In a prior post, I used the moving of Sheik Khalid Mohammed’s trial from downtown NYC to illustrate some culturist principles. That rights come from cultures that can afford them and believe in them was my main point. Mohammed’s right to have a trial will disrupt the lives of whomever it comes near and will cost lots of money. Like rights, as many know and only some suspect, money is not metaphysical. We cannot just print more and have it hold value. The 200 million a year we spend assuring Mohammed gets his rights must come at the expense of services many American’s also assume they have a right to.
In comments, some serious objections to this foundational culturist philosophical tenet were raised. One set of comments claimed, “Rights that are the result of cost/risk-benefit are not rights at all. They are mere luxuries.
We have our rights, which do exist a priori even to many Atheists, because we fought for them.” Another commentator found our rights existed in our “potential to rise up and throw off our oppressors.” While insisting that we had a choice as to how many rights to give Mohammed, both correspondents worried that a lack of grounding in “potential” or “God” laid us dangerously close to moral relativism and a Nietzschean will to power model.
Haiti’s recent disastrous earthquake shows that rights do not exist independently of man’s belief and ability to afford them. As of the morning of January 31st, 2010 America has suspended evacuating critically injured Haitians to the US for care. Our issue? Cost. Florida’s health care system was reported to be, “quickly reaching saturation” and was “already under strain because of the winter influx of elderly people.” Even if those Haitians doomed to die think that God has given them the right to live, they will find out that that right has very little importance here on the earth.(1)
Secondly, the title of the article that announces our suspending the airlifts reads, “Haiti patients ‘will die’ because of US airlift halt.” Proximity is a factor, but I do not believe it is the reason the whole of the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the US. China and Saudi Arabia simply do not care about people outside of their realm. They believe in their people’s rights, not human rights. Yet, ironically, we get the blame for not helping!! Again, rights, - and in this case the most basic right there is, the right to have your life saved - only come from nations that believe in them. Rights do not come universal precepts.
To protect rights we must make sure the West is solvent. If we can afford to save Haitians and give terrorist rights, that is groovy. But, ultimately, our duty is to keep our nation alive so that our vision of rights can survive. Outside of the West, there is no sustained, solvent tradition of rights. If the West falls, the right to be rescued, let alone vote, will die. Ask yourself which nation will bring them to us? In a meaningless and abstract way the “right” to a full trial and be airlifted to a hospital may continue. But, I do not see Saudi Arabia granting you either. Rights only come from nations, like ours, that believe in them. If we do not appreciate right’s geo-political basis we will likely fail to adequately appreciate the need to protect our interests.
Does that throw us open to cultural relativism? NO! Just as China and Saudi Arabia believe in and protect their way of life and beliefs for their people, we must do the same for our people. Our values meant that we cannot just start to silence or kill people here or abroad without qualms. We have a very firm domestic tradition of rights, democracy, and freedom of speech that would make such abuses appear starkly wrong to us. Socrates and Jefferson would call us traitors to our ancestors if we were needlessly violent or dismissive of rights. Christ would haunt us if we did not respect the individual. But, we must be clear that other nations celebrate conquest, submission, and enslavement. Rather than cultural relativists, recognizing that rights are only western and dependent on our solvency makes us more appreciative of their fragility and the need to realistically protect them.
(1) BBC News, Haiti patients ‘will die’ because of US airlift halt, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8489392.stm, January 31, 2010
25 comments:
3:48 and philosophizing!! I must be mad : )
Culturist John: "Haiti’s recent disastrous earthquake shows that rights do not exist independently of man’s belief and ability to afford them."
Suppose a great mass extinction event destroyed all human life on earth save a small handful of scattered Inuit tribes living in the far North. And suppose all man-made items, save a single copy of the US constitution buried in a time capsule, were likewise destroyed. And that a thousand or a million years had passed and the decendents of these Inuit tribes did not recall anything at all called America.
Would it really be inconceivable that the document describing the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness might not, at least in theory, be unearthed and restored to the hearts of man? And if you grant that it is indeed possible, would it not be safe to say that, at least for a time, they did indeed exist completely independent of both man's belief and his abiltiy to pay for them?
