awful douchebags here.

The idea is more so one of 'we have an obligation to work for society as a whole'. Take for example someone who does no work and takes welfare from the State. He isn't violating anybody's rights, yet he is still indirectly hurting society (a violation of his duties). As a matter of fact, if we view things through the lens of rights, our lazy fellow here can say that he in fact has the right to attempt to take advantage of the law and live off public funds. Another example would be the duties owed by a child to their parents: the parents have no right to be supported by the child in their old age, nonetheless the child has a duty to do so.

I apologize in advance but, could you precisely define this idea of virtue?

A devotion to the public welfare.

That is what I call 'civic virtue'. Personal virtue is another matter entirely, and enters the realm of government only insofar as it affects the general public.

You think rights don't promote (or incite to) virtue, virtue that you more or less describe as making the good around you. Al I right?
So the virtue you are telling here is primordial and surpass the idea of rights itself. Am I right?

Yes to all of the above.

[dxcxdzv]

Yeah, one of the worst moves France made. Pretty much sealed the fate of the revolution.
Worse than the Maginot Line? :p

The idea is more so one of 'we have an obligation to work for society as a whole'. Take for example someone who does no work and takes welfare from the State. He isn't violating anybody's rights, yet he is still indirectly hurting society (a violation of his duties). As a matter of fact, if we view things through the lens of rights, our lazy fellow here can say that he in fact has the right to attempt to take advantage of the law and live off public funds. Another example would be the duties owed by a child to their parents: the parents have no right to be supported by the child in their old age, nonetheless the child has a duty to do so.

People will always have to work. At least if they want to deal with scarcity, I don't see how rights&duties matter this far unless you are strictly talking here about people "without ambition" or some shit.
And, I mean, of course somebody can say that he has the right to do nothing. And others have the right to let him down.
Support your parents in their old age wouldn't just be something morally obvious? You can say that it is not so obvious for certain people but hey, I didn't say that duties aren't needed.

A devotion to the public welfare.

That is what I call 'civic virtue'. Personal virtue is another matter entirely, and enters the realm of government only insofar as it affects the general public.
Therefore don't you think that it is not morally "bad" to force (or "obligate") people to do things for the greater good?
There's nothing humanly sane in forcing people to adopt a certain way of life, even if this way effectively leads to "global happiness".
One can freely decide of what he will be, I assume that's what our beloved Jefferson meant in these famous words.

I guess this is all about placing the individual or the group at the center of the society.
Having rights and consciously choosing the "right" thing to do or having duties and being forced to choose the "right" thing to do.

I'm deeply humanist too and I perfectly understand what you mean - at least I assume so - bu I simply can't see a greater future without the "choice to be".

And what kind of general philosophical duties are thinking about?
Make a list! make a list! Make a list!

[Vlerchan]

Before I begin I'm not a natural rights proponent or anything close. Nonetheless this looks fun.

The entire West (virtually the entire world, as a matter of fact) is sold on an account of government and jurisprudence based on the idea that man has certain 'natural and inalienable rights', and that among them are 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'. I would like to start a discussion on those. I challenge this account, and maintain that rights do not exist in any meaningful sense.
First I begin with the definition of the individual as being man in the singular. That's inherent to both claims about rights and claims about duties. It is inherent to claims about duties because these claims would be meaningless if we could not separate the bound from what he is bounded towards.

(1) Individuals exist.

Pursuit of the public good requires an association with a public. Being individual this association is not an inherent fact. It must be formed. If there was a prior association then out individual would be but an aspect of the whole: not an individual in their own right. This would entail no duties - but functions: ordained movements.

This is emphasised in a model where there are multiple public's. Given the significant cleavages that characterise Earth's populations this is probably the case.

(2) There is no prior association with the public good.

The association must be formed through choice. Our individual must be capable of making this choice. In order to do so he must have a (i) right to life (ii) right to free speech (iii) right to free association (iv) and the likelihood is multiple other rights that didn't occur to me in the few moments I spent considering this argument. It is not possible for the individual to make this choice unless he has these rights.

(3) Prior to association the individual has rights.

These rights are essential towards expressing his affiliation with the public good. This can be illuminated with reference to a more practical example. The man that enters indentured servitude requires the continued assertion of his right to (i) right to life (ii) right to free speech (iii) right to free association: in order to remain in it. That exit costs might be prohibitive do not undermine this fact. In the same sense the rights that allowed the individual to enter his association with the public good must be maintained for the furtherance of this relationship to occur.

(4) Thus these rights are inalienable.

---

I hold a number of issues with this argument.

