Culturist John and I once had a beer-sodden, knock-em-down, drag-em-out bar fight over this question.
I say our rights exist, because they came from God. I also accept the idea of Natural Law, which Wikipedia defines thusly,
Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.Both ideas co-exist for me. I believe God Created the Universe, so it is no surprise to me that he built a law code into nature itself. The Bible says that His Law is written in our hearts, and that unbelievers, who do according to the Law written in their hearts, show that they are a law unto themselves, and that their faith (in that Law) will be judged in the same way as Abraham's faith was, which is to say, their faith will be judged as Righteousness. (Many Christians will argue this point with me. Hey, just remember, my Philosophical fights turn into bar fights.)
Culturist John's perspective is that we get the rights we fight for, and only those rights. Now, this seems to be a truism. Obviously, here in America, for instance, we have only those rights we fought for in the Revolutionary War. Sure, they are enumerated in a Constitution, but we had to fight for the right to govern ourselves before we were able to write that Constitution.
And, the world over, people only have the rights they fought for.
But, the question is, can a government, with their inherent authority, take away your Freedom of Speech, by voting it our of law? Sure, they can do that. But, if they do, is it Right? Or, is it Wrong?
Let's further the question. Let's say the elected government votes Freedom of Speech out of Law, and then uses Martial Law to ensure that any ensuing rebellion in favor of Free Speech was quashed (think Iran of late).
If the elected government did this, they did so in all fairness. After all, it was within their authority, as elected Representatives, to Legislate and enact Law, right? And, it is the governments responsibility to ensure the peace, by putting down rebellion against law, right?
So, the elected government would have, effectively, taken away the right to Free Speech, by their elected authority, and they would have used Power to have effected this change in the Rights of the people.
All's fair, right? Is that ok with you? Is it Right, or is it Wrong?
Let's go even further. Let us say, some Left-wing dictator comes into power and wants to enact strict PC standards against Freedom of Speech. Let's say 60% of the people in the nation agree with this dictator, and willingly give up their Freedom of Speech. Let's say a rebellion ensues, and that rebellion is put down by a combination of Martial Law, and the will of the people, who agree with the dictator, that PC standards are the standards for speech, and that Freedom of Speech is no longer viable in a multicultural society.
It would seem to me that, according to Culturist John's philosophy (and, of course, I can not speak for him), this would have been an effective, and even righteous, revolution against Free Speech. After all, rights are only those things we fought for?
Those who would protest would do so with no moral authority, right?
So, the question is, do our Rights come from some source outside of ourselves, either nature, or God? Or, are our Rights merely those laws which we derive through a show of force?
37 comments:
"The map is not the territory," but, if faithfully representative of the territory, is quite useful. The concept of God given rights, which are to be secured by our efforts, will more assuredly realize itself, than belief in violent creation of rights. To fight for rights, an organizing concept of said rights must pre-exist. Elsewise, an individual stands alone against tyranny for an individual priviledge.
Bill Whittle over at PJTV explains that the Constitution is the "How" of America while the Declaration of Independence explains the "Why". 10 minute video
Pastorius,
My formula is that rights come from countries that believe in them and can afford them. If the country no longer believes in rights, and votes them away, they will not exist. That is why culture is soooooo important. In a Sharia tinged nation, the strength of belief will possibly not sustain freedom of speech.
I am a pragmatist. That means that I look towards outcome. So the important question, I would venture, is what are the results of believing rights come from a moral a priori or from the result of battles based on beliefs? Here we disagree. I think that not thinking rights a universal metaphysical a priori makes us less dedicated to protecting them. You think, if I may, that seeing them as inherent in the universe makes us more protective of them.
If in the above scenarios you want me to say if it is "right," "wrong," "good," or "Bad," well you know I like freedom of speech. So my morals will say "boo" when it is compromised. That is a cultural premise that I hope we can keep most Americans sharing. Because, as I have said, if we do not believe in rights and have the economy to sustain them, they are not worth the paper they used to be printed on.
www.culturism.us
Culturist John,
You ask: the important question, I would venture, is what are the results of believing rights come from a moral a priori or from the result of battles based on beliefs?