Cutlurist John wrote: Haiti’s recent disastrous earthquake shows that rights do not exist independently of man’s belief and ability to afford them. As of the morning of January 31st, 2010 America has suspended evacuating critically injured Haitians to the US for care. Our issue? Cost. Florida’s health care system was reported to be, “quickly reaching saturation” and was “already under strain because of the winter influx of elderly people.”
I say: We do not have the right to healthcare. That is not one of the rights afforded to us by God, or by the Constitution or the Founding Fathers.
You said: the most basic right there is, the right to have your life saved
I say: Once again, not a right articulated in the Bible, the Constitutions, or by our founding fathers.
You know this, and yet your persist in the arguement.
To even suggest that one has such a right puts you in league with Obamacare and all its advocates.
You have a Right to Life, not a Right to have that life saved by someone else. If you want your life saved you have the Right to try to save it on your own.
Rights are individual. you have a Right to life, as do we all. But it is up to you, ultimately, to see the Right protected. Whether that's done by the ballotbox or the bullet is up to the individuals.
One of the things that pisses me off the most about our society as it is currently constituted is when, for instance
a group of mountain climbers try to climb Mt. Hood, and something goes wrong, and hundreds of people and helicopters and paramedic crews are called out to track the people down and find them,
hundred of thousands of dollars wasted on a few nitwits who like to think of themselves as manly men,
AT OUR FUCKING EXPENSE.
Do they have a right to have their lives saves?
Hell no.
Exactly.
Anonymous, is it possible? Yes. I cannot rule out that even millions of monkeys typing on a keyboard would not produce Hamlet. It is probably even more likely than that.
But, I very much doubt that the same level of genius men would assemble and make a similar document. It is not a miracle, but a matter of amazing social science and historical knowledge that our constitution has worked as long as it has.
Bits have been copied into the Constitutions of other nations' Constitutions without the same results. And, that is with the US facing down evil and backing good nations with an incredible disparity of power. Do I believe that there is a trend built into nature or by God or in human nature or in the economy that inevitably leads to a US style respect for rights? No.
A question I have is if our two hundred years of Constitution and 400 years of America will last as long as Islam or China already have. I am very worries that Islam may prove more stable. We seem to me to be on the ropes.
And if we do not prevail in the near future. Which nation will support rights in this world? Perhaps after 1000 years after the apocalypse another group of geniuses would write a similar document and have the social structure and power to implement it. But that is remote and I'd rather bank on sustaining what we have now!!!!
Pastorius and MR,
Even the negative right of being left alone, the slimmest of rights you can argue for, does not come from God or the nature of the universe. It came as the result of a social compact backed by a common understanding of self-responsibility, economic possibilities to self-support and arms.
There are no guarantees outside of this cultural understanding and the ability to maintain it to any rights. I don't know what rights you see in the Bible. But the Bible didn't make them happen alone.
And, from your Biblical perspective, don't you think the Bible would be a universal basis? Wouldn't it give you a right to go unmolested anywhere on earth? Wouldn't that universal vision be an open borders vision?
Sovereignty now, sovereignty yesterday, and sovereignty forever!! : )
Culturalist John: "I am very worried that Islam may prove more stable."
Not if enough Americans begin to recognize the astounding genius that lies semi-concealed in plain sight within the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence.
But most people have yet to think about it in a way that permits that kind of understanding. They simply don't ask the right sort of questions, such as:
Q: Is it just a sweeping statement of universal human rights or might it be something far more?
Q: Could it's creation have been guided by something bigger and older than its authors? (I'm not talking about metaphysics here)
Q: Should it's wrapper go in the garbage or the attic (think styrofoam peanuts and anal store return policies)
Q: Where is it located within its wrapper?
Q: Could it be improved by a million monkeys smashing away at it with Elven hammers or would intense heat and skill also be required?
Q: Why is it more like Windows than Linux, and why should that relieve some of your worrie(sic)?
Q: If you are an atheist, and you live in 1776, and your software compiler sux like an abacus, and you totally get that orbital velocity is still a long way off - but you still require it to upload your source code (because that might impress your First girlfriend, that cutie Principle down at your high school, Harrel Darb); what on earth are you going to do? I mean what are you going to do.
Culturist John,
You are not dealing with my rebuttals, so I am no longer going to deal with yours.
