Rights are a moral construct derived from the non-aggression principle. The Non-Aggression Principle is a moral construct derived from an axiom that declares that all people should be treated equally. From this axiom of moral equality, we can derive not only the Non-Aggression Principle and Rights, but we can also derive property rights and contract law. From here, an entire legal framework can be built.
@SnowDog2003 The reason that it's important to start with the premise that everyone should be treated equal in a moral framework, is that it's a logical error to treat one person different than another person when there are no fundamental relevant differences between the two people. So you can trace Rights back to the law of non-contradiction.
@SnowDog2003 Every person is different from every other person. Say I am a rapist. I could say "I want to rape this woman because she is pretty, is a woman, and is walking down a dark alley where I am unlikely to be seen." This wouldn't be erroneous reasoning; for a heterosexual rapist intent on not being caught, this woman is a good target because she is different from other people.
@XOmniverse A moral framework which is not-contradictory does not allow aggression, defined as the initiation of the use of force. If your framework allows you to rape another person, then this is a contradiction because it impossible for the person receiving aggression to give it to the person from whom they are receiving it. So such a framework would give the aggressor a different moral status than the victim.
@XOmniverse Because that's arbitrary. There's no logical reason to give someone a special moral status, so doing so is arbitrary. An arbitrary action is an action without reason. It's the same thing as throwing a loaded gun into a monkey cage.
@SnowDog2003 You haven't demonstrated that there is a logical reason to give everyone the same moral status. It seems like any viewpoint on moral status is arbitrary unless someone actually demonstrates that a particular approach as true.
@XOmniverse I don't have to demonstrate a logical reason to give everyone the same moral status. The burden of proof is on those wanting to make exceptions.
We can throw morality out of the window but we don't have to. It works if we treat everyone the same. If we start making exceptions, then it becomes impossible to build a consistent moral framework and it goes out the window.
@XOmniverse Like mathematics: "The burden of proof is on anyone making MATHEMATICAL claims, period. To demonstrate that mathematical claims are claims about reality at all."
Math is logically consistent and observable in the real world. A logically consistent moral principle does the same thing; it lays out rules by which we can all live together.
@SnowDog2003 I don't disagree with that notion of a moral rule. I disagree with your approach to arriving at those rules. It doesn't follow from your premise, for example, that everyone should treat everyone else the same.
Truthfully, it doesn't even follow that it is necessarily good for everyone to "live together." That notion itself assumes that certain values are better than others, and therefore already assumes certain moral notions which themselves would need to be proven.
@XOmniverse If you live alone on a deserted island, then there is no need for inter-personal morality. Likewise, if you are not building a bridge, then there is no need for mathermatics.
Good Luck! I think I have exhausted my arguments.
Morality can be broadly divided into two categories: Personal Morality which includes things like honestly, integrity, rationality, 'don't smoke cigarettes', etc. These 'virtues' are derived from your personal values, and following them will help you achieve your values, and hence you'll live a better life.
Inter-personal Morality answers the question, 'How should I treat other people?' Without any relevant differences between two people, you have to treat them...
@XOmniverse I think this is a good question, and I don't know the answer completely. But on what basis would you design a moral framework for everyone which would treat some people differently than others? I think the answer lies in obvious differences between people's cognitive abilities. Morality makes no sense for animals because they can't understand it. Children and mentally disabled people have some understanding, but not a mature understanding. So the difference lies here somewhere.
@XOmniverse But there's no reason that you should be singled out. This is arbitrary. It works for you, but not for anyone else. If you were king, then it might be a better moral code for you. Otherwise, there's no other way for people to work together under a common moral code if arbitrary exceptions are used. So we can throw morality out altogether, but then we lose the ability to choose right from wrong. We're back to the loaded gun in the monkey cage.
@SnowDog2003 As I said in another comment, it's all arbitrary until someone actually demonstrates the objective truth of a particular moral code. "Everyone is morally equal" is just as arbitrary as "Everyone is morally unequal" until one or the other is actually demonstrated as true.
@XOmniverse The two statements are not the same. "Everyone is morally unequal." is contradictory. Such a premise leads to the conclusion that both Person A and Person B are unequal in the same way, and this violates Aristotle's Law of Identity which says that no two things can both be one thing, and then NOT one thing at the same time.
@SnowDog2003 Everyone is unequal. No two people are identical. If anything, the notion that everyone is equal is the one in contradiction to the observable evidence.
@XOmniverse Mathematics is a complete logical construct. It's very similar to morality in that it's logically consistent and can be used in the real world. You don't have to build a bridge using mathematics. You could just throw some boards over a ravine and nail them together. But if you want to build one to hold a car, then you must use mathematics. Likewise, if you want people to live and work together, they must use a moral code.
@SnowDog2003 People might agree on certain rules out of mutual self-interest. Is this what you mean by moral code? Because your arguments seemed to be more based on pure reason than self-interest. E.g. you weren't saying that "murder is wrong" is a good moral rule because it benefits everyone who doesn't want to be murdered, but that it is a good moral rule because of some pie in the sky metaphysical truth to the statement.
@XOmniverse Murder can only be 'wrong' if there is a moral framework by which to determine right from wrong. There is only one consistent moral framework possible. Your only other choice is to throw all moral frameworks out the window.
@SnowDog2003 "There is only one consistent moral framework possible"
Not true. "Everybody do whatever they want to," is a consistent moral framework. So is "everyone commit suicide," "everyone dance whenever a bell is rung," etc. Plenty of consistent moral frameworks to choose from.
As an aside: It is perfectly OK to step back and say "I might not have thought this through as thoroughly as I need to in order to debate this subject." Nobody ever does it, but I figured I'd throw it out there.
@XOmniverse "As an aside: It is perfectly OK to step back and say "I might not have thought this through as thoroughly as I need to in order to debate this subject." Nobody ever does it, but I figured I'd throw it out there."
