Where do Rights originate?

Discussion in 'Quackenbush's' started by kgp, Apr 21, 2008.

  1. mia1994

    mia1994 1,000+ Posts

    Actually, GT WT, I agree. If God is ineffable then discussion to his nature is pointless.
     
  2. netslave

    netslave 1,000+ Posts


     
  3. mia1994

    mia1994 1,000+ Posts


     
  4. Statalyzer

    Statalyzer 10,000+ Posts

    FWIW I don't think God can make contradictory things happen. For example, an all-powerful God could make a person able to walk through a wall, but couldn't make it both true that the person walked through a wall and that person didn't ever walk through a wall. Because that second thing isn't really a "thing" at all, but a meaningless non-concept.


     
  5. netslave

    netslave 1,000+ Posts


     
  6. NBMisha

    NBMisha 500+ Posts

    Mia
    I think we both understand and essentially agree on the implications of determinism vs free will, with or without a supreme being.

    As to whether quantum indeterminacy implies overall indeterminism, I don't want to say that I know it does or does not. Lets assume there is some indeterminacy that shows up at the classic (post coherence) scale.

    I just wanted to put out there that introducing randomness (in my example, a little, but I think the implication is the same for a lot) does not improve the free will situation for the actor. Either the world is deterimined and free will is out, or what freedom there is is a result of external random influences and the actor cannot claim a free will type responsibility for these. This is a simplified argument I offer just to consider the point most broadly. Again, for more elaboration see Dennet's "Freedom Evolves". His point is not that the world is determined or not (he holds it is) but that this typical causative connection between indetermism and free will is not valid. Just for consideration.

    Finally, none of this really influences the way we continue to go about choosing and avoiding, etc, I think we are all agreed, religious or no. As you say, at least national socialism is an ethos, and is thus much preferable to self negating ideas like anti-realism, or, as Walter would say, nihilsm. I would label a belief in determism or lack of belief in "typical" free will as "banal" rather than self negating, but perhaps that's just style. It governs my actions not a whit, which is what we both say. And this is what Dennet calls a free will worth wanting (vs the empty free will from the classic argument). Again, style.

    Some of this might influence one's views on certain religious concepts, if we came to believe these concepts through some sort of critical decision process, which we do not, at least according to most evidence. This is not meant as an insult to religion or lack of it.

    An odd destination for what looked like a legal history topic.
     
  7. Huckleberry

    Huckleberry 1,000+ Posts


     
  8. netslave

    netslave 1,000+ Posts


     
  9. netslave

    netslave 1,000+ Posts


     
  10. Huckleberry

    Huckleberry 1,000+ Posts


     
  11. mia1994

    mia1994 1,000+ Posts

    Stat, I was leading to what Huck said.

    NBMisha, I agree with you almost (if not) completely. You take the argument past my personal comfort zone, so I'm trying to weasle myself back there. My point is not that quantum indetermanincy denies causality, but rather I'm suggesting that if randomness can exist on the quantum scale, then you can't rule it out on the macro scale, either. Can you build rigidly causal universe on the foundation of the quantum foam? Possibly, but I don't want to think about it cause it makes my head hurt.

    Huck, that was what I was trying to say to Stat.

    NetSlave, how 'bout this? I'll stop suggesting we don't have free will and you stop offering that God is omniscient. Either that, or I need you to admit the paradox and just say you don't have a problem with it. If either of those things happen, I'm fully prepared to go on. If not, I'm tapping out because we clearly aren't making any headway. No harm no foul, I've just said all I can say on the matter.
     
  12. netslave

    netslave 1,000+ Posts

    In reply to:


     
  13. mia1994

    mia1994 1,000+ Posts

    Agreed, God's limits are ineffable.Seems like we are falling into three camps.
    In order of appearance....

    Camp I

    "Rights" are guaranteed under the authority of man.

    Camp II

    "Rights" are guaranteed under the authority of God.

    Camp III

    "Rights" are an evolutional requirement (evolutional determanism, if you will) which existed before reasoning.

    Reading them written thusly, I'm somewhere between camps I and III.

    Any more schools of thought?
     