Spoiler: I'd counter argue it's arguably tautological - that the individual in fact holds a intimate connection to the whole that is unbreachable - that duties towards oneself are possible.

The issue with the third argument is that for this to be the case the duties would need to be eternal. The duties are not eternal as these are based in the schema of utility maximisation and there is no reason to presume that certain activities return a constant rate of utility (the law of diminishing returns precludes it in the mildest sense).

Morever, I am claiming that the doctrine of rights is not optimal even so far as social utility is concerned.
You can't argue against rights in a utilitarian framework since the consequence of rights is the expansion of the frontier of possibilities. That's not something of which utility can be measured because it's too difficult - if not impossible - to capture the scope of human innovation. This is different to duties which produce a close-to constant rate of returns.

---

I can think of one argument against this but I'm sceptical it holds too well.

---

There's also the question of whether utility is even a meaningful reference point when it comes to duties. Questions of ordinal utility require that people be free to make choices and holding to a set of enshrined duties makes this impossible. You can refer to cardinal utility but there's no means of counting it.

You can point to measurables that might be correlates with utility or disutility but calculating the net is guess-work.

---

Edit:

I also disagree with a bunch of other comments but I don't have the time at the moment to go allv1. Perhaps later.

I'd also wondered if anyone else felt that way about Kant too. Without a doubt one of the father's of the Romantic movement.

[Judean Zealot]

Vlerchan Reise

Don't worry, I'll respond to both of you sometime soon, although it most likely won't be tonight. I'm currently fried :P.

By the way, this is pretty much how I view my debates with Vlerchan :P
NQ62frK74u0

[jayce_xt]

As someone who has a decidedly "Analytic" influence in philosophical thought processes, perhaps I can change / clarify / contribute to this talk in an interesting way.

---

To the extent that "rights" exist, it's very much unclear. We tend define "rights" as some sort of entitlement to a state of being, activity, etc., depending on which school of thought we subscribe to, and many people talk about "rights" as if they were real in an almost tangible sense. But are they? As much as Giygas uses this quote to support his own beliefs, I would like to call it again here for another purpose*.

(*As an aside, I would like to mention that I find Giygas' account of human nature to be incomplete, and to not necessarily correlate with the plentiful phenomena we've observed that demonstrate otherwise. For instance, while self-interest is inherent to many of us, I would happily redirect your collective attention to instances in which humans acted in direct opposition to such "nature". In many instances, it wasn't that these humans were damaged or faulty in some mental capacity; rather, the context of their lives simply placed less emphasis on self-interested behavior than the contexts of our own lives. Instead of asserting that there's any sort of "baseline" personality trait or behavioral pattern that's inherent to all humans--that's the kind of far-reaching generalization that I doubt anyone here has the expertise to make--I would instead claim that the only real trend in human behavior is that of adaptability and variability. Ultimately, this poses a similar complication to the topic at hand, but I wanted to make clear that my agreement with and acknowledgment of such did not necessarily include my agreement with the idea of a universal "human nature.")

"Take the universe, and grind it into the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy.."

Similarly: where are "rights" in the physical makeup of our universe? I think that the only thing we can say with 100% certainty here is that, while the idea of "rights" certainly exists, actual instantiations of "rights" in of themselves haven't exactly been forthcoming with evidence to support their existence.

However, we're really getting ahead of ourselves if we start the discussion at "human rights" because we're neglecting a really important issue: why it even matters. Whether we're talking about something that "ought" or something that "is", context is incredibly important. In this instance, the context would appear to be something to the effect of, "How ought we theorize or philosophize about law?" The key to answering this question is in the word "ought". The word "ought" implies that there is an obligation to be fulfilled. Where an obligation is implied, a purpose at that obligation's root is also implied. We can rephrase that original context with more clarity, giving us something to the effect of, "What purpose do we say that theorizing or philosophizing about law serves?"

And that brings us back to that original complication: "rights" (and, similarly, morality) do not exist in a concrete enough sense for us to probe for answers, and humans (and their culture) are so varied and adaptable that trying to find the common threads won't really bring us any closer to satisfactory answers than we are right now. Arbitrarily, we can choose ANY purpose. The Bible, for instance, would argue that the purpose of jurisprudence is "satisfying God's will". A more modern (and likely agnostic) view might argue that the purpose of jurisprudence is "promoting human happiness". Some pragmatic sources might instead argue that jurisprudence's purpose is "providing order and prosperity for humanity".

Before this conversation can really begin in earnest, a consensus must be reached. What purpose do we want morality to serve? What purpose do we want society to serve? These are words that are at once vital to the discussion, yet very poorly defined by all parties participating.