How rude... Not everyone 'gets' it, but it's certainly well thought-out.
@XOmniverse treat them both the same. Without relevant differences, there is no basis to treat two people differently. In addition to this, you can't just 'make up' a rule from your preferences and apply it to everyone. This leads to the non-aggression principle because action must be derived from value, and all values are personal. So only individuals can set personal moral preferences, leaving non-aggression as the inter-personal framework.
@snakebitgoat Does it follow from the fact that most people prefer not to be killed, and therefore institute laws against murder, that there exists a MORAL right to not be killed?
Yes, natural rights don't exist per se. A right is law that men agree to follow for mutual benefit. But rights can be derived from nature and thus be called 'rational rights.' I also call these 'rights of the Crusoe mind.' The idea that consciousness is existence on the 'deserted island' of your mind and all minds have equal right to exist. So we can rationally agree that rights derive from the principle that a man exists for his own sake. All else should follow as the basis for a moral society.
@gdmk1000 Preferences during a conversation only apply to the context of a conversation; they are not necessarily general principles about what a person prefers in all contexts.
There, the house of cards that is argumentation ethics has fallen, like every other attempt at a "purely logical" (meaning: without regard for human needs or empirical facts) proof of rights.
@XOmniverse Oh... as expected. I have yet encountered an informed critique...
"Preferences during a conversation only apply to the context of a conversation"
well... of course the question of ownership (rights) only arises as far as people choose to talk things over. of course rocks and clouds don't have rights. but we are debating politics now, and so, the NAP must logically be presupposed.
I would have to agree and disagree at the same time. I dont believe rights actually do exist, but I form my political ideas around anything BUT ideology. Mainly, I form my political ideas around what would be naturaly sustainable and humanly sustainable. Meaning that anyone policy or ideology that wont lead to satisfaction for the people, and might also lead to a replacement of that policy is dismissed in advance. Independent on the ideological arguments for it.
It's presumptuous to claim "rights don't exist." Different people mean different things by the term. And if by rights one means "a human action that does not initiate interference with another's action", then rights exist just as much as any other kind of action exists.
@XOmniverse Your statement is, again, presumptuous: you presume to know exactly what sense of "interfering" I have in mind here. You also seem to be guilty of a certain lack of creativity in being able to have some reasonable guesses about what I mean.
In any case, no, I do not mean by "interfering" that, for example, your breathing certain molecules changes things such that I can't breath those molecules. That would be a silly, pointless way to define that word in this context.
@XOmniverse How does "changing the options" interfere with my goal-directed action? I've already answered this very question by the breathing example. There are other unclaimed air molecules you can breath, just because I happened to breath the ones that would have otherwise been destined for you, that doesn't mean I've interfered with your goal-directed action in any way whatsoever.
It's hard to fathom why you're even asking the question.
@forindividualrights It may or may not interfere with goal directed action. Usually, there's no way to know. My point is that the notion that coercion or violence (as libertarians use the terms) is the only way in which someone can interfere with goal directed action is false on its face. I can interfere with goal directed action in many ways.
We can't simply define aggression as "interfering with goal directed action" without leading to absurdities.
@XOmniverse I never defined aggression as "interfering with goal directed action". I simply narrowed the field from your bizarre "changes the options for everyone" to something far more sensible. No one cares if you "interfered" in your sense. They only begin to care as far as goal-directed action is concerned.
@forindividualrights You're about to walk onto my lawn. I step in front of you and say "Do not walk on my lawn." I just interfered with your goal-directed action. Is this a violation of your rights?
You and I both know that your definition of what a right is is vague and incomplete. Can we just agree on that and move on?
@XOmniverse "You and I both know that your definition of what a right is is vague and incomplete."
My, you are an exceedingly presumptuous person. You can't read my mind and tell me that my meaning is vague. The fact is that it's only vague to you. It's also a fact that so long as you bring ignorant presumption into virtually every remark, discussion with you is pointlessly tedious. How about you stop.
@forindividualrights This conversation is over. For whatever reason, my viewpoint annoys you, and when you tried to refute it with a comment, your refutation got refuted by me in one sentence. The rest of the conversation has just been you trying to dodge that fact.
Thank you Thank you Thank you! I'm probably likely to agree fuck all politically with XOmniverse, but this concession at least makes libertarianism tenable. And right or wrong, you can't convince people to change their ideas without referring to anything practical.
I have to disagree on this one. One of the reasons that I'm an anarchist and not a minarchist is that I think it's possible to establish a general moral code for society that can be deduced from rational principles, instead of arbitrary decisions made by politicians. If such a code can't be established, than anarchism is impossible.
@Pericles461 "it's possible to establish a general moral code for society that can be deduced from rational principles"
I wasn't suggesting that such things aren't possible. I was suggesting that they aren't possible with laser-like precision and perfect a priori reasoning. They have to be formed based on the practical needs of people, and open to revision and improvement.
If you mean do rights exist eternally in some Platonic realm scribed on glittering gold plaques, then probably not. However do certain rights follow from our conditionality as natural creatures? I think defending one's property (personal or communal) from other parties probably would be one e.g. However one could possibly also argue a natural right to attempt to take another's property, so it gets murky. Hence the need for ethics & systems of belief which embody them in the most robust manner.
Would I be correct in assuming you are completely ignorant of argumentation ethics? 'The a priori of argumentation' ala Hoppe? Rothbard agreed with it and Hoppe's break through. So the take down of his natural rights is irrelevant, although there is no conflict between the two.
The idea "existence" is an idea without content. Stars exist - but this tells us nothing about stars; mathematics exists - but this teaches us no mathematics; hallucinations also exist. The point is that a predicate, such as existence, that can be attached to everything indiscriminately tells us nothing about anything. The question should not be "Do rights exists?", but "what are rights"?