I say: I think Macusgermanis answered that question pretty well.
You said: If in the above scenarios you want me to say if it is "right," "wrong," "good," or "Bad," well you know I like freedom of speech. So my morals will say "boo" when it is compromised. That is a cultural premise that I hope we can keep most Americans sharing. Because, as I have said, if we do not believe in rights and have the economy to sustain them, they are not worth the paper they used to be printed on.
I say: And yet, I think you and I would both agree that the murder of Neda was Evil and Wrong.
Inherently.
Funny how that works.
Yes, as you and I are both from the West, we both think the killing of Neda was wrong. I, however, would not go with the word "inherently."
I am sure that those who had her killed thought it right. They are working on behalf of virtue as they define it as we work on behalf of virtue as we define it.
Frankly, I didn't totally understand Macusgermanis answer.
"working for virtue as they define it.."
moral relativism?
if you accept the validity of that then dont you have to accept the validity of hitler working towards "virtue" as he redefined it?
am I missing something?
seems to me that CJ's position dictates that once belief in a "viewpoint" or individual right is held to be rightous by only a minority, the majority that opose it are just as intitled to thier belief in thier own moral rightousness, and they may at will strip the minority of thier right.
im missing something but the little voice in me that quite possibly derives from a connection with G-D says if a right is derived solely from myself than it can be anything even evil things and I may call it rightous, but if it is derived from outside and from a higher power is no matter what,
and no matter how few believe it, the true position of rightousness, and the opposing is wickedness dressed up in a false cloak of rightousness.
I guess it boils down to might makes right. thierfor the strong of darfur are rightous and good in thier killing raping and murdering of the southern tribes of the sudan?
Let me put in my .02 on this. There's another way at looking at the argument.
I've posted something like this before.
Let’s talk about the basics. Let’s build an argument that pulls morals, values, good, evil, and religious beliefs out of the equation.
Let’s build an argument that affirms something and build it on science. And one of the very basic laws of science is the three laws of thermodynamics – or the laws of entropy.
Without getting technical, the three laws are:
1. You can’t win
2. You can’t break even
3. You can’t leave the game
But there is another side to the universe that works against entropy and that’s syntropy. Syntropy was a word invented by Buckminster Fuller and it is the direct opposite of entropy.
While entropy runs things down, syntropy build things up. The main driver of syntropy is life – living systems – which contests the entropy of the physical world by creating order and designs of ever more advantageous and orderly patterns for growth.
That which supports growth is syntropic. That which supports destruction is entropic. Those beliefs and actions that are advantageous to the advancement of life are syntropic. Those that are not are entropic. That which creates environments for creativity like personal freedoms is syntropic. That which stunts personal freedom is entropic. Syntropy is good for human beings. Entropy is not. What’s right for entropy is wrong for syntropy.
Everything that stunts the expression of free thought and creativity should be fought against. This includes personal freedoms, free speech, equality, and the right to practice ones beliefs as long as it does not restrict the freedoms of others.
"Everything that stunts the expression of free thought and creativity should be fought against. This includes personal freedoms, free speech, equality, and the right to practice ones beliefs as long as it does not restrict the freedoms of others."
Dead on.
Rights are inherent. Whether you want to say they exist because of God or some other force, they exist, regardless of race creed culture. Period.
Someone may try to stop you from exercising your Rights but you still have them. You may choose to exercise them anyway in which case you may be forced to not exercise them then you need to decide whether to fight to exercise those rights or not. But they still exist. No one can strip you of them, only of your ability to exercise them.
Hitler worked against the majority moral tradition of the West. The freedom of the individual and respect for even the lowest were inherent in the thought of both Socrates and Jesus. Hitler was wrong in our system of values.
But, have there been large epochs wherein to conquer your enemy and enslave them was seen as virtue? Yes! Does diversity really exist? Yes
It took a long time for us to even come up with the idea of the value of the individual and democracy. These were not obviously right to all from the beginning. These are created morals that must be fought for to be maintained.