  14. mia1994

    mia1994 1,000+ Posts

    Do anyone else think this thread would be cooler if it were named, "From whence do rights originate?"
     
  15. netslave

    netslave 1,000+ Posts

    Maybe "From whence doth rights originateth?" [​IMG]Ultimately, I'd say Camp I, but with the recognition that the ideas from Camp II strongly influenced Camp I. Camp III is making noise as well, but it all leads to Camp I with the end decision.
     
  16. kgp

    kgp 1,000+ Posts

    I suppose that technically, "How and by what authority, if any, do rights originate?" would be a better title. For me, "rights" is a word like "love." It means different things in different contexts. In the political sense, rights are really just perceptions of influence over others-- perceptions that may be on the part of a potential actor or on the part of one potentially affected by the (in)action. They may only be on the part of a witness. Political rights are not necessarily moral, not necessarily absolute, and not necessarily meaningful in terms of what actually happens. They apparently change with time. Claiming a right is then, in a sense, no different than any other political discourse or proposition such as debating an appropriate speed limit.

    As to the side discussion regarding free will's limiting God's omniscience, it seems people are making possibly unwarranted assumptions regarding the metaphysical consequences to supernatural beings. The fundamental question appears to be, "Can God let one choose between two things freely while aware of what his choice will be?" Applying systems of logic and analysis predicated on a sequential world governed by causality to a being which may be outside of spacetime itself is a useful way to begin to postulate answers to questions such as this. To say definitively that it answers them is to assert personal knowledge of God's power and the universe's deep nature.

    The old question about whether He can make a rock too heavy for Him to move, as many here already know, is a classic equivocation on "too heavy for Him to move." God can make a rock as infinitely heavy as He pleases, and can likewise move a rock as infinitely heavy as He pleases. The nature of the question, just like, "Did you stop beating your wife?" tries to force an answer that really has little useful meaning.
     
  17. GT WT

    GT WT 1,000+ Posts


     
  18. mia1994

    mia1994 1,000+ Posts


     
  19. netslave

    netslave 1,000+ Posts


     
  20. mia1994

    mia1994 1,000+ Posts

    I guess I'm saying "smelting" is not an evolutionary stage. If you want "in between" then you need to identify characterists we have, not accomplishments we've made. Your examples are trying to find the middle ground between us and, well, us. I agree that humans are special, but if you are trying to make a statement as to how special then you need to isolate specifically what you are talking about. I would argue that there really aren't many basic characteristics we have that at least some animals don't also have. Other animals have opposable thumbs, can vocalize, use tools, build complex structures, solve puzzles, have long term memories, some can even use a written language. You can't judge the advancement by resume, but rather by capacities. I would argue, for the most part, what makes is different is the specific combinations of evolutionary innovations, and not the innovations themselves.
     
  21. netslave

    netslave 1,000+ Posts


     
  22. Perham1

    Perham1 2,500+ Posts


     
  23. netslave

    netslave 1,000+ Posts


     
  24. Perham1

    Perham1 2,500+ Posts


     
  25. Statalyzer

    Statalyzer 10,000+ Posts


     
  26. netslave

    netslave 1,000+ Posts


     
  27. Perham1

    Perham1 2,500+ Posts


     
  28. Kyrie Eleison

    Kyrie Eleison 500+ Posts

    Okay, I'm in late on this, but I'll start with these two comments....one from THEU and the other from bozo.


     
  29. netslave

    netslave 1,000+ Posts


     
  30. mia1994

    mia1994 1,000+ Posts

    Stat, camp III is NBMisha's, but I believe the argument is that there are inate behaviors which are selected upon. It is tempting to say that we have a conscience which tells us that we shouldn't murder, but if you subscribe to Camp III you are saying what is really driving the impulse is millions of years of evolution. My presumption for Camps I, II, and III is that they were the final authority for those behaviors. If you subscribe to camp I you are saying that if there is a God, then he doesn't so much care if I do a little insider trading. If you subscribe to Camp II then you believe that the rules that we follow in society have their roots from a theological perspective. We don't kill because it is not what God intends. If you are in Camp III then you are saying we have a biological imparative to behave in a certain manner, and all the rest of it is just a rationalization.


     

Share This Page