@freefallin002 Using your approach, I would have to title the video something like "Rights are not rules of conduct that are somehow true independent of their usefulness to individual people."
When hallucinations and delusions are somewhat common, existence is an important quality to note. Were we animals capable only of observing the world and processing observations without adding biases and inventions. Of course then we would be without imagination; ergo, without technology, science, philosophy or anything which requires creating a model parallel to the observations we call reality. The bit of information that is existence is important.
You seem to be saying "We must compromise, therefore, there are no absolutely/metaphysically true rights." I don't see how this follows. People can argue (in some cases, I think, correctly) that X are rights, and then compromise to have a society. That you're advocating compromise seems to imply that you support rights, like "People have the right to be able prosper as opposed to not being able to (which would result if people didn't compromise on rights), so we must therefore compromise."
@kaleidyscope86 I didn't say that the non-existence of rights is predicated on the need for compromise. I said one of the negative consequences of having a deontological view of rights is that it makes compromise difficult.
@XOmniverse I'm not sure how that's the case. Someone who's a consequentialist could think that a given compromise will lead to bad consequences, while a deontologist could think a given compromise is too far removed from their ethics. Also, what would you predicate the non-existence of rights on? Your pragmatic epistemology?
i also do not think that rights exist. however, despite that rights dont exist, NECESSITIES do. necessities being what they are, i think the argument for universal necessities is both moral and practical.
i don't recall exactly the scope of the natural rights aproach but my view varys a bit from yours. rather than hardcore consequentialism, i'd say it's a matter of where the focus belongs. that focus to me is personal liberty and rights are a derrivate of that consideration. i don't know if this is "natural" exactly but it is prior to a social consensus.
The Rationalist idea of Natural Law (Frobenius, Hobbes etc.), which is probably at the root of concept of Natural Rights, is really a few centuries old, and therefore dated. The Natural Law theories were progressive when all people believed that the Law could have only divine origins. However, for the sake of self-preservation human communities are effectively forced to develop the norms of behaviour in such direction that helps to improve their chances in the competition for limited resources.
omg, thank you... rights do not exist. Rights are fundamentally perpetuated on the concept that we are entitled to live and follow our own goals. Great, I can appreciate that we tend to establish etiquette and terms of retaliation or intervention. (If you abuse with a child, I will intervene.) But we are not entitled to live, or be happy. Nature will fuck you up, regardless of what your rights are. Live and let live is based on the idea that it's in your best interest to be good to others.
@Sparkygravity I think you misunderstand natural rights if you think they are interdictions on nature. They're there to regulate social conduct. They are "natural" in the sense that it is part of man's nature to be social.
@Moragauth I agree it it man's nature to be social, just like chimpanzees, but there isn't anything spectacularly divine about the humans species. People try very hard to separate us out from animals, with terms like "self-aware" and "consciousness". But the idea of rights is a construct, and falsifiable as being innately possessed by all people. Always.
Everything that you can think of as being a "right" has been violated on legal grounds, in different cultures in history.
@Sparkygravity Murder: legal. Still is under definition of war.
Rape: legal, historically speaking. Mostly by men who by legal definition could own, trade women and do what they wanted with them without impunity.
Pedophilia: still legal in countries where parents are afforded the "right" to arrange infant marriage.
These "rights" you live with are falsifiable. It all comes down to ability, we can hurt people, and we can intervene. Rights are a presumption, and not universal.
@Sparkygravity Falsifiable, surely. But because these actions are legal? Haha, no. Their legality is either justified or not by way of ethics, not vice versa.
@Moragauth Legalism is a construction and typically an extension of mainstream ethics. Inferior in all aspects, but I use it to point out, that widespread destructive behavior is an emergent property just as constructive behavior. It renders "natural rights" a moot point, as its simply disregarded, time and time again. The value for life and liberty is a tendency, not a guarantee. Rights don't exist, we don't have any naturally endowed entitlements, of any kind.
@Sparkygravity They don't exist in a metaphysical real sense. They do exist, however, as limitations on what can pass law. The fact that rights are often ignored is irrelevant as they're not being for in the form of some sort of magical shield.
Friedman's approach is just a very crude form of consequentialism, assuming that a) consequences alone matter morally and b) that there is a moral imperative to strive to optimising consequences. If it doesn't it works by way of an assertoric hypothetical, and is then on no stronger ground than Aristotelianism which uses flourishing as its assertoric hypothetical. So pretty much on the same basis as Rand (survival qua man) or any Aristotelian (Veatch, Rasmussen, den Uyl.) So it moves no ground.
@Moragauth - I agree with you otherwise, but it's worth getting libertarian ethical positions clearly so we can avoid being strawmanned by less sympathetic opponents.
@Moragauth I wasn't necessarily defending Friedman's philosophy whole sale. But I think his criticisms of deontological rights (as commonly espoused by Rothbardians) are pretty dead on.
@XOmniverse Arguably yes, it can be. Whether a court will choose to uphold it is a much more complicated issue but this is generally the case with pollution. Most of these issues will boil down to what you reasonably got yourself into by buying a property in a given area. But that's a question of application of principle.
@MaikUniversum They actually have pretty strong justifications for them. You may not agree but that does not vitiate that fact.
Rothbard relies upon Aristotelian justifications for rights, which in turn hinge on flourishing of the individual. Similarly with Rand. Molyneux, de Jasay and Hoppe do not defend rights per se but arrive at them via epistemological arguments. I have yet to see a libertarian other than Nozick who merely asserts rights exist aside from "practical" -
@Moragauth concerns, whatever that means. Consequences perhaps but only insofar as consequences are divorced from intention and taken as the standard of action. It's easy for ethereal creatures with no earthly existence to say problems of resource conflicts are arbitrary and any moral system is as good as any other but no such beings exist.
