Human Rights: Subjective Fancy or an Objective Truth?

[Dodec84]

Of course human rights are "subjective fancy", what else?

[deviantcreep]

Who is anybody to say what values are the right ones? Human beings are diverse and so they should be as this gives us an advantage as a species to NOT have all the SAME values... One cultures values might make them adaptable at one time and then maladaptive when circumstances change. So having lots of cultures with wildly divergent values is actually good for the survival of our species.... Think about it....

[deviantcreep]

The only thing inate that relates to human rights is empathy. Empathy bonds people together which creates common values but those values themselves are NOT truth. Empathy is not any definable value system, it is only a tendency of the brain that gives us an evoltionary advantage. What I consider to be my human rights may be an offense to another and who decides who is wrong? Is it God? Is it nature? No one is wrong. No law can work for all people the same as someone will always feel oppressed...

[deviantcreep]

@deviantcreep

Yes there is also the inate desire to survive, and to be content but.... There could always be situations where my survival or contentness maybe equal to someone elses demise or misery and vice versa (zero sum). What if I decided it was my right to fly a white pride flag in my backyard. You can bet someone would burn it as people would be offended just like if somebody wanted to walk around downtown nude and masturbate people would be offended and stop it...

[larrysg1]

Human Rights are only an Objective Truth if one believes in a Universal Objective Standard. The Dec. of Indep. explicitly states that "all men are CREATED equal"..."endowed by their CREATOR." Clearly, we see the language of Objective Truth here represented by the belief in a God. Belief in Objective Truth is contingent on belief in a Universal Objective Standard.

Also, do rights only apply to humans or to other rational creatures? Oh, so much Kant and Rousseau, I can't take it! :D

[dumbzebra]

I really dont get it. How are these truths self-evident? Did I just not pay enough attention?

[FlowCell]

I wish you made more videos like this.

[unmarkedX]

No possible reasonable argument based on scientific knowledge for defining human rights that are different to those of animals on principle

Lots of practical reasons to do so though

Human rights are an invention that helps societies operate more smoothly and efficiently

That is all

That is why they were made up

[Origen305]

Man is born free, yet everywhere around him he is in chains. If Human Rights have any objective 'reality', it must rest on our hierarchy of freedoms. Some argue convincingly that property rights have for affect only oppression. Is there an inalieable and objectively 'true' right to property?

[MotionFur]

Only problem is, what some may call "self-evident," I call an "assertion."

[DantesObjective]

Thats the basic philosophical mistake of the founders. They did not have a consistent philosophical base and therefore wrote in the rights as axiomatic, opening the door for any metaphysical and epistemological position.

[MotionFur]

Well, many people feel they can't argue for freedom if they don't hold it to be some sort of nebulous idea like a "self-evident good."

I don't think you need to hold such a position to argue for freedom, but moreover, it all flies in the face of search for truth.

[Liezei]

A subjective truth is no truth at all. Human rights aren't illusions or opinions. They are subjective truths accessible through reason. As soon as you get past that absurd materialist assumption that the mind is an illusion then you can treat rights as reasonable truths which nobody can warp or ignore.

[Liezei]

oops I meant to say that human rights are "objective" truths.

[unmarkedX]

oh

you mean like GOD

[blackacidlizzard]

Since when does materialism entail the belief that the mind is an illusion?

[unmarkedX]

good

PROVE LOGICALY then the existence of human rights independently from society and civilization.

How come the is not a single argument either in this video based on anything other than FAITH?

Objective truths are based on facts and evidence

not on beliefs

[unmarkedX]

reason is based on evidence and facts

nothing to do with blind faith in mental inventions

[LowcountryJoe2]

"Well, I was really hoping nobody would be dumb enough to think ..."

Be more careful of the assetions you make, then.

"...then why was the constitution written?"

Who made the claim that rights are physical? BTW, the Constitution was written to codify natural rights; ensure that gov't would not take away that which does not belong to it. The founders knew that mankind tended to not respect each others' bestowed rights and attempted to establish law to forbid this. Read the Preamble!

[gaia942]

What the hell is an objective truth or opinion?

Sure we have inbuilt facial recognition processes that define what we are more inclined to ally toward. But they can twisted just like your natural ability to (literally) piss anywhere. You can train any mind to think a certain way about a specific feature within an indifferent race of humans.

Such word combinations scream illogical. Non-sense. Please look at a dictionary before spouting off so-called "objective truths".