Darfur is believed a good by many folks. The Chinese back it for their own furthering of their own good. And, the Muslims to the North think it a cause for good. Do you think they do it with a guilty conscience reluctantly? Are they only doing these great efforts out of lying to themselves?
The OIC is successfully trying to further the enforcement of blasphemy laws. There is no agreement about fundamentals. What agreements, I ask Obama, will come from discussions with Akmadinijad? There is no common ground.
Diversity is real, not just apparent.
How can there exist a 'higher law' without a 'higher power'?
Therefore if there is no higher power, the only law that exists is the ones we make.
Which eventually means 'anything goes'! That includes Hitler, Mao, Stalin and even the grand-daddy of them all Mohammed(piss be upon him).
I would bring attention to the fact that most of the people I admire historically and I suspect many others here also admire overwhelmingly believed in that higher power, but we're far more advanced now, right?
Even discounting past preconceptions of freedoms, believing our freedoms born spontaneously from conflict, why should a person having experiential knowledge of said freedoms pre-acquiesce to a new regressive force? (Ie -I could give two shits if janjaweed think themselves moral- I shall contest such belief) Is the concept of spontaneous liberty inherently fatalistic and passive?
"Is the concept of spontaneous liberty inherently fatalistic and passive?"
Not completely, but It sure the hell ain't as deep as that believed to be obtained from a greater power. Which is the situation we increasingly find ourselves in today.
Those Janjaweed jihadis are much more likely to give life and limb for their cause as is their whole society. In a perverse sort of way, it can be argued that relatively they hold the moral high ground because many in the West no longer even have a real high ground to even believe in!
Culturist John,
You said: Darfur is believed a good by many folks. The Chinese back it for their own furthering of their own good.
I say: The Chinese do not "back" Darfur. They simply choose to ignore it in order to do oil deals with Sudan.
The United States is really the only nation in the world, that I know of, who will forgo trade with nations like Iran, Sudan, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, for moral reasons.
Culturist John,
I am back to where we were before on this argument.
You say: Hitler was wrong in our system of values. But, have there been large epochs wherein to conquer your enemy and enslave them was seen as virtue? Yes!
I say: Then, if I get it in my head to kill the Jews, and I get away with it, then that's ok, right?
You have to answer "Yes", within your stated value system. You have to. You have no choice, but to say "Yes, that would be the right thing for you to do."
You believe in a Nietzschean Will to Power. Whoever has the Power, has the Gold, and he rules, that's that, fair's fair.
You are like a Absolute Pacifist. Absolute Pacifists insist that we ought not respond to violence with violence (Gandhi actually told the Jews not to respond to Hitler - this is a historical fact, in case you do not know.) Frankly, I want nothing more, sometimes, than to fucking punch a Pacifist in the face.
If you and I lived in the mean streets of the Bronx, and I punched you in the face, there'd be nothing you could do about it, because there is no real law in the Bronx. The law is an illusion in the Bronx. The Will to Power trumps all. Fair's fair. I punched you in the face. I stabbed you in the back. Too bad for you. You were not quick enough to stop me.
What could you say about it? There's nothing wrong with it, inherently.
Now that I think about it, maybe I will kill the Jews. What does everyone else say, are you with me?
The argument is as vacuous as nihilism comes, in my opinion. Am I being extreme in saying so?
Culturist John says: The OIC is successfully trying to further the enforcement of blasphemy laws. There is no agreement about fundamentals. What agreements, I ask Obama, will come from discussions with Akmadinijad? There is no common ground. Diversity is real, not just apparent.
I say: Yes, but we are right and they are wrong.
Simple as that.
If not, then let me kill you. Really. Just let me do it. I can, you know. It's the law of the jungle.
We should go back, you and I, to the time of the duels. You choose the weapon. It will be you and I, a fight to the death.
;-)
What do you say, CJ?
Culturist John said he had trouble understanding what Macusgermanis meant. So I will translate, the best I can.
Macusgermanis said: "The map is not the territory," but, if faithfully representative of the territory, is quite useful. The concept of God given rights, which are to be secured by our efforts, will more assuredly realize itself, than belief in violent creation of rights.