[Microcosm]

So the founding fathers thought it was God that gave us these rights.

In the modern secular format, I'd say these rights are foundational not in that they have a supernatural basis but that they are simply what's best for people to be able to do. It's sort of just an agreement between the government and the citizen to grant freedoms.

[Judean Zealot]

jayce_xt

You're right: the reason we haven't laid out the terms is because we more or less have familiarised ourselves with each others' general philosophical positions from tens of prior threads. Were we to get involved in that discussion everywhere where it is relevant we would never get to anything else. Nonetheless, you're new, so here's the rundown.

I am a Platonist/Stoic and I hold that what ought to be actually exists on two levels: the ideal and the utilitarian. The ideal is grounded in Natural Law and in the underlying bond which connects all of existence - the Deity (I'm a philosophical theist), and thus comprises of all (human) agents fulfilling those natural goals of cognizance and justice, two things accessible via logic, which is a property peculiar to humanity. Then there exists the utilitarian, in which we strive towards creating a position wherein we are in position (socially, physically, and legally) to fulfill the ideal, and in which we are obligated to do the maximally efficient actions towards achieving that goal, even if it falls somewhat short of the ideal.

Vlerchan is a utilitarian in the true sense, in that he is an existential and moral nihilist, and thus what ought to be is nothing more than what makes us believe we are happiest.

If you look back you will see that both of these paradigms are under discussion. Oh, and welcome to ROTW! :)

------

For the record, I am not saying that we can't refer to rights at all. We can refer to them, but in the sense that Dworkin does - they are merely the justiciable (?) equity borne of the duties of others. I'm just saying that referring to these as 'natural and inalienable' downplays the ultimate grounding of rights in duty, which leads to problematic results, and is simply untrue, to boot.

[phuckphace]

Society would govern itself far more effectively should they shift the attention to duties. The government has duties to the people, and the people have duties to one another, and through that, to the government.

"rights"? I Kant even!

this basically sums up my own opinions although you knew that already :P

[Porpoise101]

Personally, I believe that a heavily duty based system is not the way. Look at how feudalism turned out. That was a system where kings or chiefs obligated their subjects to pay him. In return, the subjects got military protection. The issue here is that this system only works when the participants are perfect. Often times, the king was inept or shirked his duties. And sometimes the peasants were uppity. You could say the same about a rights based system. Since people are free to do whatever is deemed a human right, then it becomes difficult to build governmental structures that can be enforced. But they both have their strengths to me aside of these shortcomings. I think rights are good, but should have some limit as well. And our society already has achieved that balance. The draft, taxes, eminent domain, laws concerning slander and hate speech, etc are all obligations created by the government, but in a democratic way. So personally I think becoming more dutiful is not the way to go. Perhaps we should be more clear with ourselves as a nation that we aren't perfectly free though.

[jayce_xt]

Judean Zealot

TL;DR - If we can't agree on what it means to "act ethically / morally", in the first place, how can we possibly agree on an alternative method for judging whether or not anyone is acting in violation of ethics or morality? Since it's already known that there is disagreement, with regard to the definition of this component term, any hope of reaching agreement on something that uses it as a foundation seems doomed to failure.


Long version - While I'm not sure I would describe Vlerchan as a "utilitarian in the purest sense", per se (I've spoken with him before, and from what I remember, he's hardly what I'd describe as a moral nihilist; to be a moral nihilist means to view the very idea of morality or ethics as absurd and non-existent, a sentiment that--at least in the past--he did not share), it's good that you all understand where each other is coming from. However, I don't believe that's necessarily enough. It's not a lack of understanding of each other that I find problematic, but of the implications of your differences in viewpoints.

To bring up a comparison: in Epistemology, there is a great deal of dissent regarding the definition of justification in the account of knowledge. Classically, knowledge is, at a minimum, true justified belief. Philosophers of different schools of thought have different ideas and reasons for what would be appropriate to call justification. By extension, this means that they have different ideas and reasons for what would be appropriate to call knowledge. If the problem of simply defining knowledge is to be solved, philosophers must first be swayed into adopting one definition of justification, until all are in agreement. Otherwise, the point of them debating on what constitutes knowledge is rather moot, as they cannot even agree on that without first agreeing on the definition of one of its constituent parts.

Similarly, the point here seems to be in identifying an alternative method by which individuals can collectively judge whether or not someone is conducting themselves in a moral or ethical fashion (since the method of "inherent rights" are allegedly insufficient to this purpose, a sentiment that I don't necessarily disagree with). I say this because the "ought" in the subject of law implies some sort of universal code of conduct that others are expected to follow (and what are morals/ethics, if not some universal code of conduct that others are expected to adhere to for their own sake?). From all of this, I'm concerned that this discussion will similarly be moot because not everyone is in agreement on what acting morally or ethically means, in the first place.