[BigDaddyBongos]

If I kicked you in the crotch that would be an objective truth.

[gaia942]

What? To whom?

1:You won't know for certain that I was a phsical being eg. not part of a dream, holograhpic image, reliving the world through recreated electrical impulses, you were on drugs but didn't know it.

2:You wouldn't know for certain that my crotch was where you would expect it to be.

3: If noone else saw it or had no way of seeing it they would have to trust your opinion that it actually happened.

4: You do not know for certain that it was your foot you where controlling.

[gaia942]

5:Everyone could have a different definition of kicking than you.

In summary you can't physically touch a previous event in its concept. That whole idea is retarded good day sir.

[BigDaddyBongos]

Whine all you like but if it actually happened you'd be embracing objective reality by using the NZ justice system (if that's where you actually are) faster then you can say "wah my subjectivist ideas make the concept of justice impossible".

[UcanbeGOD]

EVERYTHING i mean EVERYTHING is decided by the collective. If there is some objective on rights then why the hell do so many people not have them? It never ceases to amaze me how people can think that rights are any more real than the tooth fairy. WE MADE THEM UP because we like being free. If everyone one decides that I don't own my shirt then I suppose they can take it from me, I can claim that I own it but where is my proof that I do? It doesn't exist except in the minds of people.

[LowcountryJoe2]

Everything? You mean that that individual preferences inheret in each individual are decided by a collective? That I find you to be ignorant was decided by a collective? Look, you're the one that used the word everything twice - even made it allcaps for affect.

The reason why so many people lack codified formal rights is because there are too many people in this world that think that they know better than others...they rise to power on the backs of tools like you and then snuff you out.

[UcanbeGOD]

"You mean that individual preferences inherent in each individual are decided by the collective?' NO dumbass thats not even possible. Rights are made up like santa clause, you think that rights are some physical thing?"The reason why so many people lack codified formal rights is because there are too many people in this world that think that they know better than others" YAY! you got it! Thats the collective I am talking about. Where do rights come from to you a juju in the sky? Its MADE UP!

[LowcountryJoe2]

But you wrote "EVERYTHING is decided by the collective" and wrote "EVERYTHING" twice, moron. So, which is it? Your newly found sensibility or are you going to stick with your previous idiotic version.  I've got issues with each but I'd sure like to see you agree with yourself, first, before I reply again.

[UcanbeGOD]

Well, I was really hoping nobody would be dumb enough to think things that CAN"T be decided by the collective out of shear physical impossibility would be understood. I suppose thats why there are warning labels on hairspray. Things like rights are decided by a collective, humans made up rights remember? We didn't just have them, if we had them and they were physical entities then why was the constitution written? Because some people made up their idea of rights and other cultures do the same.

[Darkestaxe]

my comment was posted starting at the beginning, as a result it lists upside down (newest first), start with my first comment posted, at the bottom.

[Darkestaxe]

The problem with HTWWs reasoning is that HTWW was the one who first suggested that it is categorically wrong to regulate the economy. If his rebuttal is that capitalism doesn't allow for slavery, then by his logic HTWW should be opposed to capitalism for preventing humans from being property as a regulation of the economy which is not motivated by profit. Otherwise he should accept that at least sometimes free trade should not be absolutely free.

[BigDaddyBongos]

Slavery isn't free trade for the slave you dumb motherfucker.

[halomandrummer]

exactly, that's why the original wording "life, Liberty, and Property" was changed to "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" because slave owners tried to twist the Declaration of Independence to support their so-called "right" to own slaves. Therefore, slaves were exonerated as property

[Darkestaxe]

While the truth of the rights may be objective in some transient sense, he is correct in that we would not get these rights without the collective recognizing these transient rights. Appearently, HTWW realized just how stupid he looked and found a way around admiting he was wrong on these points. He accused Tf00t of believing that capatalism allowed slavery.

[Darkestaxe]

Tf00t and AA both try to point out the stupidity of this line of thinking. Tf00t used slavery as an example of how profit does not protect our rights, when regulation does. In pointing this out he states that our rights are given to us by the collective.

[Darkestaxe]

He generaly says that all problems that government regulation adresses would be better solved by supply and demand/free trade (all problems, not just the ones he gives as examples) and that any regulation of free trade is 'evil socialism'.