Pastorius, My apologies if I am no understanding your objections. I quoted you heavily in the article. In fact, this long labor of love was largely an attempt to respond to what I took to be your objections.
Please clarify.
PS The dagger fatally wounded the green weenies again! YES!!
CJ
CJ,
Yes, the Lakers/Boston game yesterday was great. Loved it.
I don't think the Lakers played a full 48, but in the end, they won.
It must be intimidating for Boston, because the Lakers basically played cat and mouse with them.
The issue you did not address is the issue of a priori rights. You addressed the issue with a non-issue. You wrote about the right to have one's life saved.
That is not among the a priori rights cited by Objectivists, the Judeo-Christian paradigm, or the Constitution.
Try to explain to me a world where one does not have the right to speech, freedom of conscience, to his property, etc.
To deny people these rights is WRONG. Indeed, it is evil.
And, that is the reason we have this website; because it is so clear that Islam is evil.
Your points in this argument, thus far, have all been of a Cultural Relativist nature. And, in so far as they are that, they are not Culturist.
Sure, you wrote the book.
But, my point is that the Founding Fathers injected the meme, basing it upon the Judeo-Christian paradigm. Therefore, it exists. It is our culture.
So, if you are going to address my points, address the point that it is our culture. That is my point.
To clarify further, it is, in my opinion, absolutely wrong of you to make a Cultural Relativist argument about our Culture, because
WE ARE NOT CULTURAL RELATIVIST BY NATURE.
Our Constitution is an absolute. It is not relativist.
Interpretation and arguments over precedent do not make an idea relativist. Interpretation has to do with the twin facts of 1) human fallibility, and 2) the notion that an absolute moral idea needs to be thought though as to how it applies in any given circumstance.
That is not relativism. It is wisdom.
Past,
It is easy to describe a world with free speech, freedom of conscience or propery. That describes most of world history and the globe today.
What do you mean to indicate when you say they are a priori? They exist before experience?
As for the founding fathers putting it into our culture, I don't see where we disagree. These are our values and I don't see that as culturally relativist. We have solid values.
John
Yes, I do mean to say they exist before experience. They are products of rationality. They are part of the framework of the human mind, as it is currently constituted.
Evidence? Societies which are based upon these rights WORK. Societies which are not based on these rights DO NOW WORK.
You said we afford them. We don't afford them, they exist. We all know it is wrong to take away a persons freedom of conscience.
Everyone except people like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, oh yes, and Muslims.
Past,
It is easy to describe a world with free speech, freedom of conscience or propery. That describes most of world history and the globe today.
What do you mean to indicate when you say they are a priori? They exist before experience?
As for the founding fathers putting it into our culture, I don't see where we disagree. These are our values and I don't see that as culturally relativist. We have solid values.
John
I don't understand why you repeated you comment.
I also don't understand why you repeated it with the obvious mistake in the first sentence.
I'm guessing you meant to write:
"It is easy to describe a world withOUT free speech, freedom of conscience or propery. That describes most of world history and the globe today."
If your repeating the comment means that you think that first sentence disproves my assertion that these rights exist a priori, I would argue that it does not, not at all.
Steal from a thief, and you'll see that a thief knows what's right and wrong.
Rape a rapists mother, and you'll see.
Try to kill Michel Foucault's children, and you'll see.
Just because they deny the existence of absolute truth does not mean they don't believe in it.
Their language is pomp and circumstance for their own egos.
P,
The imagined world comment was meant to address concerns of the other poster. And yes the word "not" was supposed to be included. I am writing on a phone n it is difficult. I will write a proper reply when I get home tonight.
CJ
Cool.
Okay Pastorius,
I must sound pretty obnoxious to you by now. I keep repeating myself. And I am sorry to write when I am tired and grumpy.
Let's just boil it down to this. I keep presenting lots of cultural evidence (Islam and the lack of assimilation) that our values are not universally true or obviously agreed upon.
You keep asserting that our values are universally true, if not agreed upon. You gave two pieces of evidence.
You gave one piece of evidence of the hypothetical in which stealing from a thief and him thinking it is wrong. That doesn't convince me that folks don't think killing and pillaging in the name of Jihad isn't held by many.
