glintofpewter Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. This doesn't say where individual human rights are derived it says that goverments were contrived by use of reasonn. Is his basis "natural law"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 The implications of the Declaration and Consitutions statement that all are created equal under the law has taken 200 years to evolve. Was anyone advocating for equal treatment under the law for gays or the disabled 200 years ago? Just as it took 4 billion years to arrive at the US Constitution it will take time to understand the implications of the Declaration and Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture;it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. I think the ethos here is that of the individual right. Again, this is in contrast to the prevalent political systems of the day -- the monarchy, presupposing the divine right of kings, royal blood, etc., which to the founders are unreasonable doctrines. In any case, Dutch is correct that the passage cited talks about the system of government and not the derivation of human rights. If human rights can be deduced, then reason is needed. But we need substantive premises toward that end. Where do these premises come from? This has been a question unanswered. If you can't have individual rights without "divinity" (whatever that means), please explain why gay marriage is still banned in the majority of the bible belt states and why the Christian Right is still fighting to erode individual rights in the name of "freedom of religiion." The courts recently passed a ruling allowing religions to get away with discriminating against disabled people and you don't even have the right to sue them anymore in the name of religion. Why is it that in Muslim nations women are still fighting for the right to drive a car of all things if you can't have rights without religion? I see little evidence of any correlation between religion and individual rights expcet in the other way around in that it seems like the only people trying to ban individual rights are the most religious people. If we can have rights without religion, all one must do account for their origin. What does Muslim culture or the Religious Right have to do with the historical peculiarities that is the focus of our present discussion? If there is no connection between religion and rights, then what was the context in which the ethos of rights evolved? Surely a generic "reason" could have led some other way. Look at the communist movements. Or even more pointedly, the French Revolution led by anti-religious fanatics in the service of "Reason". What about the founders version of "reason" at this historical juncture was different from the reason of these other examples? Peace, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 The atheist philosopher Jeremy Bentham defended the equal rights of gays and women over 100 years ago yet Christians are still trying to committ genocide against gays in religious nations like Uganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 Quakers were among the first in the abolitionist movement. Christian women who raised money for the abolitionist movement opened Frederick Douglas eyes to need for euqlity for women. Progressive christians were among early advocates for Equality for Gays. There are conservative movements and progressive movements in Christian thinking just as there are in non-Christian. I am not claiming Christians or anyone has exclusive insight into truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I think the ethos here is that of the individual right. Again, this is in contrast to the prevalent political systems of the day -- the monarchy, presupposing the divine right of kings, royal blood, etc., which to the founders are unreasonable doctrines. In any case, Dutch is correct that the passage cited talks about the system of government and not the derivation of human rights. If human rights can be deduced, then reason is needed. But we need substantive premises toward that end. Where do these premises come from? This has been a question unanswered.As a moral consequentionalist, I believe morals should be based on what provides the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. This is how democracy works where we try to find secular objective reasons independent of religion and tradition that provide the greatest amount of happiness for the American people while also trying to balance that out with the rights of the minority. If we can have rights without religion, all one must do account for their origin. What does Muslim culture or the Religious Right have to do with the historical peculiarities that is the focus of our present discussion? If there is no connection between religion and rights, then what was the context in which the ethos of rights evolved? Surely a generic "reason" could have led some other way. Look at the communist movements. Or even more pointedly, the French Revolution led by anti-religious fanatics in the service of "Reason". What about the founders version of "reason" at this historical juncture was different from the reason of these other examples? Peace, Mike Communism was pretty much a quasi-religion and a cult of personality which would be contrary to the principles of critical thinking and one could argue Jesus' teachings on property rights and the poor have more in common with communism than they do capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Communism was pretty much a quasi-religion and a cult of personality which would be contrary to the principles of critical thinking and one could argue Jesus' teachings on property rights and the poor have more in common with communism than they do capitalism. My point was that "universal reason" is incapable of yielding our values. Other systems had just as much claim to "reason" but did not produce the same ethos. This is because any worldview must rest on substantive premises. Without these, reason is impotent. What were the premises that led the Founders to affirm something called "the rights of man." As a moral consequentionalist, I believe morals should be based on what provides the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. This is how democracy works where we try to find secular objective reasons independent of religion and tradition that provide the greatest amount of happiness for the American people while also trying to balance that out with the rights of the minority. Setting aside that consequentialism as such is not unproblematic, and that probably even more difficulties lie in trying to isolate "independent, objective" values, the concept of "right" appears, then, to be a foreign