[Darkestaxe]

As to the issues between Tf00t and HTWW, I think you misunderstood what the two were argueing about. Initialy, HTWW made several videos containing a continueing theme of ridicule for government regulations or actions. Most of the time (not always) he states little or no reason aside from continualy pointing to capatalisms supuriority over socialism and lying scientists.

[Darkestaxe]

If that government or its laws, or its law enforcement were not present, than no matter how objective of truths these rights may be, we humans couldn't count on seeing these rights in action.

[Darkestaxe]

We could argue all day as to whether or not the rights themselves are objective or subjective, I'd point out 'we hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT' from Decl. At the end of the day, in the US we as a nation have agreed (one way or another) on certian rights which every one should have and we have a government to enforce them, and a constitution to aid in defineing where we draw the line.

[orclv]

Rights are made in human minds, without mains there are no rights.

p.s. a lot of appeal to emotion

[earthypig]

Thank you so much for making this video. Favorited.

[hamilton701]

Good video. But I think HTTW was a hypocrite on a couple of points. First, he says he believes in the inaleinable right to "life", yet he said he would "gladly" kill innocent people through the use of the death penalty, in order to prevent second time offenders. He is willing to be complicit in taking an innocent person's right to life. Second, he would be okay with being ruled by creationists, even though they have an oppressive interpretation of the right to pursue "hapiness." Just saying.

[hellsunicorn]

While I personally concur with you regarding HTWW's view on the Death Penalty, you'd have to apply the same standard to Thunderf00t, since he believes that it is the duty of all to sacrifice their happiness for the collective. Creationists and Collectivists are both bound by a capricious, subjective viewpoint on morality, and though they are different, one is not really preferable to the other.

[hamilton701]

Hellsunicorn,

First off, I am glad you concur with my position regarding the Death Penalty. Second, you just proved my point regarding HTTW being a hypocrite for choosing Creationists over Tf00t. You said: "one is not really preferable to the other." Right, so HTWW should not have said he'd PREFER creationists. It was a dumb comment on his part, because both are a potential threat. You and I are actually on the same page in regards to acknowledging basic unalienable human rights. Cheers.

[hellsunicorn]

I wouldn't really pick sides myself between the two, or between Thunderf00t and HTWW for that matter, but I've noticed a generally slavish/cult-like nature to TF's followers and a general rudeness on his part that puts me off a bit more than HTWW does. I plan on trying to debate HTWW on several of the issues I mentioned, but more from a Libertarian angle rather than the bankrupt collectivist model.

[hamilton701]

hellsunicorn,

Yes, I agree with your assessment of some of Thunderf00t's followers. A good chunk of them are drones. I like a lot of Thunderf00t's earlier videos, but, during this debate, he fell short on many accounts. I think it would be fantastic if you put together some responses to HTWW from a Libertarian angle.

I am going to send you a couple of videos you might find interesting. One is a serious video by Shanedk, while the other is just intended to share a laugh. Cheers.

[IFukdYourGirlfriend]

Damnnnn this video is so Deep. It makes you seriously think. Great Video and thanks. Can't wait for the next one.

[MisterBusta]

Thanks! =)

[Sam26100]

The courtroom scene, what movie is it from?

[NihilistCommentary]

There are no rights, only privileges. Privileges which are defined either by the collective or the elite. George Carlin said it best: "A right isn't a right if someone can take it away." Anyone who disagrees, just go on Wikipedia and type in the search bar "Japanese Americans 1942". You'll get all you need to know about "rights" there.

Semper Infidelis

[KinsmanCa]

Is this meant to be a response to Thunderf00t's claims about rights, or a stand-alone video?

[hellsunicorn]

I think this is in relation to a separate conversation with another user, and the Thunderf00t thing just happened to coincide with it.

[SaimDI]

Regarding the US constitution, we have NOT been endowed by our 'creator' any rights.

Just because the US constitution says it, doesn't mean it's true...

[hellsunicorn]

A source countering the viewpoint would be in order if you are seeking to prove the opposite of what the US constitution says. Furthermore, the US constitution is rooted in the philosophy of several prominent Naturalists, so the proper argument would be that because a large number of prominent Enlightenment era philosophers saying it doesn't mean it's true.

[SaimDI]

Hellsunicorn, of course! That's exactly correct.

Why should I get a source to prove the opposite of what the US constitution says? The US constitution is not some world arbiter on philosophy.

All that misterbusta has done is say "The world would be better with objective morality" and "some important people agree with me", rather than give any actual evidence why it's TRUE.