@Moragauth rights as morals, yeah, they are social constructs and they "exist" as such. I am personally more deontological moralist rather than consequentialist, but I use arguments from both sides.
@MaikUniversum Well it's best to realise they are connected. You can't really separate an action from its intentions and consequences as they feed back and affect one another.
When Rand said "Natural Rights" I think she meant that this is the behavior proper to man, in his best interest, what is "natural" for him: behaviors like not restricting functional work of others for instance.
Another problem I encounter when attempting to defend Rand is I always use my language to do so, and so the two tend to complicate in strange ways.
@seanthedonconsidine Social cooperation is part of man's nature. Rights mediate it by allowing us to filter through which legal actions are or are not justifiable. They are, therefore, enablers of social cooperation and to that extent "natural" as they allow man to fulfill a natural function. There are NR ethicists who take rights as real entities but aside from Platonists I can't see why they'd do so. They should be understood as intellectual constructs with the purpose of justifying actions.
@Moragauth I'd mostly agree with that, and I would think that Rand would as well, albeit we'd both be using different language.
The only people I have experienced who behaved as if NR were empirical things were Peikoffian Objectivists (significant distinction must be made between Peikoffian "Orthodox" Objectivists and those who are influenced by Rand), who behave as if any "official" Objectivist idea is absolute truth.
I see "natural rights" as a construction, as an extension of our desire to preserve our lives and territory. There are no natural rights, just people.
@reapfreak I don't like Molyneux personally, but he has some good ideas about family. I certainly don't endorse him. I'd be curious of your opinion on my videos on deFOOing.
I know that you're not an Objectivst, but you're at least familiar with some of Ayn Rand's writings. The source and nature of rights is extensively covered in Objectivist literature. I'd suggest that you look at Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand for starters.
@XOmniverse And so have I and I agree with you on this issue. Men's "rights" are a metaphysical reality only in the sense that man needs to be free do live properly - which can be observed to be true when different societies are compared with regards to liberty and how well men fared in them. Men's "rights" are, in the Objectivist sense, what is proper to him - what practical rights he requires if he is to live properly - not more and not less.
You look like Leon Trotsky
Antiks72 3 weeks ago
Rights are a moral construct derived from the non-aggression principle. The Non-Aggression Principle is a moral construct derived from an axiom that declares that all people should be treated equally. From this axiom of moral equality, we can derive not only the Non-Aggression Principle and Rights, but we can also derive property rights and contract law. From here, an entire legal framework can be built.
SnowDog2003 1 month ago
@SnowDog2003 The reason that it's important to start with the premise that everyone should be treated equal in a moral framework, is that it's a logical error to treat one person different than another person when there are no fundamental relevant differences between the two people. So you can trace Rights back to the law of non-contradiction.
SnowDog2003 1 month ago
@SnowDog2003 Every person is different from every other person. Say I am a rapist. I could say "I want to rape this woman because she is pretty, is a woman, and is walking down a dark alley where I am unlikely to be seen." This wouldn't be erroneous reasoning; for a heterosexual rapist intent on not being caught, this woman is a good target because she is different from other people.
XOmniverse 1 month ago
@XOmniverse A moral framework which is not-contradictory does not allow aggression, defined as the initiation of the use of force. If your framework allows you to rape another person, then this is a contradiction because it impossible for the person receiving aggression to give it to the person from whom they are receiving it. So such a framework would give the aggressor a different moral status than the victim.
SnowDog2003 1 month ago
@SnowDog2003 Suppose it does give the aggressor a different moral status than the victim. Why not do that?
XOmniverse 1 month ago
@XOmniverse Because that's arbitrary. There's no logical reason to give someone a special moral status, so doing so is arbitrary. An arbitrary action is an action without reason. It's the same thing as throwing a loaded gun into a monkey cage.
SnowDog2003 1 month ago
@SnowDog2003 You haven't demonstrated that there is a logical reason to give everyone the same moral status. It seems like any viewpoint on moral status is arbitrary unless someone actually demonstrates that a particular approach as true.
XOmniverse 1 month ago
@XOmniverse I don't have to demonstrate a logical reason to give everyone the same moral status. The burden of proof is on those wanting to make exceptions.
We can throw morality out of the window but we don't have to. It works if we treat everyone the same. If we start making exceptions, then it becomes impossible to build a consistent moral framework and it goes out the window.
SnowDog2003 1 month ago
@SnowDog2003 The burden of proof is on anyone making MORAL claims, period. To demonstrate that moral claims are claims about reality at all.
XOmniverse 1 month ago
@XOmniverse Like mathematics: "The burden of proof is on anyone making MATHEMATICAL claims, period. To demonstrate that mathematical claims are claims about reality at all."
Math is logically consistent and observable in the real world. A logically consistent moral principle does the same thing; it lays out rules by which we can all live together.
SnowDog2003 1 month ago
@SnowDog2003 I don't disagree with that notion of a moral rule. I disagree with your approach to arriving at those rules. It doesn't follow from your premise, for example, that everyone should treat everyone else the same.
Truthfully, it doesn't even follow that it is necessarily good for everyone to "live together." That notion itself assumes that certain values are better than others, and therefore already assumes certain moral notions which themselves would need to be proven.
XOmniverse 1 month ago
@XOmniverse If you live alone on a deserted island, then there is no need for inter-personal morality. Likewise, if you are not building a bridge, then there is no need for mathermatics.
Good Luck! I think I have exhausted my arguments.
SnowDog2003 1 month ago
@SnowDog2003 Some people, such as psychopaths, don't have the "mainstream" system of morality that most others have in Western Civ.
Antiks72 3 weeks ago
@SnowDog2003 "all people should be treated equally"
Why should all people be treated equally? And equally in what sense?