element, snuck in through the back door. Either rights are a rationale formative of our moral reasoning, or they are themselves inconsequential to whatever moral theory we entertain. For the founders, they were definitely the rationale. If "rights" do not belong to consequentialism, nor to universal reason, where did the founders get this notion from? Peace, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Why is it that in Muslim nations women are still fighting for the right to drive a car of all things if you can't have rights without religion? For the record this should not be plural. It is one; Saudi Arabia. Since religion produces such bad societies, maybe one should also ask a series of 'whys' about the behavior of secular societies such as the USSR, Red China, and Cambodia (in which “killing fields” are found). George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 As a moral consequentionalist, I believe morals should be based on what provides the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. This is how democracy works where we try to find secular objective reasons independent of religion and tradition that provide the greatest amount of happiness for the American people while also trying to balance that out with the rights of the minority. Moral right is determined by the happiness of the majority except for minority rights. Hmmm. But, what defines the rights of the minority? Unhappiness of the minority? But now the majority is unhappy. Then, happiness of the minority controls what is morally right? At some point, it seems to me, rather than a show of hands, one must state what is moral right and the basis from which it is derived. Principles such as the Golden Rule or Kant's Moral Imperative are, IMO, a good start. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 If "rights" do not belong to consequentialism, nor to universal reason, where did the founders get this notion from? Peace, Mike If you only get rights from religion, by what standard do you determine that religion was wrong about slavery when slavery was endorsed in the bible by God and nowhere in the bible does it condemn the practice of slavery? Imagine if you asked "where do the Jews derive their concept of individual rights if they don't accept Jesus into their hearts?" Such a statement would be considered antisemitic and highly inflammatory yet for some reason it's still acceptable in polite society for Christians to say atheists have no basis for morality. Moral right is determined by the happiness of the majority except for minority rights. Hmmm. But, what defines the rights of the minority? Unhappiness of the minority? But now the majority is unhappy. Then, happiness of the minority controls what is morally right?I'm not saying that the moral rights of the minority is determined by unhappiness but you must balance the two so that the happiness of the minority is respected as well. You have to be able to respect the happiness of the majority while also preventing the tyranny of the majority. Since religion produces such bad societies, maybe one should also ask a series of 'whys' about the behavior of secular societies such as the USSR, Red China, and Cambodia (in which “killing fields” are found). As I've already said two posts above, communism was basically a quasi-religion and a cult of personality itself which is contrary to the principles of critical thinking which I already explained two or three posts above. I don't know why people here keep ignoring me but it's rather rude. Show me a society based on the principles of Thomas Paine, Bertrand Russell, and Robert Ingersoll which is also more corrupt than a religious society and then you might have an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murmsk Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Social Justice is a personal agenda perhaps motivated by ones faith view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 Show me a society based on the principles of Thomas Paine, Bertrand Russell, and Robert Ingersoll which is also more corrupt than a religious society and then you might have an argument. I am not sure you would ever be able to find such a society, humans beings being what they are. Certainly Ingersoll lived an exemplary life. I had to look him up. He said that intelligence was our moral guide. I believe in the existence of "prophets". Certainly Russell and Ingersoll fit my conception. But intelligence is morally neutral. In Ingersoll's definition there is something missing. I am thinking he was a consequentialist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 Andrew Newberg in his brain imaging research has identified two types of believers: those who live from a fearful conservative worldview and those who live out their faith from an exspansive and inclusivist worldview. Why would this spectrum not be found in non-believers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I see violent common uprising and communism as one of those "rebound" effects, when tension against an oppressing power/ruling class becomes too great for the society to bear. Once the tension becomes so great it snaps, releasing pent-up anger and frustrations, is in effect as the metaphor of oversteering incoming out the ditch on one side of the road so as to wind up off in the ditch on the other side of the road, I think this can be in effect at any level from individual personal crisis to any collective level in society. It sometimes takes that, and then a good bit of bouncing back and forth and around, to eventually arrive at a balance, tracking closer to the middle of the road. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Andrew Newberg in his brain imaging research has identified two types of believers: those who live from a fearful conservative worldview and those who live out their faith from an exspansive and inclusivist worldview. Why would this spectrum not be found in non-believers? As having formally studied psychology, I can affirm, yes, this same spectrum not only is observed in "non-believers", but found at rates not signficantly different. Additionally, arising out of studies of how faith and religiosity correlated to how well or not people in Europe that had experienced personal and life trauma in the events of WWII, it first appeared there was no correlation at all. Faith and religiosity seemd to not make much difference one way or the other, which was quite an unexpected result. However, those researchers so intrigued as to pursue the matter further, did discover an interesting "pattern." Further study of those that did express signficant connection to faith and religiosity revealed a postive correlation between those whose fiath and religiosity was a more internalized in the basic underlying principles of their faith, spirituality, and religiosity, with less attachment to formal trapping and practices of their religion, that did demonstrate a more open and wider world view, as being more likely also to have fared relatively well in dealing with and recovering from their trauma, while those that held a more externalized relgiosity, attachment to the doctrines, practices, and outward observances and standards of their religion, tended to fare less well. And it diid not matter which religion they held, whether Judism, Protestant or Catholic Christianity, or any other. So how well any fared was more correlated to a more open and accepting and positive world-view, whether they were religous or not. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 As I've already said two posts above, communism was basically a quasi-religion and a cult of personality itself which is contrary to the principles of critical thinking which I already explained two or three posts above. I don't know why people here keep ignoring me but it's rather rude. Show me a society based on the principles of Thomas Paine, Bertrand Russell, and Robert Ingersoll which is also more corrupt than a religious society and then you might have an argument. I don't think you can just dismiss secular (actually anti-religious) ideologies as "quasi-religion" in order to make the argument that religious societies are inherently corrupt. Also, I am not sure that the USSR was a "cult of personality" as there was a succession of rulers. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 If you only get rights from religion, by what standard do you determine that religion was wrong about slavery when slavery was endorsed in the bible by God and nowhere in the bible does it condemn the practice of slavery? Imagine if you asked "where do the Jews derive their concept of individual rights if they don't accept Jesus into their hearts?" Such a statement would be considered antisemitic and highly inflammatory yet for some reason it's still acceptable in polite society for Christians to say atheists have no basis for morality. I don't know why people here keep ignoring me but it's rather rude. Neon, Why am I (and others) being "rude" and "inflammatory" for asking a philosophical question, to which you still have not given any direct answer? I asked whence the founders derived their notions of rights, and you have consistently redirected the conversation to other matters and projected onto others arguments they didn't make. If the founders could not have derived their beliefs in "the rights of man" from "universal reason" or from "consequentialism", then where did they derive it from? If you only get rights from religion, by what standard do you determine that religion was wrong about slavery... Again you're reifying religion, as if it's some kind of singular object. I argue that you only get rights from certain improvable metaphysical assumptions, and that that's indeed where we did get the idea from in our particular historical circumstances. It may be difficult to accept, but there is no given universal "standard" by which to determine religious or moral truth, nor is it incumbent upon me to offer one in order to advance my argument. It is sufficient to point out that the "rights of man" were derived from such-and-such religio-metaphysical context and that "rights" must be supported by some such context. You seem to suggest that no such context is -- or even was -- needed in order to arrive at the rights of man. But when asked how they were arrived at, no answer has been forthcoming. Peace, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 It's inflammatory for you to imply that atheists are incapable of understanding basic human rights and moral values unless Jesus came flying down like Superman to save us all from the speeding bullet of nihlism and it's all thanks to religion that atheists can behave themselves and any concepts of morality and human rights that atheists do have, they only have them because they're somehow hijacking the inherant goodness of religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Neon, You have not responded to what was actually written. This is functionally equivalent to not having read my post. My argument is not that "atheists" or "secularists" cannot have morality, but that in order for them to have morality they must in the end do something very similar to what religion has been doing. Religion -- again -- is not a thing, and therefore there's nothing "inherent" to it. The second part of my argument has been the simple observation that religious thinking has had a lot to with the shape of our present system of values (i.e. that we owe our particular conceptions to the circumstances of our religio-cultural history), and that there is no “universal standard of reason” by which we could have arrived at these values. The rights of man were nourished under certain metaphysical pretenses. My observation is the secularists are often quick to dismiss religion, and yet do not want to do the hard work of establishing metaphysical foundations to replace those of religious philosophy. But this is, as they say, to have one's cake and eat it too…to dismantle something and yet want to preserve it at the same time. At no point in our history has it been obvious why atheism/secularism per se does not lead to nihility. There must be some substantive content therein to avoid that otherwise inevitable conclusion. This is a valid argument that should be addressed as such instead of being merely taken offense at. Peace, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Even more to the point, it's not obvious that basic human "rights" even exist. Where do they come from; what is their content? Where do atheists or anyone get this notion from? It's not based on an observation of the natural world, that much is sure. But if not empirical, then what? Metaphysical. And one should never assume that this or that metaphysical presupposition is "default", for then one is assuming one's own conclusion. If one person believes in something called "rights", it is valid to ask why they believe in it and what their metaphysical justification is. One could just as easily, after all, arrive at a worldview in which "rights" do not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 In Justice: What's the Right Thing To Do? Michael Sandel examines the utilitarian idea proposed by Bentham. This is the idea that the greatest societal happiness is the basis of moral judgments in governance. He points out two fundamental objections. First, the idea of the greatest societal happiness fails to respect individual rights. As an example, this would justify torture for the greater good if society were threatened. Potentially society would benefit from torturing a few citizens who might have knowledge that would prevent a terrorist attack. This is the argument advanced by Dick Cheney after 9/11. The second objection is what Sandel calls "a common currency of value." In Utilitarianism, a cost-benefit analysis assigns no value to human life. Sandel cites the case of smoking and cancer which, it has been argued, shortens smoker's lives and therefore saves society the cost of caring for smokers in old age. This was actually argued in the Czech Republic by Phillip Morris not many years ago. The argument is that society is better off by allowing some people to die early. I don't think that most Americans, religious or secular, would subscribe to a Utilitarian 'cost-accountant' basis for governance of our country. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 If one person believes in something called "rights", it is valid to ask why they believe in it and what their metaphysical justification is. One could just as easily, after all, arrive at a worldview in which "rights" do not exist. This is the question: What is the philosophical basis of human rights? Is it religious? I feel like it may have its genesis (pardon the expression) to the idea of an individual, their soul and their relationship with God. But, I would like to hear some thoughts on this. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I think it probably does find its home in that conception of the human as a rational soul, with a natural born, intrinsically meaningful standing before God. Speaking of Genesis -- does this ethic not find consonance with humans being "made in the image of God"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Sarah Blaffer Hrdy says that humans were emotionally modern before they were physically modern. Her view is that shared rearing of children was the context for shared intersubjectivity which is perhaps the crucible for the evolution of social justice values. I think that we must take this long view, a big history as some say. The evolution of social justice values is at least 200,000 years old. If you buy me a beer I will argue that it is 4 billion years old. While these values were not born in religion, religious stories are a a way in which we carry and maintain them. Religion is also a place where we have conversations about these issues and arrive at new conclusions. I know there is a dark side but Jesus did arise out of such a context. The Ten Commandments, Jesus' Two Commandments, the Westminster Confession, and the Constitution of the United States are four of the many gatherings up of our best understandings in the very recent evolution of our ideas of social justice. They are part of the same arc. I don't think there would be an Enlightenment or Thomas Paine without this evolution. Take Care Dutch I think this is a good point Dutch. Whilst social justice today may be heavily aligned with religous values, I think that is more of a case of how it has developed more recently. I think there is a good case for some of the first instances of social justice being more about the peasant class revolting against the wealth of kings & queens & the aristocracy. So no religous bent but rather a majority of the population saying "we want more of what you have". Was America's revolt against English rule a religous based social justice action or non-religous? I'm no expert on US history but as I understand it the revolt was over British rule and taxes and the right of America to rule itself - social justice in action without the religous bent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Neon, You have not responded to what was actually written. This is functionally equivalent to not having read my post. My argument is not that "atheists" or "secularists" cannot have morality, but that in order for them to have morality they must in the end do something very similar to what religion has been doing. Religion -- again -- is not a thing, and therefore there's nothing "inherent" to it. The second part of my argument has been the simple observation that religious thinking has had a lot to with the shape of our present system of values (i.e. that we owe our particular conceptions to the circumstances of our religio-cultural history), and that there is no “universal standard of reason” by which we could have arrived at these values. Again, I ask, if you believe we can't have human rights without religion yet you object to the bible's endorsement of slavery which again it never condemned, by what standard are you deteremining which religious morals you accept as human rights and which ones you reject? Aren't you just cherry picking the bible like everyone else? Rather than deriving their morals from the bible, everyone cherry picks the bible to form a Jesus that fits their perception. Socialists cherry pick the bible to make Jesus sound like a socialist. Tea Party Christians cherry pick the bible to say Jesus would be a Tea Party member. Christians who support the Iraq war cherry pick the bible to make it seem like Jesus would have supported it and Christians who are against the Iraq war cherry pick the bible to make Jesus a pacifist. Aren't we just forming a Jesus in our image so that Jesus always agrees with what we say is moral and immoral? First, the idea of the greatest societal happiness fails to respect individual rights. As an example, this would justify torture for the greater good if society were threatened. Potentially society would benefit from torturing a few citizens who might have knowledge that would prevent a terrorist attack. This is the argument advanced by Dick Cheney after 9/11.Expcet for that inconvient problem that torture doesn't work and there's no scientific evidence that torture produces reliable information, so torture wouldn't bring happiness to the greatest amount of people since it doesn't even work at all. The second objection is what Sandel calls "a common currency of value." In Utilitarianism, a cost-benefit analysis assigns no value to human life. Sandel cites the case of smoking and cancer which, it has been argued, shortens smoker's lives and therefore saves society the cost of caring for smokers in old age. This was actually argued in the Czech Republic by Phillip Morris not many years ago. The argument is that society is better off by allowing some people to die early.A better alternative would be to reform health care to make it more effective and cheaper to care for the health of the greatest amount of Americans as Obama tried to do with his health care reform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.