[hellsunicorn]

If you're general belief is that there is no such thing as "Objective Truth", which is what I think you are saying by virtue of your posts, I don't agree with you. Sources are preferable to generalized statements that something is true or untrue because it gives more depth to the pursuit. But if you're aim isn't to convince anyone and simply to make you're point, I understand, but I'm not buying it, and I think MistaBusta's video is a pretty compelling argument.

[SaimDI]

HOW is it a compelling argument? He didn't actually give any REASON why it DOES exist, rather than why it SHOULD exist.

Of course there's such a thing as objective truth. There can also be objective morality but only once we define morality, this definition itself is subjective though.

[hellsunicorn]

Coming to an objective truth comes by two methods, induction and deduction. Pointing to the successes that have come from a set system of laws and rights is a method of proving an objective truth, and the undeniable progress that humanity has made since the concept of Life, Liberty and Property is obvious to anyone with all of his senses in tact.

People can get caught up in hypothetical arguments and forget that a rock is hard, no matter how much harder a diamond may be.

[SaimDI]

The American revolution? The civil war? These had nothing to do with human rights, they were began by the wish for SECESSION.

WHY are there objective human rights? Where is your evidence? Your only argument for them is 'The world would be better if there was'. Why would the universe take sides in human interactions?

And about 'great men' rallying people to the 'rights of man', not everyone agreed with them so I don't see your point.

[MisterBusta]

"WHY are there objective human rights? Where is your evidence?"

During the Age of Enlightenment, piles of books were written on this very subject (which highly influenced the American Revolution). I don't think the 600 or so character limit would do it justice.

Your question is valid, though. I guess I ought to just refer you to the myriad of writings during the Age of Enlightenment. Look up writings by: T. Jefferson, T. Hobbes, T. Paine, A. Smith, etc. etc.

[Abkerct]

Human rights

Noun

A fairy tale conceived by a bunch of unelected, aristocratic, chauvinistic, slave-owning white guys who didn't want to pay their taxes.

[thebar21]

i think you guys really need to get laid. yeah, malph, that means you too.

[Embler9]

The concept of freedom wasnt discovered in the 1770s. Its much older, the only reason why it was implied during the American Revolution was because up until them not enough people supported the ideal. There were people who were against slavery in antiquity but it was never abolished because not enough people supported them. When is a human right unalienable? From the moment theyre discovered and everyone suddenly starts accepting it, or from the moment an old idea gains enough support?

[MisterBusta]

"When is a human right unalienable? From the moment theyre discovered and everyone suddenly starts accepting it, or from the moment an old idea gains enough support?"

My position is that human rights are objective truths that have always existed, regardless of whether a certain society knew about them, supported them, or ignored them.

So while the concept got momentum in the 1770s, the idea itself is a timeless truth.

[Embler9]

Well that means these rights are quite useless until theyre accepted by the collective. The argument youre using (correct me if Im wrong) is: wouldnt it be awful if moral ideals were subjective? The statement that something would be dreadful if it were true isnt really an argument at all, its an appeal to emotion. I would like to believe human rights are absolute but the reason I dont is because I have yet to see convincing evidence that supports it.

[MisterBusta]

No, what I'm saying is: Human rights is an objective, real truth.

The way to answer it lies in reasoned logic. Some things (such as conceptual ideals) will never have physical evidence--you need to rely on reasoned logic.

Ex: You will never see a single shred of physical evidence that I (or anyone but yourself) has a consciousness--we could all be complex machines with no sense of self or subjective sensations. But using reasoned logic, you can ascertain that we do.

[HellWithPoverty]

"Human rights" are social constructions, sociology 101. These values or rights are collectively agreed upon amongst a group of people.

[Embler9]

We can actually prove consciousness simply by comparing your brain scan to that of a coma patient. In order for something to be objective not only does it have to have a rational explanation but also materialistic evidence (which we can verify through our senses and not the mind). Conceptual ideas are called what they are because they dont have an objective basis. I have yet to see any empirical proof for a non-subjective moral compass.

[earthypig]

so you don't even believe in the *golden rule* that Hitchens often talks about?