XOmniverse 1 month ago
@XOmniverse Morally equal.
Morality can be broadly divided into two categories: Personal Morality which includes things like honestly, integrity, rationality, 'don't smoke cigarettes', etc. These 'virtues' are derived from your personal values, and following them will help you achieve your values, and hence you'll live a better life.
Inter-personal Morality answers the question, 'How should I treat other people?' Without any relevant differences between two people, you have to treat them...
SnowDog2003 1 month ago
@SnowDog2003 What determines which differences are relevant?
XOmniverse 1 month ago
@XOmniverse I think this is a good question, and I don't know the answer completely. But on what basis would you design a moral framework for everyone which would treat some people differently than others? I think the answer lies in obvious differences between people's cognitive abilities. Morality makes no sense for animals because they can't understand it. Children and mentally disabled people have some understanding, but not a mature understanding. So the difference lies here somewhere.
SnowDog2003 1 month ago
@SnowDog2003 "But on what basis would you design a moral framework for everyone which would treat some people differently than others?"
Rational self-interest.
XOmniverse 1 month ago
@XOmniverse But there's no reason that you should be singled out. This is arbitrary. It works for you, but not for anyone else. If you were king, then it might be a better moral code for you. Otherwise, there's no other way for people to work together under a common moral code if arbitrary exceptions are used. So we can throw morality out altogether, but then we lose the ability to choose right from wrong. We're back to the loaded gun in the monkey cage.
SnowDog2003 1 month ago
@SnowDog2003 As I said in another comment, it's all arbitrary until someone actually demonstrates the objective truth of a particular moral code. "Everyone is morally equal" is just as arbitrary as "Everyone is morally unequal" until one or the other is actually demonstrated as true.
XOmniverse 1 month ago
@XOmniverse The two statements are not the same. "Everyone is morally unequal." is contradictory. Such a premise leads to the conclusion that both Person A and Person B are unequal in the same way, and this violates Aristotle's Law of Identity which says that no two things can both be one thing, and then NOT one thing at the same time.
SnowDog2003 1 month ago
@SnowDog2003 Everyone is unequal. No two people are identical. If anything, the notion that everyone is equal is the one in contradiction to the observable evidence.
XOmniverse 1 month ago
@SnowDog2003 And let's say we DO throw out morality altogether. Why NOT do that?
XOmniverse 1 month ago
@XOmniverse Mathematics is a complete logical construct. It's very similar to morality in that it's logically consistent and can be used in the real world. You don't have to build a bridge using mathematics. You could just throw some boards over a ravine and nail them together. But if you want to build one to hold a car, then you must use mathematics. Likewise, if you want people to live and work together, they must use a moral code.
SnowDog2003 1 month ago
@SnowDog2003 People might agree on certain rules out of mutual self-interest. Is this what you mean by moral code? Because your arguments seemed to be more based on pure reason than self-interest. E.g. you weren't saying that "murder is wrong" is a good moral rule because it benefits everyone who doesn't want to be murdered, but that it is a good moral rule because of some pie in the sky metaphysical truth to the statement.
XOmniverse 1 month ago
@XOmniverse Murder can only be 'wrong' if there is a moral framework by which to determine right from wrong. There is only one consistent moral framework possible. Your only other choice is to throw all moral frameworks out the window.
SnowDog2003 1 month ago
@SnowDog2003 "There is only one consistent moral framework possible"
Not true. "Everybody do whatever they want to," is a consistent moral framework. So is "everyone commit suicide," "everyone dance whenever a bell is rung," etc. Plenty of consistent moral frameworks to choose from.
As an aside: It is perfectly OK to step back and say "I might not have thought this through as thoroughly as I need to in order to debate this subject." Nobody ever does it, but I figured I'd throw it out there.
XOmniverse 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XOmniverse "As an aside: It is perfectly OK to step back and say "I might not have thought this through as thoroughly as I need to in order to debate this subject." Nobody ever does it, but I figured I'd throw it out there."
How rude... Not everyone 'gets' it, but it's certainly well thought-out.
SnowDog2003 1 month ago
@XOmniverse treat them both the same. Without relevant differences, there is no basis to treat two people differently. In addition to this, you can't just 'make up' a rule from your preferences and apply it to everyone. This leads to the non-aggression principle because action must be derived from value, and all values are personal. So only individuals can set personal moral preferences, leaving non-aggression as the inter-personal framework.
SnowDog2003 1 month ago
ok if rights don't exist prove to me that people like to be violated and get killed.
snakebitgoat 1 month ago
@snakebitgoat What do rights have to do with what people like?
XOmniverse 1 month ago
@XOmniverse Ok if people like being killed, then why don't we legalize murder? If people like being enslaved why not legalize slavery?
See now what people like and rights equate to?
snakebitgoat 1 month ago
@snakebitgoat Does it follow from the fact that most people prefer not to be killed, and therefore institute laws against murder, that there exists a MORAL right to not be killed?
XOmniverse 1 month ago
arent natural rights just the way we live by choosing values, working and keeping them, as long as we dont steal or have other people give us stuff
capi7al 1 month ago
Yes, natural rights don't exist per se. A right is law that men agree to follow for mutual benefit. But rights can be derived from nature and thus be called 'rational rights.' I also call these 'rights of the Crusoe mind.' The idea that consciousness is existence on the 'deserted island' of your mind and all minds have equal right to exist. So we can rationally agree that rights derive from the principle that a man exists for his own sake. All else should follow as the basis for a moral society.
plenarchist 1 month ago
Here is a link to Hoppe's AE: argumentationethics[.]wordpress[.]com[/]2011[/]12[/]25[/]argumentation-ethics/
gdmk1000 1 month ago
That's not true for Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics which I managed to use to persuade sceptics and consequentialists.
