Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[chewybrian]

So, others can just die of thirst so that you can have your 'right' to the only source of water?

No one will die of thirst because of my discovery and possession of the lake. If they are dying it will be because they had no other source of water, even before I discovered the lake. Had I not discovered it they would continue to die. But now, due to my discovery, they have a means to avoid dying, i.e., by paying me for water.

Rights come from morality, and this ain't it. This is just the Ayn Rand garbage I mentioned before.

Your claim boils down to might makes right. It may seem like an objective right (the right to property) because we have agreed to it and defended it for so long. But, in the end, it is just an opinion, no matter how widely held. We could just as easily decide that water is a human right, and that nobody gets to claim ownership of any body of water, even if we allow ownership of some other things.

Well, sure. We could also "decide" that everybody has "rights" to a new Escalade, a summer home in the idyllic location of their choice, and free air travel to anywhere they wish to go. I.e., we can re-define the word "rights" to mean "wishes."

When enough of us feel that way, we will make it law and find the power to enforce the law. Then, we will have the 'right' to come and take your water from you.

Yup. Governments can and regularly do conjure fiat "rights" from thin air and enforce them. But as I've said, such "frights" have no moral basis and usually violate real rights.

There is nothing immoral about saying that you cannot dam up a navigable waterway, or that nobody gets to own the ocean, as it seems we are doing right now. How is it not a moral basis to say that all people have a right to drinking water?! That is not asking for a Cadillac; it is acknowledging that we all have a right to life, which seems as moral as any claim I could make. You seem to be religiously attached to an extreme form of capitalism, and trying to give it the high moral ground which it could never claim. It may be an effective way of making progress on the whole(at least for a while), but it is not a moral basis for living together, taking care of each other and our environment.

[Terrapin Station]

There's a sense of "possession" which amounts to "having something in your physical grasp" or "having something attached to you," and regardless of whether anyone is thinking about anything that way, it's going to be a fact that someone has something in their physical grasp or has something attached to them, right?

Now, what's the (conventional) sense of "possession" where regardless of whether anyone is thinking about anything in a particular way, it's a fact that a person has a particular relationship with something like a safe or a fence or whatever?

They have a particular relationship to the contents of the safe because they possess a unique ability to access the safe, namely via the combination.

Right, and completely independently of any thought about it, if only one person has the combination to a safe, then they must be the owner / possessor of the safe (and not, for example, someone who stole the combination prior to someone obtaining the combination, who, via thought, people would consider the owner) because ________?

What goes in the blank there?

You asked what the "sense of possession" was. I told you. There is a cultural institution whereby the property in safes that we do not have access to is not ours.

As to your larger question, it was addressed in my first post to you, which you no doubt failed to read (link).

And now I'm asking you to better support your claim in context above against a challenge. You can't just bow out because someone is challenging a response to an initial challenge: it's a question about how the cultural institution obtains independently of any thought. Please specifically answer that by filling in the blank of the question I asked you above.

[AverageBozo]

The weather.

[GE Morton]

So, others can just die of thirst so that you can have your 'right' to the only source of water?

No one will die of thirst because of my discovery and possession of the lake. If they are dying it will be because they had no other source of water, even before I discovered the lake. Had I not discovered it they would continue to die. But now, due to my discovery, they have a means to avoid dying, i.e., by paying me for water.

Rights come from morality, and this ain't it. This is just the Ayn Rand garbage I mentioned before.

Well, you haven't refuted any of the statements you quoted above. Are any of them false? Are you now retreating to ad hominems?

Rights don't "come from" morality." They are the foundation for morality (a rational one).

There is nothing immoral about saying that you cannot dam up a navigable waterway, or that nobody gets to own the ocean, as it seems we are doing right now.

Oh, I agree. But I never claimed otherwise. You're ignoring the truth conditions for rights claims, and indulging in hyperbole to distort what I said.

No, one cannot lay private claim to the ocean, to a navigable waterway, or to any other natural common. A "natural common" is a natural feature or resource that has been used in common by all comers since time immemorial. Hence no contemporary person can claim to be the first possessor of such a resource. Indeed, no person can plausibly claim to "possess" such a resource, as most of it will be completely out of his reach and beyond his control. Managing such natural commons is one of the few legitimate tasks of governments.