[unmarkedX]

the golden rule is a utilitarian principle

it only defines rights within a certain social context

for example if you were some tribesman, a warlord or a european nobleman of a different century you migh well have though that killing someone in a duel,of some sort, is acceptable

if he kills you fair enough!

there! golden rule applied! still no human rights

[earthypig]

i think u r talking about "code of honor" when u talk about duels (fair fight etc).... one could turn down the challenge but then you would "lose face" and lose honor.... such *code of honor* is cultural and doesn't have much to do with the golden rule that hitchens talks about imho.... indeed, such "code of honor" is what makes religious fanatics murder rape victims.... to preserve "honor"....

[unmarkedX]

No not really

I am talking about defining justice on reciprocity

You accept that it is fair for someone to kill you in a duel as long as you also get the chance to kill him in a fair fight

And society accepts that since you guys are willing to play it that way JUSTICE is upheld

[unmarkedX]

Duels were also used to resolve practical matters and disputes

Like disputes that today would be the object of legal proceedings

(as is honour by the way, we still have courts and damages paid over honour issues, so honour or material dispute really makes little difference)

[unmarkedX]

So there can be no 'inalienable' right to life as far as the state is concerned

And yet a concept of justice (very much along the lines of the golden rule) still exists

[earthypig]

also what constitutes damage to "honor" always changes largely depending on the society... again it's cultural....

[unmarkedX]

you are too busy confusing yourself

no point me trying to clarify anything

my position is clear and your argument is inacurate (duels have been used in history as a way to determine more than honor) and irrelevant (the same applies to the death penanlty and every rule that violates a human right)

as long as one accepts a so called 'violation' of so called 'rights' on a FAIR basis (or a basis perceined as fair) the golden rule is not violated

[earthypig]

@unmarkedX i *respectfully* disagree with you - and if i have confused you my apologies - u don't seem to understand my point and i am not here to educate you. i can live with the fact that you will never understand me. good day :)

[unmarkedX]

good

[earthypig]

yes, if you live in a society that believes that duels are important and necessary to uphold one's honor - it's cultural. we no longer live in a society that believes any slight to one's honor should be resolved in a duel. most cause for a duel had to do with upholding one's honor. it doesn't have much to do with the "golden rule" that hitchens talks about, is my point.

[earthypig]

"So while the concept got momentum in the 1770s, the idea itself is a timeless truth."

Yes, there were people being killed for rebelling against the unfairness of the *system* for thousands of years -- though these people were powerless and were immediately punished, they had an innate understanding of their rights.

[MisterBusta]

By the way, the thumbnail of your name now has the homo-erotic image of that guy you made your last vid about. Clicking on your comment in my Comment Inbox, and seeing him appear next to your name, had me laughing for a full minute!

[MisterBusta]

I've heard about it, the "Anti-Blasphemy Resolution"... it only serves as more evidence for how impotent and useless the UN is becoming. The very notion to even consider such a thing is ludicrous.

[FlowCell]

You need to post this as a responce to TF's call for the USA to subject itself to the UN.

[Donkey655321]

Well produced vid.

A few things bugged me though.

1) You seem to assume that not believing there to be some fundamental truth to human rights, implies that we should not strive to better our treatment of each other.

2)When referring to the horrors of Rwanda you seem to have forgotten that the UN has a universal declaration of human rights.

3)"...to believe this is to believe that mass genocide and enslavement performed in mans antiquity...is perfectly moral" I'm sorry,but that was just stupid

[MisterBusta]

1. There is no way to "improve" upon something which is purely subjective. It's like saying today's fashion is better than the fashion of 1950s.

If it's all subjective, than being nicer today doesn't make us any "better" than before--it only means we're acting differently (not "better").

2. Exactly. A discovered -truth- the UN serves to protect.

3. If it's subjective, and society defined it as moral at that time, than it would be perfectly moral. That's the definition of subjective!

[Donkey655321]

1) Whether or not you hold your values as fundamentally true or not, it does not keep you from having values.

2) No a consented definition, the UN sometimes does something to uphold.

3) Morality is subjective down to the individual, just because society does not deem something wrong does not mean everybody in it considers it moral...

Ask a vegan

[MisterBusta]

1. I like steak better than chicken.  If tomorrow, I suddenly prefer chicken over steak, did I "improve" my values on food taste? Of course not; it's subjective.

2. Not sure what you're saying.

3. This only strengthens my point. No society will agree on Human Rights 100%. Therefore, the opinions of a collective will always have a minority who dissent. If human rights is defined by the collective, then oppressing those who dissent would not be a violation of rights by its very definition.