Attacking the simplistic natural-law position is a straw man since 1988.
gdmk1000 1 month ago
@gdmk1000 Preferences during a conversation only apply to the context of a conversation; they are not necessarily general principles about what a person prefers in all contexts.
There, the house of cards that is argumentation ethics has fallen, like every other attempt at a "purely logical" (meaning: without regard for human needs or empirical facts) proof of rights.
XOmniverse 1 month ago
@XOmniverse Oh... as expected. I have yet encountered an informed critique...
"Preferences during a conversation only apply to the context of a conversation"
well... of course the question of ownership (rights) only arises as far as people choose to talk things over. of course rocks and clouds don't have rights. but we are debating politics now, and so, the NAP must logically be presupposed.
gdmk1000 1 month ago
@gdmk1000 No it doesn't. *smacks you on the head*
XOmniverse 1 month ago
@XOmniverse But then saying no it doesn't is very different from saying "it doesn't matter" as you seem to have said before.
gdmk1000 1 month ago
@gdmk1000 "Proposition X is true" "No it isn't" "Aha! So you admit it matters?!"
This is ridiculous.
XOmniverse 1 month ago
@XOmniverse It was implied by your change of subject. I assumed you were commenting to the point, perhaps wrongly.
gdmk1000 1 month ago
@XOmniverse *Bursting into tears calling my mommy*
gdmk1000 1 month ago
voted up for 'verbal wanking'. don't know your main line of argument yet, so i may not even agree with your video
Ammo888 1 month ago
I would have to agree and disagree at the same time. I dont believe rights actually do exist, but I form my political ideas around anything BUT ideology. Mainly, I form my political ideas around what would be naturaly sustainable and humanly sustainable. Meaning that anyone policy or ideology that wont lead to satisfaction for the people, and might also lead to a replacement of that policy is dismissed in advance. Independent on the ideological arguments for it.
gulbirk 1 month ago
The only right a human has is to use natural resources that are not the property of another human. Depends if/how you recognise property, I suppose.
arcanekrusader 1 month ago
It's presumptuous to claim "rights don't exist." Different people mean different things by the term. And if by rights one means "a human action that does not initiate interference with another's action", then rights exist just as much as any other kind of action exists.
forindividualrights 2 months ago
@forindividualrights Every human action changes reality, thereby interfering with the options of every other human.
XOmniverse 2 months ago
@XOmniverse Your statement is, again, presumptuous: you presume to know exactly what sense of "interfering" I have in mind here. You also seem to be guilty of a certain lack of creativity in being able to have some reasonable guesses about what I mean.
In any case, no, I do not mean by "interfering" that, for example, your breathing certain molecules changes things such that I can't breath those molecules. That would be a silly, pointless way to define that word in this context.
forindividualrights 2 months ago
@forindividualrights How can I act without interfering in the actions of others if every action I take changes the options for everyone else?
XOmniverse 2 months ago
@XOmniverse How does "changing the options" interfere with my goal-directed action? I've already answered this very question by the breathing example. There are other unclaimed air molecules you can breath, just because I happened to breath the ones that would have otherwise been destined for you, that doesn't mean I've interfered with your goal-directed action in any way whatsoever.
It's hard to fathom why you're even asking the question.
forindividualrights 2 months ago
@forindividualrights It may or may not interfere with goal directed action. Usually, there's no way to know. My point is that the notion that coercion or violence (as libertarians use the terms) is the only way in which someone can interfere with goal directed action is false on its face. I can interfere with goal directed action in many ways.
We can't simply define aggression as "interfering with goal directed action" without leading to absurdities.
XOmniverse 2 months ago
@XOmniverse I never defined aggression as "interfering with goal directed action". I simply narrowed the field from your bizarre "changes the options for everyone" to something far more sensible. No one cares if you "interfered" in your sense. They only begin to care as far as goal-directed action is concerned.
forindividualrights 2 months ago
@forindividualrights We both apply for a job. I get the job. I just interfered with your goal-directed action. Is this a violation of your rights?
XOmniverse 2 months ago
@XOmniverse "Hiring" is an action of the employer, not me. So it's sheer nonsense to claim that his hiring you interfered with MY action.
forindividualrights 2 months ago
@forindividualrights You're about to walk onto my lawn. I step in front of you and say "Do not walk on my lawn." I just interfered with your goal-directed action. Is this a violation of your rights?
You and I both know that your definition of what a right is is vague and incomplete. Can we just agree on that and move on?
XOmniverse 2 months ago
@XOmniverse "You and I both know that your definition of what a right is is vague and incomplete."
My, you are an exceedingly presumptuous person. You can't read my mind and tell me that my meaning is vague. The fact is that it's only vague to you. It's also a fact that so long as you bring ignorant presumption into virtually every remark, discussion with you is pointlessly tedious. How about you stop.
forindividualrights 2 months ago
@forindividualrights This conversation is over. For whatever reason, my viewpoint annoys you, and when you tried to refute it with a comment, your refutation got refuted by me in one sentence. The rest of the conversation has just been you trying to dodge that fact.
XOmniverse 2 months ago
Excellent!!!
hayekian 2 months ago
This video and the one before it are both extremely excellent :)
SomethingNothingSea 2 months ago
Thank you Thank you Thank you! I'm probably likely to agree fuck all politically with XOmniverse, but this concession at least makes libertarianism tenable. And right or wrong, you can't convince people to change their ideas without referring to anything practical.
synchronium24 2 months ago
I have to disagree on this one. One of the reasons that I'm an anarchist and not a minarchist is that I think it's possible to establish a general moral code for society that can be deduced from rational principles, instead of arbitrary decisions made by politicians. If such a code can't be established, than anarchism is impossible.