I say: What he is saying here is, the idea that our rights come from God makes them inherently more meaningful to us. We grasp them with more self-assuredness. We do not feel that we float in the middle of an ocean of nothingness, where the Sudanese Genocide is just as Just as our concept of Justice.
Macusgermanis said: To fight for rights, an organizing concept of said rights must pre-exist.
I say: Macusgermanis means, if we don't have an agreed upon set of rights in which we believe, we will not fight.
Macusgermans said: Elsewise, an individual stands alone against tyranny for an individual priviledge.
I say: Here, Macusgermanis is saying that without an organizing concept, it's every man for himself.
So, there are three things being said here;
1) People are more ready to fight for rights which we believe are truly Right. People are not ready to fight for a set of rights that exist as one of a bunch of different sets of rights, all of which have equal value. (This is obvious in the degenerative nature of Postmodernist Multicultural society, is it not?)
2) We must agree upon a set of rights BEFORE we fight for them. If we do not have Rights which we believe in BEFORE we fight, we will not have the true will to fight. In other words, we don't get the rights we win, or afford, we get the Rights we set our minds to, and then fight for and buy with our blood.
3) If there is no belief in a priori rights, then I may as well kill you, CJ. And, really, it was ok that Hitler killed six million Jews.
WC,
Well put. I agree with your illustration, absolutely.
"We should go back, you and I, to the time of the duels. You choose the weapon. It will be you and I, a fight to the death."
Oh oh oh!
I got a brace of .357's I can lend you. Or a brace of .45's. or a brace of 9mm's. Some dandy old Walthers, too. And you wouldn't believe the bladeware I have around here.
Can I be one of the seconds, please, can I can I can I huh huh huh?
And, about that Jeppo incident in another thread. . .
357's'll be just fine with me. After all, there's nothing wrong with it.
Forget the duel, 'll just righteously shoot you in the back.
Why not?
That's exactly what any self respecting Janjaweed would do, and righteously so in allah's eyes infidel.
WOW! Pastorius, after I went to sleep you opened up a can of tirade on my butt!! Damn.
MR, Your music rocks, swings, and shimmies. YOTC!!
I truly hope that rights are inherent and that peoples in the Islamic world fight for them with as much fury as the Jihadists fight against them. Iranians taking to the streets provides you evidence that most folks want rights. I hope you are right.
CJK, Nice point. Jihadis have impressive moral fervor (though others may not call it that). And, you all will be proud that it comes from a belief in God and that their ideals are inherently true.
FINALLY PASTORIUS,
It is interesting that we are the only nation who will forgo trade for moral reasons, and yet our values represent universals. Eh?
With all due respect, you give no credence to my argument. You ignore it and then fly the N word and joyously mock like a superman who has cornered a retarded child. Let's go back to the beginning.
Again, please acknowledge this, I base my ethics on the trajectory of Western Civilization. In my reading of the West, individual dignity and critical thought are held sacrosanct. Where do I get this? Jesus and Socarates for one. Socrates believed in questioning and Jesus thought even the lives of the meek were valuable. Would either sanction Hitler?
In addition, and some - particularly those on the Left - will dispute this, I use the standard 1950s history narrative. That is that the history of the West has been moving steadily towards a democratic / republican model as a vindication of the values of Socrates and Jesus. That is why I still call the Middle Ages, the Dark Ages. People could not read. The Renaissance was a rebirth of our roots. The Enlightenment brought the thought of rights. America implemented this sense of governance that went back to the Greeks. WIthin this trajectory, Hitler is a huge step backwards. Would you agree?
As a person that was in the Bronx a month ago, I think you should lay off of that Burrough. It has come a long ways. It is not your daddy's Bronx.
But, those in the Bronx live within a society as we live within history. That is there is an actual physical set of laws and enforcers backed up by tradition in society that says your "punching me in the face" and "stabbing me in the back" are wrong. If the world had no history, no society, and no laws, then my exacting revenge with a can of whoop ass would have no moral framework within which to judge my revenge. However . . .