[Donkey655321]

1) Let's skip the analogies and just clarify where you and I differ.

I assume you believe "these truths to be self evident..."

Whereas I simply think of them as decent values (and I recognize this as an opinion)

Why do you think I have to believe they are true to believe they are useful?

2) I mean that the UN universal declaration of human rights has validity due to consensus.

3) See: UN declaration of human rights.

Anyway I only wanted to point out the fallacy held in the original quote.

[Donkey655321]

"If human rights is defined by the collective, then oppressing those who dissent would not be a violation of rights by its very definition."

If we're still talking about antiquity, the concept of human rights wasn't really around back then to my understanding. So you argument sounds a bit too much like "if a tree falls in a forest..."

Hmm...

If a gladiator was forced into a ring before the concept of human rights existed we're his still violated

[MisterBusta]

"If a gladiator was forced into a ring before the concept of human rights existed we're his still violated "

Excellent question. My position is: Yes, his rights were violated, precisely because human rights are real, objective values that have existed even before we discovered them fully.

In other words: if a tree falls in a forest with no one there to hear it, yes, it does make a sound.

[Donkey655321]

"human rights are real, objective values that have existed even before we discovered them fully."

I know of no evidence pointing to that, feel free to give me some.

You pull the heart strings really well with your video but you make no action to actually prove human rights are anything other than then a concept.

You can still hold them in high regard even if you believe they lack a fundamental truth...

I know. I do.

[MisterBusta]

They are only a concept. You won't find any physical evidence for them. But concepts can hold just as much objective truth as anything else.

[Donkey655321]

"But concepts can hold just as much objective truth as anything else."

How?

We can't measure them.

[MisterBusta]

Any logical truth is a concept (and only a concept) that cannot be proven using physical evidence. However, because of our reasoning mind, we know logical truths to be truths nonetheless.

Here's a logical statement many atheists use: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This statement is taken as truth using reasoned logic... but you can't "prove" this to be true using measured, physical evidence. Only logic.

[Donkey655321]

But concepts such as rights,obligation, right, wrong, just, evil etc have no place in logic.

And additionally (and this is the point in conversation where I start irritate people) Since all logical proofs rely on axioms. I hold that even that for which a logical proof can be given, there must exist a number of unproven (unprovable perhaps) assumptions,

So what gives you the right to call it objective truth, rather than just a bloody good idea.

[Donkey655321]

""Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This statement is taken as truth"

Not by me.

It lacks a qualifier.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... in order to what?

To convince whoever said it perhaps?

If so then it's a subjective truth.

[MisterBusta]

I can see your point, and while it's a very important point to concede to, it's basically the same as the old: "We can't be sure of anything except that we exist and have a conscious mind."

Everything we do in this world, from logical truths to science experiments, rely on some basic assumptions. And how much evidence counts as "enough" evidence to hold a truth is also subject to interpretation and assumption. At some basic, fundamental point, you gotta make a stand.

[Donkey655321]

"At some basic, fundamental point, you gotta make a stand."

Sure but that still doesn't entitle you to declare your personal beliefs are anything more than just that... Personal beliefs... Especially if you can't give evidence to support otherwise.

You don't have to think an ideal true in order to think it worth upholding.

(Sorry if I keep repeating myself but I consider this important)

[Donkey655321]

"We can't be sure of anything except that we exist and have a conscious mind."

That too falls under the definition of unprovable belief (sure it's sensible just not provable), after all we could be characters in a book and the author just wrote us to think this way.

[Donkey655321]

"(sure it's sensible just not provable)"

On reflection I don't think it "sensible" to believe "We can't be sure of anything except that we exist and have a conscious mind."

""We can't be sure of anything" Makes sense, but doesn't really do anything for you...

Hmm

I suppose it makes it easier to change your mind with regard to other things.

[MisterBusta]

"after all we could be characters in a book and the author just wrote us to think this way. "

This might be true for everyone -except- you. But since you have a thinking, conscious mind, you KNOW for a FACT that you are real. Denying your own existence, despite having a conscious mind, is completely illogical. The very act of denying your existence is proof you do, in fact, exist (if though "proving" this to anyone -else- requires they make certain assumptions).

[Donkey655321]

"since you have a thinking, conscious mind, you KNOW for a FACT that you are real."

Or maybe the author just made me think that I know that...

Before this conversation declines into complete nonsense regarding the nature of proof, let me ask again.