One may lay claim, however, to a spring, small pod or lake, or other natural feature which has not been claimed or used by anyone, as far as anyone knows.

How is it not a moral basis to say that all people have a right to drinking water?!

Because rights do not arise from needs. They originate with first possession. The mere fact that someone needs something does not give him a right to it.

That is not asking for a Cadillac; it is acknowledging that we all have a right to life, which seems as moral as any claim I could make.

Yes, everyone has a right to life. But that right doesn't impose any obligations on any other person. It only imposes a constraint --- that you may not (morally) kill people. It doesn't oblige you to provide anyone with the necessities of life, or entitle them to plunder or enslave you to secure them. That holds for all rights. You have a right to free speech, but that doesn't oblige anyone to provide you with a microphone or lecture hall; you have a right to property, but that doesn't oblige anyone to give you some property; you have a right to keep and bear arms, but no one has any obligation to give you a gun. Rights only mean that if you have something you have righteously acquired, other may not take it from you.

Does this clear things up?

[Pattern-chaser]

No, one cannot lay private claim to the ocean, to a navigable waterway, or to any other natural common. A "natural common" is a natural feature or resource that has been used in common by all comers since time immemorial. Hence no contemporary person can claim to be the first possessor of such a resource. Indeed, no person can plausibly claim to "possess" such a resource, as most of it will be completely out of his reach and beyond his control. Managing such natural commons is one of the few legitimate tasks of governments.

One may lay claim, however, to a spring, small pod or lake, or other natural feature which has not been claimed or used by anyone, as far as anyone knows.

So a navigable waterway is common, but a small pond is not? This seems inconsistent to me.

[GE Morton]

So a navigable waterway is common, but a small pond is not? This seems inconsistent to me.

Well, you're apparently ignoring the differences between the two I mentioned.

[Ecurb]

GE Morton is a rights fundamentalist. Instead of arguing that his view of rights conduces human welfare and happiness, he simply explains what he means by "rights', just as a Christian Fundamentalist might quote the Bible to explain God's will. This is, of course, annoying, but it is also inarguable. One cannot argue about morality with a Fundamentalist who merely quotes chapter and verse of the Bible, and one cannot argue with GE Morton's quoting of chapter and verse about "rights". Morton merely explains his (iffy) assumptions over and over and over again, instead of arguing in their support.

[chewybrian]

Does this clear things up?

It's been clear all along what you believe, but it is not clear why you think it is fact rather than opinion. My opinion, which I don't claim to be fact, is that we should strike a balance between allowing people to advance themselves through hard work and protecting them from misfortune when we can. For example, providing health insurance for everyone is not a theft from people who don't want to pay. It is a respect for everyone's right to life and an admission that we are all vulnerable and therefore can benefit from mutual cooperation and protection.

It's easy to fight against free healthcare when you don't have cancer, or don't know that you have it. Look at all these American shock jocks who refused the vaccine and are now dying of covid. They had this artificial sense of superiority and invulnerability until they ****** around and found out.

https://politicalwire.com/2021/08/17/an ... -covid-19/

https://www.the-sun.com/news/3432685/fl ... auci-dies/

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/con ... p_catchall

This goes back to the subject of this thread, which is pretty far in the rear view mirror right now. When people are doing well, it is much too easy for them to project their opportunities onto others who in fact did not have all the same chances. It is a human weakness to look with conceit at someone with an addiction or mental illness and consider them weak rather than afflicted. It's easy to feel superior and resent the help given to others until all of a sudden, as a complete surprise to you, the one who needs the help is you.

[Leontiskos]

GE Morton is a rights fundamentalist. Instead of arguing that his view of rights conduces human welfare and happiness, he simply explains what he means by "rights', just as a Christian Fundamentalist might quote the Bible to explain God's will. This is, of course, annoying, but it is also inarguable. One cannot argue about morality with a Fundamentalist who merely quotes chapter and verse of the Bible, and one cannot argue with GE Morton's quoting of chapter and verse about "rights". Morton merely explains his (iffy) assumptions over and over and over again, instead of arguing in their support.