Pericles461 2 months ago
@Pericles461 "it's possible to establish a general moral code for society that can be deduced from rational principles"
I wasn't suggesting that such things aren't possible. I was suggesting that they aren't possible with laser-like precision and perfect a priori reasoning. They have to be formed based on the practical needs of people, and open to revision and improvement.
XOmniverse 2 months ago
@XOmniverse I agree with that. Human welfare and freedom are the only legitimate objects of morality.
Pericles461 2 months ago
If you mean do rights exist eternally in some Platonic realm scribed on glittering gold plaques, then probably not. However do certain rights follow from our conditionality as natural creatures? I think defending one's property (personal or communal) from other parties probably would be one e.g. However one could possibly also argue a natural right to attempt to take another's property, so it gets murky. Hence the need for ethics & systems of belief which embody them in the most robust manner.
CeltoSaxonKnight 2 months ago
Would I be correct in assuming you are completely ignorant of argumentation ethics? 'The a priori of argumentation' ala Hoppe? Rothbard agreed with it and Hoppe's break through. So the take down of his natural rights is irrelevant, although there is no conflict between the two.
Conza88 2 months ago
@Conza88 - ?
Conza88 2 months ago
The idea "existence" is an idea without content. Stars exist - but this tells us nothing about stars; mathematics exists - but this teaches us no mathematics; hallucinations also exist. The point is that a predicate, such as existence, that can be attached to everything indiscriminately tells us nothing about anything. The question should not be "Do rights exists?", but "what are rights"?
freefallin002 2 months ago
@freefallin002 Using your approach, I would have to title the video something like "Rights are not rules of conduct that are somehow true independent of their usefulness to individual people."
XOmniverse 2 months ago
@freefallin002
When hallucinations and delusions are somewhat common, existence is an important quality to note. Were we animals capable only of observing the world and processing observations without adding biases and inventions. Of course then we would be without imagination; ergo, without technology, science, philosophy or anything which requires creating a model parallel to the observations we call reality. The bit of information that is existence is important.
doucher337 2 months ago
You seem to be saying "We must compromise, therefore, there are no absolutely/metaphysically true rights." I don't see how this follows. People can argue (in some cases, I think, correctly) that X are rights, and then compromise to have a society. That you're advocating compromise seems to imply that you support rights, like "People have the right to be able prosper as opposed to not being able to (which would result if people didn't compromise on rights), so we must therefore compromise."
kaleidyscope86 2 months ago
@kaleidyscope86 I didn't say that the non-existence of rights is predicated on the need for compromise. I said one of the negative consequences of having a deontological view of rights is that it makes compromise difficult.
XOmniverse 2 months ago
@XOmniverse I'm not sure how that's the case. Someone who's a consequentialist could think that a given compromise will lead to bad consequences, while a deontologist could think a given compromise is too far removed from their ethics. Also, what would you predicate the non-existence of rights on? Your pragmatic epistemology?
kaleidyscope86 2 months ago
There are no rights....
Only privileges granted by individuals more powerful than you.
watch?v=CmESEHbdtPw
safeinsuburbia 2 months ago
You say what I think.
t3hsauce 2 months ago
i also do not think that rights exist. however, despite that rights dont exist, NECESSITIES do. necessities being what they are, i think the argument for universal necessities is both moral and practical.
megaminxmaster 2 months ago
@megaminxmaster I concur.
XOmniverse 2 months ago
i don't recall exactly the scope of the natural rights aproach but my view varys a bit from yours. rather than hardcore consequentialism, i'd say it's a matter of where the focus belongs. that focus to me is personal liberty and rights are a derrivate of that consideration. i don't know if this is "natural" exactly but it is prior to a social consensus.
fede2 2 months ago
@fede2 *that's "derivative".
fede2 2 months ago
The Rationalist idea of Natural Law (Frobenius, Hobbes etc.), which is probably at the root of concept of Natural Rights, is really a few centuries old, and therefore dated. The Natural Law theories were progressive when all people believed that the Law could have only divine origins. However, for the sake of self-preservation human communities are effectively forced to develop the norms of behaviour in such direction that helps to improve their chances in the competition for limited resources.
danielsondanielson 2 months ago
omg, thank you... rights do not exist. Rights are fundamentally perpetuated on the concept that we are entitled to live and follow our own goals. Great, I can appreciate that we tend to establish etiquette and terms of retaliation or intervention. (If you abuse with a child, I will intervene.) But we are not entitled to live, or be happy. Nature will fuck you up, regardless of what your rights are. Live and let live is based on the idea that it's in your best interest to be good to others.
Sparkygravity 2 months ago
@Sparkygravity I think you misunderstand natural rights if you think they are interdictions on nature. They're there to regulate social conduct. They are "natural" in the sense that it is part of man's nature to be social.
Moragauth 2 months ago
@Moragauth I agree it it man's nature to be social, just like chimpanzees, but there isn't anything spectacularly divine about the humans species. People try very hard to separate us out from animals, with terms like "self-aware" and "consciousness". But the idea of rights is a construct, and falsifiable as being innately possessed by all people. Always.
Everything that you can think of as being a "right" has been violated on legal grounds, in different cultures in history.
Sparkygravity 2 months ago
@Sparkygravity Murder: legal. Still is under definition of war.
Rape: legal, historically speaking. Mostly by men who by legal definition could own, trade women and do what they wanted with them without impunity.
Pedophilia: still legal in countries where parents are afforded the "right" to arrange infant marriage.
These "rights" you live with are falsifiable. It all comes down to ability, we can hurt people, and we can intervene. Rights are a presumption, and not universal.
Sparkygravity 2 months ago
@Sparkygravity Falsifiable, surely. But because these actions are legal? Haha, no. Their legality is either justified or not by way of ethics, not vice versa.