What reason do you have to believe there is some sort of objective truth concept of human right?

[Donkey655321]

"Sure but that still doesn't entitle you to declare your personal beliefs are anything more than just that..."

A document (Bill of rights: Amendment 1) recognized as legal in your country does that.

[MisterBusta]

Your position is, basically, that everything we believe (even something as fundamentally true as believing I am real) is subjective. This is silly.

[Donkey655321]

"Your position is, basically, that everything we believe (even something as fundamentally true as believing I am real) is subjective."

No just unprovable.

"This is silly."

That's a subjective opinion

[MisterBusta]

If you don't think your own existence is provable (provable to yourself, I might add), than how is anything else provable?

Denying the truth of your own existence -must- entail denying absolutely everything else. If you don't understand this, I doubt our discourse can go any further.

[Donkey655321]

"how is anything else provable? "

Proof in logic (which you brought up) is quite a different from the everyday use of the word.

Proof of this sort should IMO be left to mathematicians.

"Denying the truth of your own existence -must- entail denying absolutely everything else."

That is a fallacy.

If I were to claim myself to be a figment of your imagination then I would affirm your existence whilst denying mine.

See?

BTW I don't claim there to be no truth to the notion of my own existence.

[MisterBusta]

"If I were to claim myself to be a figment of your imagination then I would affirm your existence whilst denying mine."

Denying your existence is, by definition, proof that you exist. Things that don't exist cannot deny anything. The act of denial is a conscious action, which only a conscious mind can do. So denying your own existence is, in-itself, proof that your denial is false.

Again, if you don't understand this, I don't think we can go much of anywhere in this debate.

[Donkey655321]

"The act of denial is a conscious action, which only a conscious mind can do."

A character in a book can say "I don't exist", and as far as I books don't have minds in them.

[MisterBusta]

"A character in a book can say "I don't exist", and as far as I books don't have minds in them. "

There are words on a page that read "Johnny says 'I don't exist'." There is no conscious entity that is Johnny (in this context) denying himself--it's just words on a page. There is no conscious act of denial, since Johnny is not conscious. It's words on a page

But YOUR mind is real. YOUR mind is conscious. YOUR denial is proof you exist.

This is so fundamental, I don't know what else to say

[Donkey655321]

"There is no conscious act of denial, since Johnny is not conscious. It's words on a page"

And yet were you to talk about the story you might mention that that Johnny denied his own existence.

"But YOUR mind is real. YOUR mind is conscious. YOUR denial is proof you exist"

Can you get any more circular, I know it's real because I know it's real.

[MisterBusta]

It's a fundamental truth. If you think, you exist. If you do not exist, you do not think.

This is philosophy 101 here. I appreciate your comments, and you did bring up some excellent points, but we've reached an impasse here regarding basic philosophy, so I think the debate ends here.

Again, thanks for the debate, and I do think some of your points were really well put. I look forward to more discourse with you in the future.

[Donkey655321]

The problem is, without strictly defining what "I" means in Descartes old saying "I think therefore I am" all you have is...

I think therefore something.

[Donkey655321]

Of coarse if you want to get back to the issue of there being an objective truth to human rights or whether they come from "the collective"

Lets look at the definition of rights.

"A right is a legal or moral entitlement or permission"

Well there have it. Human rights are not an objective truth but rather something that comes from "the collective"

[MisterBusta]

PS: Thanks for the constructive criticism, and being respectful. It's much appreciated! I want different views and debates to go on; it's why I make vids (and watch vids). So feel free to voice your dissent from my opinion, and thanks for being respectful while doing it (instead of the piles of "TAA is awesum, u failz!" I get now-and-then)! =)

[Donkey655321]

"(instead of the piles of "TAA is awesum, u failz!" I get now-and-then)! =) "

That stuff really annoys me too, especially when it comes from someone taking my side.

[MisterBusta]

Thanks! And I will definitely Netflix "Shake Hands with the Devil". I can only imagine how horrible the murders were; I guess Hollywood didn't want an NC-17 rating or something... but showing scenes of shocking gore that actually happened is important--it's not just shock value, but displaying what horrid atrocities occurred there. Not pleasant to look at, but important that we never forget.

[hellsunicorn]

Excellent video, I'm now featuring this one on my channel. There is nothing subjective about Life, Liberty and Property rights.

[MisterBusta]

Thanks very much!

[WtfY0uHax]

Wow, Interesting Vid!