If a thread is full of misunderstandings and ignorance about what rights are, then explaining their nature is really all that is necessary. If someone says that there is a right to a house, the only answer necessary is, "That is an irrational claim which departs from the standard historical meaning of 'rights.' <Thus and such> is what rights have historically meant, and this understanding does not suffer from the irrationality that your understanding suffers from."

GE Morton's position is apparently premised on the idea that his understanding of rights is more rational than yours. That's not fundamentalism. There is no absence of justifying reasons.

[Ecurb]

If a thread is full of misunderstandings and ignorance about what rights are, then explaining their nature is really all that is necessary. If someone says that there is a right to a house, the only answer necessary is, "That is an irrational claim which departs from the standard historical meaning of 'rights.' <Thus and such> is what rights have historically meant, and this understanding does not suffer from the irrationality that your understanding suffers from."

GE Morton's position is apparently premised on the idea that his understanding of rights is more rational than yours. That's not fundamentalism. There is no absence of justifying reasons.

The Christian Fundamentalist doubtless thinks his view of morality is more rational than mine. But if he wants to argue his position he is required to offer support for his premises, instead of merely repeating them ad nauseum.

Clearly, "rights" are viewed differently by different people and vary dramatically from society to society. The right to bear arms (for example, a right which Morton mentions himself) is severely limited in most Western nations. Does Morton mean to argue that all of those European countries which ban hand guns are unaware of the meaning of the word "rights"? Does he mean to suggest that "rights' are god-given, instead of determined by the members of a given society? Without explaining what he believes the origin and/or moral status of "rights" consists of, Morton is merely rambling on like a Fundamentalist.

As discussed in another thread, if "rational" means "logical", it is possible to argue logically based on false premises. This (I'd suggest) is precisely what Morton is doing. He explains his"understanding of rights", but offers no support for the notion that his understanding is based on increasing human happiness and conducing human welfare. Instead, he merely suggests that anyone who disagrees fails to understand "rights", and implies that "rights" are somehow morally universal. Really? The right to bear arms is controversial and limited in most countries. Why should I assume it to be somehow a God-given universal moral tenet?

p.s. Morton seems to approve of reparations paid by the British Government to slave owners when the slaves were freed. Perhaps (revolutionary I know) the reparations should have been paid to the freed slaves, instead. Who cares about the losses suffered by the slave owners?

[chewybrian]

If a thread is full of misunderstandings and ignorance about what rights are, then explaining their nature is really all that is necessary. If someone says that there is a right to a house, the only answer necessary is, "That is an irrational claim which departs from the standard historical meaning of 'rights.' <Thus and such> is what rights have historically meant, and this understanding does not suffer from the irrationality that your understanding suffers from."

GE Morton's position is apparently premised on the idea that his understanding of rights is more rational than yours. That's not fundamentalism. There is no absence of justifying reasons.

The "standard historical meaning of rights" has been used to uphold the claims of the wealthy and to keep the poor virtually or literally enslaved. Historical rights have included the "right" to own slaves, rather than the right to be free, for example. The courts were in the business of helping the wealthy to hold on to their property, and very seldom in the position of standing up for the little guy.

Your claim of rationality would hold if were arguing about objective claims of fact. But, when we talk about rights or morality in general, we are speaking about subjective ideas about the way things "should" be. There is no objective basis for morality, so there is no objective basis for claiming rights, either. We have to fight for them indefinitely. Just because people were too weak to claim or protect rights in the past does not mean that those rights are not just and that they have no moral claim to them.

In this arena, rationality begins with a subjective claim. When you assent to such a claim, then certain conclusions rationally follow about what should be done. But, if you don't assent, then you might rationally follow a different belief to a different conclusion. Neither side of the argument has standing to claim that the other is being irrational if they put forth a reasonable belief and rationally follow where it leads. We can say they are selfish or wide-eyed simpletons or some such thing, but the fact that our opponents hold a different opinion does not say that they are irrational.

[Leontiskos]

It's been clear all along what you believe, but it is not clear why you think it is fact rather than opinion. My opinion, which I don't claim to be fact, is that we should strike a balance between allowing people to advance themselves through hard work and protecting them from misfortune when we can. For example, providing health insurance for everyone is not a theft from people who don't want to pay. It is a respect for everyone's right to life and an admission that we are all vulnerable and therefore can benefit from mutual cooperation and protection.