BTW, I hate the word "absolute" And, it seems to me that you are the person who deals in absolutes. You have truth no matter what the circumstance, where it happens or in what epoch. Pre-vindication a priori is an absolute. My values have tradition and trajectory and stay aware of the situation. You, in fact, accuse me of being a nihilist because I do not hold to your absolute values 100%.
Sorry, but "absolutism" is a pet peave of mine.
If maccusgermanis thinks God is a necessary precursor to fighting, if I get that right, then I am somewhat for God. But then it becomes our God versus their God. And we are right and they are wrong. That is not so enlightened. I realize that Christianity helps us win Wars. And I realize that God providing the enemy more inspiration than the enlightened rationalism gives us is a problem.
In terms of every man for himself, I disagree with that. It is every civilization for itself. It is I for the Founding Fathers, the Greeks, Socrates, Jesus and the history of the West. WWJD? I do not think not relying on a transcendental right and wrong from God makes all the law of the Jungle or the Bronx.
In fact, outside of a Holy War, the idea of all coming from God and being absolute, means we don't need each other as much. It is, in some ways, outside of communion, very isolating. It is a slightly a historical vision. It has no past. It simply is. It gives me a sense of vertigo.
And for the last maccusgermanis paragraph, I think we have a sense of rights for which to fight. I think that our Supreme Court interprets them often. It is complicated determining when slander begins and if folks must salute the flag in school, etc. Again, this a historical vision of absolute, unquestioned, unwavering rights, is easy to grasp and may help us in Wars. But it isn't that subtle. Our rights are in the Constitution and law and I can fight for them without believing they are backed by an unvarying truth.
And your parting shot, "If there is no belief in a priori rights, then I may as well kill you, CJ. And, really, it was ok that Hitler killed six million Jews." Again, what would Jesus say? What would Socrates? The argument that either you believe in absolute transcendental laws from God or accept Hitler is more of a taunt than an argument.
If you would like to discuss the weakness in my historically based values, great. It may not motivate. You may actually think the history of the West does not show a pattern of vindicating contextualized individual rights. But, no, I do not believe that Hitler was right and in a dog - eat - dog world.
And, in an extension of my Bronx argument, allow me to directly take on your extreme case. If there was no History. If Hitler won. If he wiped out all trace of the past, or rewrote it so that Sparta led to the strong arm of the Catholics and to him. If he could convince us that Socrates was weak and that the Bible vindicated Death camps, and all dissent and search for historical truths were quashed, then in some sense, Hitler would be right.
But this is the same sort of decontextualized, a historical, argument that I am against. In that it is like the absolutist ignoring of circumstance and history. Hitler existed within the context of a civilization within the collective knowledge of the world. History has judged him evil. It is not hard to get that from his role in the trajectory of man.
Pastorius, please do not come back with only saying I think Hitler is right and good because I said so in the prior paragraph. Please do not say I live in a totally amoral world because I do not accept absolutist God derived rights as the basis of morality. I do not think, as you think Neitzschie did, that only violence and power make right. I have a basis for morality, it just isn't of the "it is right because God says it is right" vein.
THANKS ALL FOR THE GREAT DISCUSSION. Thanks for hosting Pastorius!!
Culturist John,
You said; I went to sleep you opened up a can of tirade on my butt!!
I say; It's not a tirade. It's a dramatic illustration.
I'm trying to drive home the point as dramatically as I can.
I do it with a smile on my face. The idea of you and I dueling is a hoot.
The idea of me leading a charge to kill all the Jews is also a hoot. It's funny, especially when you consider my history in the blogosphere, which I'm not sure you are aware of. But, I'll tell you that story offline, if you want to hear it.
Culturist John said: In my reading of the West, individual dignity and critical thought are held sacrosanct. Where do I get this? Jesus and Socarates for one. Socrates believed in questioning and Jesus thought even the lives of the meek were valuable.
I say: Jews believed this long before Jesus did. The sacrifices God wanted were to help the widow and the orphan.
I'll respond more later. Maybe at the end of the day.
wait...what?...does this mean NO duel?
:<(
CJ: I don't believe that the Janjaweed get their morality from God, just that they believe that they do, and I am not pleased or proud of their success in any manner.