And thanks for the warm reception. It's good to be back, after being so busy for so long :)

[Vlerchan]

jayce_xt Judean Zealot

To clear up the speculation.

If I remember our last discussion correct I was pursuing a super-relativist account of ethics that held a fundamental basis in nihilism and cultural-determinism. I consider nihilism to refer to an acceptance of the inherent meaningless as ethical values but not a rejection of their necessity. Nietzsche's point - as I interpreted it - was that Christian ethics were dying and it was the role of the Übermensch to construct a new set.

I'd only ever flirted with the ideals in that thread though.

I am still a nihilist in the sense that I still hold to the same Nietzschean creed. I have attempted to ground a set of ethical values in the presumptions that a belief in nihilism entails. In continuing to engage with life - Even in a will to nihilism - I am presuming some value to life. This presumption persists insofar as I continue to find meaning and purpose in life: reason to engage. Ethics therefore crop up around attempting to secure that.

This leads to a shake-y set of rights and duties I feel are required.

I then take an impure utilitarian approach to recourse distribution which desires the greatest happiness iff the least happiness person exists at > some minx. That is the level required to seek out meaning and purpose in life.

---

This is all quite under-developed but I'll put it out there insofar as it's required to drive the discussion.

---

It's worth noting further that in bringing up the measurement of utility I am addressing Judean Zealot's points at an epistemological level. Nonetheless I understand the concern. In the past we have attempted reconcile our views but have more-or-less reached an impasse. I feel we both have a good enough understanding to approach the exact differences with care which is the reason I didn't make a point of it in the first post in this thread.

I'm also making some effort to argue inside Judean Zealot's epistemological box I'll add.

Oh and welcome back :).

[Judean Zealot]

Vlerchan Reise

I ought to begin this post with the clarification that my opening assertion that 'we have no rights' is intended to be as the old Stoic maxims: primarily as shock value, a more effective means of getting people to notice an idea.

I do not deny that rights exist on a practical level; I broadly agree with the 18th century formulations of the rights of man, I would even concur (with certain caveats) to their classification of human rights as 'natural and inalienable'. What I am complaining about in this thread is that this doctrine has turned into a dogma, affirming a system of rights inherent to the atomised human condition, something both false and unhelpful.

Were rights inherent to the condition of the human individual, irrespective of the accidental surroundings in which man finds himself (by which I mean to say that man would posses those rights even in some sort of existential vacuum), then those rights would need to be inalienable as well by that force which effectuated it to begin with: Nature. This is obviously not the case; for example, the right to life. All of us do die, and thus there is nothing essential to our nature which allows for such a natural right. There is nothing in the essential human condition which is inalienable, and thus nothing that can be considered natural right [1].

What we can base a natural set of human rights in, however, is in the accidental surroundings which man finds himself in - that of social interaction and cognizance of a place in a larger whole. From that condition arises the existence of rights as we know them, a number of reciprocal duties resultant of man's inherent condition of being a social creature. So far as I'm aware, Vlerchan, this more or less works in principle with your earlier structure (flawed as it may be).

In any event, what comes out is that rights are not based in the individual, but in his place within the whole (of all of nature, not merely human company). Thus civic rights, which is the primary subject at hand, is in reality borne of the government's obligation to protect the individual, not something inherent to the individual. This is important because it allows a just government to suspend certain civic rights if it is necessary for the public utility, something which would be impossible were we to view rights as grounded in the individual.

jayce_xt It is understood that I'm operating here on a basic Natural Law corpus along the lines of Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf, and a Platonic - Ciceronian account of personal and civic virtues and duties.

--------

[1] A very important exception to this is 'the right to pursue virtue', which is absolutely inalienable so long as a man is alive. In this I'm in keeping with the stoics, who assert that virtue is the only thing which cannot be taken by any force. Thus the right to personal virtue is indeed natural and inalienable, and beyond governmental reach. Indeed, it is manifestly absurd for the government to try and enforce personal virtue, as virtue must be a choice in order to be meaningful.

Nonetheless, we must make the distinction between personal virtue, which is natural and inalienable, and thus unassailable by government, and civic virtue, which derives itself from our social condition, and is thus as transient as the duties which animates it. Thus the government might pass legislation to enforce civic virtue, and perhaps even to create an environment more conducive to the development of personal virtue, but still not fly in the face of respecting their limits qua personal virtue.