It's easy to fight against free healthcare when you don't have cancer, or don't know that you have it.

But on the flip side it is easy to fight for free healthcare when you have cancer.

It's important to understand that there are two separate questions in play: 1) Whether the state should fully fund healthcare, and 2) Whether there is a right to healthcare. It seems clear to me that there is no right to healthcare regardless of how we answer the first question. Sure, folks in favor of (1) say things like, "Healthcare is a right!" But that's a catchy slogan meant to further their cause, not an intelligible political claim.

Rights always correlate to obligations, for both of these concepts are relations between people. Rights are what one is owed and obligations are what one owes. So to say that you have a right to life means that everyone else has an obligation to not murder you (among other things). Historically rights have been understood in the negative sense whereby they establish negative obligations rather than positive obligations (the obligation to not-murder is the obligation to refrain from some act). Natural rights must establish this sort of negative obligation if relations akin to slavery are to be avoided.

If there is a right to a house, then everyone else has an obligation to provide you with a house, which is a positive obligation. If others infringe on your right and fail to provide you with a house then they could be prosecuted for failing to "recognize" your right to a house. This is crazy talk. It is akin to slavery in the sense that the so-called right forces others to labor on my behalf without pay. The same is true with healthcare, or any other "right" that would establish positive obligations.

Socialism or the welfare state can never be justified on the basis of rights. The rationale for those systems is the common good of the society, not the rights of individuals.

The "standard historical meaning of rights" has been used to uphold the claims of the wealthy and to keep the poor virtually or literally enslaved. Historical rights have included the "right" to own slaves, rather than the right to be free, for example.

This is an ironic claim.

In this arena, rationality begins with a subjective claim. When you assent to such a claim, then certain conclusions rationally follow about what should be done. But, if you don't assent, then you might rationally follow a different belief to a different conclusion. Neither side of the argument has standing to claim that the other is being irrational if they put forth a reasonable belief and rationally follow where it leads. We can say they are selfish or wide-eyed simpletons or some such thing, but the fact that our opponents hold a different opinion does not say that they are irrational.

It is objectively true that the sort of rights that establish positive obligations bring with them the same sort of labor-coercion that makes slavery undesirable. That is an objective statement. Whether or not we think slavery is undesirable is "subjective," if you like, but those who are arguing for positive, non-natural rights are arguing for a form of slavery.

[Leontiskos]

"Natural rights must establish this sort of negative obligation if relations akin to slavery are to be avoided."

...I should have rather said that natural rights by definition do not establish positive obligations, and the reason for this can be seen by looking at things like slavery.

[Terrapin Station]

If a thread is full of misunderstandings and ignorance about what rights are, then explaining their nature is really all that is necessary. If someone says that there is a right to a house, the only answer necessary is, "That is an irrational claim which departs from the standard historical meaning of 'rights.'

And sticking to some historical standard/sticking to some norm is "rational" because _________?

This is again a request to fill in a blank that you'll ignore.

[chewybrian]

So, others can just die of thirst so that you can have your 'right' to the only source of water?

No one will die of thirst because of my discovery and possession of the lake. If they are dying it will be because they had no other source of water, even before I discovered the lake. Had I not discovered it they would continue to die. But now, due to my discovery, they have a means to avoid dying, i.e., by paying me for water.

Rights come from morality, and this ain't it. This is just the Ayn Rand garbage I mentioned before.

Well, you haven't refuted any of the statements you quoted above. Are any of them false? Are you now retreating to ad hominems?

I missed this part before. If you discovered a source of water that people need to live, then you have a moral obligation to share it with those in need. Saying that they can pay for your water to live assumes they can and amounts to saying "Let them eat cake".

I compared you to Ayn Rand because the opinions you are spouting are much the same. You are attempting to make selfishness into a virtue, just as she did. It is the opposite of morality thinly disguised as morality. Some people eat that up because it justifies doing what they wanted to do anyway without the burden of having to feel guilty about taking more than their fair share while others suffer. I don't know you and I can't claim that you are a horrible person. But these are horrible ideas and humanity will forever be held back while substantial numbers of people believe them, because we will never trust each other and work together such that we don't have to live in fear.