The common man (who is the basic cell/unit of society) doesn't even know or come close to understanding history which would then make him amoral?
Morality has always sprung from religious belief. It is only in recent times that the West has begun to shed the religious aspect of it's morality and we can see the chilling effects. The weakened spirit of the irreligious Europeans has begun crumble as they abandon their superior culture piece by piece before the onslaught of the more potent religiously driven perverse morality of the Mohammedans.
There's a reason why the US is the only 'European' nation still left that has any balls; it's because we are yet still heavily guided by a belief in God and his goodness though this is slowly slipping away here also. If and when that belief evaporates, we too will follow the Europeans into the slow descent into Dhimmitude before the more virile spirit of the Mohammedans.
There is nothing equal with Divine sanction in the arena of the human spirit.
I truly believe that we are indeed facing the ancient battle lines that are drawn as our God faces their god struggle. The problem for us is that we are half unarmed whereas they as sure of what they aim for and why.
Elightened rationalism shouldn't be confused with least common denominator determinalism. If two ideas do oppose one another, then one may very well be right while the other wrong. The pretense that a yet unrealized idea will magically fuse the two, or that spontaneously the conflict shall generate new rights does manufacture parralizing superstition. There is nothing un-enlightened about those having preconceptions of liberty believing that they, and not the ignorant, are correct.
The whole concept of "rights" is made necessary by our nature as human beings. Animals do not require "rights". By nature they exist as predators or prey and there is nothing in their natures to override that. Human beings function through the use of reason because that is the nature of our brains. If humans try to live in a predator-prey existence what they do is stop being humans and revert to animals. They must be free to think, express their thoughts and ideas, apply those ideas to changing their environment, and other humans do not have the "right" to interfere with that by force and in effect reduce them to life more suitable for animals. Someone who points a gun at another human being peacefully speaking their mind is behaving as a predatory animal. Same thing if they leave the gun out of it and use a kangaroo court, as is currently being done to Geert Wilders.
"Elightened rationalism shouldn't be confused with least common denominator determinalism."
Regardless, it will be brought to it's knees every time in the face of determination! We can sit around congratulating ourselves all we like, but the barbarians are at the gate and won't be stopped by rationalization.
I revert to history. When the West knew absolute right and wrong, it conquered the world easily due to it's superior culture. Now it can't even seem to hold off 7th. century barbarians on it's home turf!!!
Absolute denial of absolutism is something, up with which I shall absolutly not put.
Glad to see that we at least somewhat agree.
Culturist John,
You wrote: I do not believe that Hitler was right
I write: Nor can you state with any conviction that he was wrong. That's the problem, in my opinion.
I would think it would be clear that that which goes towards promoting and supporting life would be, clearly, better than that which goes towards supporting death and destruction.
But, I have found so far that you are not able to state that unequivocally. Instead, you believe this exists only in a cultural construct.
I simply do not agree with you.
Our culture is unequivocally better than a culture which supports death and destruction and which creates nothing. Our culture is unequivocally better than an uncreative culture. We are better than the Islamic world. We are good and they are bad.
That is not to say there is nothing good about the Islamic world. They play great tabla music. I enjoy their chanting, their mosaic, their architecture. I particularly love the Moroccan palette/color schemes. Those are all great. But, those are not exactly on par with innovations in Nanotechnology or computing power. They are not on a par with the latest biotech medications which specifically target the genetic triggers for diseases, etc.
Yep, our ideas work. Their do not. We are better than them. If you ask me who is good and who is bad, then I say we are good and they are bad, and I say it with close to absolute conviction.
Call me a fool.
So, I'll see you tomorrow morning at dawn. We'll turn our backs on each other, take ten paces, and turn around firing.
May the best culturist win.
;-)
Macusgermanis,
You said: Absolute denial of absolutism is something, up with which I shall absolutly not put.
I say: That's a rephrasing of a famous Churchill quote, is it not?
;-)
RRA,
I agree with your human vs. animal distinction.
I like the arguments you and WC presented here.
We've got four or five different opinions here. I think that's great.
:)
Post a Comment