But, you think they know it is wrong. Okay.
You also said, societies with our values "work." I dispute that as a conclusion. I see us as vulnerable and not competing all so well. Perhaps you are right and we'll out compete their dysfunctional butts. Perhaps I am right and we may be in big trouble.
So what are the practical implications? I understand that you do not think it worth fighting for a value system that is not totally right beyond dispute. That makes sense. If that motivates you that is good.
I find our values only being our own more motivating.
In your point of view that makes me a cultural relativist and saps motivation to fight.
In my opinion your point of view is the sort that sends us to bad wars and makes us complacent.
Here I think you are the majority point of view. Most Americans assume that all agree upon and want our values and so all will assimilate. I think mine is the minority point of view. But I think more and more are thinking assimilation isn't happening and the enemy is beyond reason.
Whose point of view do you think is more prevalent in society?
I understand that you and I disagree. That is fine. I think cultural diversity is real; you say conflict is only between people who realize the truth and folks who have not yet figured out that our truth is the truth.
You have faith in conversion and that we will someday all agree on fundamental core values. I do not have faith in conversion and don't expect agreement any time soon.
In terms of policy this would mean you are more into reasoning with them and nation building. I am more into killing, preventive strikes, and borders.
Okay. In future, lets keep looking for policy differences now that we have established where we disagree.
Go Lakers, John
That is if I did not again avoid your argument or totally mischaracterize you.
John
CJ,
You said: I understand that you do not think it worth fighting for a value system that is not totally right beyond dispute.
I say: No, I don't think the only things worth fighting for are those things which are indisputably right. I think our cultural ideas are largely right. Not everything about our culture is right. But, that which is wrong with our culture is part and parcel of that which is right. I have a saying: Decadence is the exhaust of Freedom. I love our decadence, because we have the freedom to produce it. So, I will fight for our decadence as much as I will fight for our Freedom and our rights which I do believe come from God. I will also fight for our system, even though that system means that a man like Barack Obama is our Commander in Chief. None of this is perfect or indisputably right. The foundational ideas are mostly right. I know that I sound naiive to someone like you, when I make such a statement. Remember, though, that I spent many years studying Nietzche, Jung, Philosophy in general, Jean Baudrillard, Derrida, etc. I am aware of the framework of ideas those minds came up with. I believe I understand their arguments, and I even respect them to a large degree. I do not, however, agree with them, and I do not respect the results produced when their memes are inject into a culture.
The reason we have a guy like Barack Obama as President is because so many of our citizens have been educated in the Derrida/Foucault/Zinn/Chomsky paradigm. It's not because we have been adhering to our Judeo-Christian foundation. You say it is because of people like me that our culture has become weak. I say it is because of the Derrida/Foucault/Zinn/Chomsky paradigm.
CJ,
You said: You have faith in conversion and that we will someday all agree on fundamental core values.
I say: No, I think we will continue having to fight evil, as we have since this nation began,
Barbary Coast Islamic Pirates,
the French,
the American South
WWI,
WWII
the USSR
Islamic Jihadists
It never ends.
CJ,
You said: In terms of policy this would mean you are more into reasoning with them and nation building. I am more into killing, preventive strikes, and borders.
I say: No, and you and I have been around this bush before.
What you write about my views makes me sound naiive. Here is my real solution;
we destroy our enemy utterly on the battlefield
we then hit him very hard with a coup de grace blow (a la Dresden, Hiroshima/Nagasake, or Atlanta)
when he finally gives up in shame, fear, and humiliation, we set about being just as brutal to his ideology as we were brutal to his "armies" on the battlefield
we outlaw his religio-political ideas, just as we did in Germany, Japan, and the American South. (And remember, in all three cases, the political ideas were propped up by the religious infrastructure, so those were holy wars, just as sure as this one is).
We write their new constitutions, making sure that none of their old ideas are allowed to be instituted.
We stay on and kill or imprison all who fight against the new government.
We leave victorious ...
We have not used our own blueprint for victory. Until we have actually effected the policies which led to our resounding victories in Germany, Japan, and the American South, I will not believe that it can not work with Islam.
CJ,
By the way, if you find my arguments tedious and rude, I won't argue with you anymore.
Post a Comment