Moragauth 2 months ago
@Moragauth Legalism is a construction and typically an extension of mainstream ethics. Inferior in all aspects, but I use it to point out, that widespread destructive behavior is an emergent property just as constructive behavior. It renders "natural rights" a moot point, as its simply disregarded, time and time again. The value for life and liberty is a tendency, not a guarantee. Rights don't exist, we don't have any naturally endowed entitlements, of any kind.
Sparkygravity 2 months ago
@Sparkygravity They don't exist in a metaphysical real sense. They do exist, however, as limitations on what can pass law. The fact that rights are often ignored is irrelevant as they're not being for in the form of some sort of magical shield.
Moragauth 2 months ago
@Moragauth not being argued for*
Moragauth 2 months ago
Friedman's approach is just a very crude form of consequentialism, assuming that a) consequences alone matter morally and b) that there is a moral imperative to strive to optimising consequences. If it doesn't it works by way of an assertoric hypothetical, and is then on no stronger ground than Aristotelianism which uses flourishing as its assertoric hypothetical. So pretty much on the same basis as Rand (survival qua man) or any Aristotelian (Veatch, Rasmussen, den Uyl.) So it moves no ground.
Moragauth 2 months ago
@Moragauth - I agree with you otherwise, but it's worth getting libertarian ethical positions clearly so we can avoid being strawmanned by less sympathetic opponents.
Moragauth 2 months ago
@Moragauth I wasn't necessarily defending Friedman's philosophy whole sale. But I think his criticisms of deontological rights (as commonly espoused by Rothbardians) are pretty dead on.
XOmniverse 2 months ago
@XOmniverse I'd need to know which you refer to in specific but I don't recall him making any compelling arguments against them.
Moragauth 2 months ago
@Moragauth Is flashing a flashlight on your neighbor's grass a justification for the use of force?
XOmniverse 2 months ago
@XOmniverse Arguably yes, it can be. Whether a court will choose to uphold it is a much more complicated issue but this is generally the case with pollution. Most of these issues will boil down to what you reasonably got yourself into by buying a property in a given area. But that's a question of application of principle.
Moragauth 2 months ago
1:03 you are DAMN right! Stop rambling FFS :D
MaikUniversum 2 months ago
rights exist because some men few hundred years ago wrote it on a paper.
MaikUniversum 2 months ago
@MaikUniversum They actually have pretty strong justifications for them. You may not agree but that does not vitiate that fact.
Rothbard relies upon Aristotelian justifications for rights, which in turn hinge on flourishing of the individual. Similarly with Rand. Molyneux, de Jasay and Hoppe do not defend rights per se but arrive at them via epistemological arguments. I have yet to see a libertarian other than Nozick who merely asserts rights exist aside from "practical" -
Moragauth 2 months ago
@Moragauth concerns, whatever that means. Consequences perhaps but only insofar as consequences are divorced from intention and taken as the standard of action. It's easy for ethereal creatures with no earthly existence to say problems of resource conflicts are arbitrary and any moral system is as good as any other but no such beings exist.
Moragauth 2 months ago
@Moragauth rights as morals, yeah, they are social constructs and they "exist" as such. I am personally more deontological moralist rather than consequentialist, but I use arguments from both sides.
MaikUniversum 2 months ago
@MaikUniversum Well it's best to realise they are connected. You can't really separate an action from its intentions and consequences as they feed back and affect one another.
Moragauth 2 months ago
@Moragauth yes.
MaikUniversum 2 months ago
When Rand said "Natural Rights" I think she meant that this is the behavior proper to man, in his best interest, what is "natural" for him: behaviors like not restricting functional work of others for instance.
Another problem I encounter when attempting to defend Rand is I always use my language to do so, and so the two tend to complicate in strange ways.
seanthedonconsidine 2 months ago
@seanthedonconsidine Social cooperation is part of man's nature. Rights mediate it by allowing us to filter through which legal actions are or are not justifiable. They are, therefore, enablers of social cooperation and to that extent "natural" as they allow man to fulfill a natural function. There are NR ethicists who take rights as real entities but aside from Platonists I can't see why they'd do so. They should be understood as intellectual constructs with the purpose of justifying actions.
Moragauth 2 months ago
@Moragauth I'd mostly agree with that, and I would think that Rand would as well, albeit we'd both be using different language.
The only people I have experienced who behaved as if NR were empirical things were Peikoffian Objectivists (significant distinction must be made between Peikoffian "Orthodox" Objectivists and those who are influenced by Rand), who behave as if any "official" Objectivist idea is absolute truth.
seanthedonconsidine 2 months ago
I see "natural rights" as a construction, as an extension of our desire to preserve our lives and territory. There are no natural rights, just people.
jollyradical 2 months ago
This reminded me of how much I HATE Stefan Molyneux, what a way to start off a morning.
reapfreak 2 months ago
@reapfreak What is wrong with him?
Moragauth 2 months ago
@Moragauth I strongly disagree with his beliefs (like his views on morality and children), but mostly because he's just another cult leader.
reapfreak 2 months ago
@reapfreak I don't like Molyneux personally, but he has some good ideas about family. I certainly don't endorse him. I'd be curious of your opinion on my videos on deFOOing.
XOmniverse 2 months ago
I know that you're not an Objectivst, but you're at least familiar with some of Ayn Rand's writings. The source and nature of rights is extensively covered in Objectivist literature. I'd suggest that you look at Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand for starters.
bma051000 2 months ago
@bma051000 I'm more than merely familiar with some of Ayn Rand's writings. I've read both of those books.
XOmniverse 2 months ago
@XOmniverse And so have I and I agree with you on this issue. Men's "rights" are a metaphysical reality only in the sense that man needs to be free do live properly - which can be observed to be true when different societies are compared with regards to liberty and how well men fared in them. Men's "rights" are, in the Objectivist sense, what is proper to him - what practical rights he requires if he is to live properly - not more and not less.
john42t 1 month ago