Basic human rights

I managed to come up with these three so far:

1. The right not to be harmed. Harm is defined as something which causes them pain, or unneccersary change to their mental or physical state.

2. The right not to be interfered with, unless it is justified by the above right.

3. The right to do anything that does not violate the rights of other people, as defined above.

However, I'm thinking that 2 and 3 could be conditional, especially in the context of a Fderal Nightwatmen/Minarchist system, where they would be replaced by the right to change state.

The above post basically echose my position from the 'Cleanslate Etthics and Morality' thread: the right not to be harmed and the right to follow ones political ideology, with the former having precedence over the latter.

There, that's about got it licked.

All rights are conditional, and all are relative. The universe we live in means that there is no so called "Right" that in some cases is "wrong," and ends up with fewer goals achieved for fewer people (IE my definition of bad).

What if a situation arose where 2 people would die were one not sacrificed? What then? That is a violation of these "rights," but certainly we can agree that in this case it makes the most sense? What about taking someone to a psychologist to keep them from committing suicide? Certainly suicide is an unnecessary change to their physical state, but is the psychologist an unnecessary change to their mental state? Is it okay to beat the s*** out of someone, while they're drugged, and then leave them such until they recover, then send them back to their lives with no lasting effects? Would it be wrong to jail you or send you to a psychologist in order to prevent you from doing that?

Quote :

All rights are conditional, and all are relative. The universe we live in means that there is no so called "Right" that in some cases is "wrong," and ends up with fewer goals achieved for fewer people (IE my definition of bad).

Relative in the sense that they only apply to our species. We can't consider things outside of our control, such as the entire universe, as we haven't experienced anything other than Earth.

As for the hypotheticals you listed, they are irrelevant or a familial, and not governmental, decision.

"The study of human institutions is always a search for the most tolerable imperfections," - Prof. Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago

Redsand wrote:

What if a situation arose where 2 people would die were one not sacrificed?

See 'Ethics and Morality' I'm talking about basic rights as guaranteed by the government. In the case you mention, neither position would be considered murder.

Redsand wrote:

What about taking someone to a psychologist to keep them from committing suicide? Certainly suicide is an unnecessary change to their physical state, but is the psychologist an unnecessary change to their mental state?

Nope, because we aren't forcing a change in their mental state. Any change comes from them. Now, if we drugged them without their consent, that would constitute an unnecessary change in their mental state. It is possbile to restrain people without harming them physically, which is what we'd try to do in the case of a lunatic going around attacking people. If we can't... then they have an appointment with Mr Bullet. These rights don't apply to you if you keep violating them.

Locksley wrote:

As for the hypotheticals you listed, they are irrelevant or a familial, and not governmental, decision.

Exactly.

I am against established rights for the same reason I am against a government- its totally unnecessary if people work together. If its imperfect, then it should probably be replaced with something that can work perfectly- Anarcho-Communism.

Since this is the clean slate, there is no reason to compromise on it.

Human nature, Redsand, human nature. People aren't going to work together, at least over a certain size.

Besides, what problem do you have with someone guaranteeing your right to have a Anarcho-Communism state?

Amend the first right I came up with: I'd have it as the right not to be harmed without your consent. That way, if someone wants to be eaten (and some people do) then... hmmm. Are they mentally ill? How does that affect our law system?

Prove it to me, then. Human activities vary immensely based on culture, and if you look even in your own mind I guarantee you'll find a huge amount of things that are only such because everyone around you was such.

Change society, you change everything.

You can't base human rights on a secular, atheistic outlook, because such a viewpoint lacks the idea of objective human rights. Snce you seem to be demanding that rights be ased on such an outlook...

Yes, rights are irrelevant.

Presumably you want rights to be based on something that isn't an atheistic outlook- IE a 2000 year old fairy tale based on a bronze age myth.

What evidence have you that shows that objective human rights need to exist?

Remember, because is not a reason. Not in a CS I'm a part of, at least.

Atheism does not mean the absence of morals or rights. Let's get that out of the way first.

Second, why don't you start your CSCS without a guarantee of rights. Tobias and I will start one with a set of guaranteed rights protected by the state, and we'll see what happens.

If my CS were founded on Universal Utilitarian principles, your list of rights would be better enforced in it without any enforcement.

Rights enforced without enforcement? That's a contradiction, an oxymoron, a paradox.

Nope. People would do things without coercion, but they would do what benefits everyone nevertheless.

And in fact instead of having to fit it into words that are by nature not exact, people will do what you're actually trying to express with these rights: the greatest goal fulfillment for the greatest number.

There would be either infinite rights or no rights in my CS, since none would be stated but people would be limited only by choice.

New one: the right to not be ignorant. That covers education, to a degree - it's there if you want it, and you have to be aware that it's available - and the news, as well as freedom of information.

That's very ambiguous and the term "ignorance", as well as to whether this is a positive or negative right (A positive right is for example a right to universal healthcare, while a negative right is to not have your freedom of location impinged upon, IE one is a right to while another is a right of), or to what extent it is a positive or negative right.

Keep in mind that the right to not be ignorant could be anything from the right to pay to go to a private school to the right to know everything about everyone and everything.

Positive right - permit or demand action
Negative right - permit or demand inaction

Okay, for Redsands delectation - "The right to information about other ideologies, and the constitution".

Clearer, at least.

As far as the archaic concept of enforced lists of rights goes, this isn't so bad, although I'm against the entire concept.

Your right to an education goes as far as knowing that you can get an education if you want one.

To what extent? Paid leave from your job, if not a minor, or just to it being legal to operate a private school.

Is this a positive or negative right? Positive would be that the state governments are mandated to provide said education, negative meaning that they're required to do nothing to stop you from paying for your own education? Is college included? To what extent can that education be biased (Remember, all education is indoctrination to some extent)?

Quite a bureaucracy would develop in order to make sure that these rights are provided for everyone.

This is related to the right to follow ones political ideology - if your government doesn't let you access the Internet, go to one that does, and your previous government can't stop you, no matter what your age.

....guaranteed by the government.

This is the problem! Human rights are inherent to the human existence! No government can grant or take away your rights. Just, like, for example, no one is saying that your hands are not yours. Our right are not privileges granted by the state or taken away by them, because they have no authority in the first place to do so. Second, one can not control something that which is not theirs.

I'm not saying the government decides what rights to grant people. Guarantee means safeguard, i.e. what are the basic human rights that everyone is entitled to, which the purpose of the government is to safeguard?

What I am saying is that HUMAN RIGHTS, are inherent, or are on intrinsic part of the human being.

If the government exists to prevent the violation of these rights by other entities and not to GRANT, these rights, than I will agree with you.

As for identification of these rights, well, the book is open on that.

Here is suggestion, The right to freedom. Do as you will without violating the right of others.

Erm... that's what I've been suggesting all along, that the government exists to protect the intrinsic rights of Hnau (old solar word, refers to all sapient/sentient beings). Of course, we need to identify those rights...

Oh ok, as long as the freedoms are not granted and taken away by the state, but are intrinsic to the human being, that I agree with you.

So, how about we identify what are NOT our rights, that way it would be easier.

Is driving a right? Or more to the point, being able to move oneself anywhere on this planet, is that right?

No, because that would allow someone to enter anothers property. However, you do have the right to not be held against your will...?

So then what ethical system grants me the right to own property.

As long as there is more land than people it would seem fair to be able to own property? What happens when there is more people than land?

By what authority or right do country's claim land? Military might?

Hate to interrupt this discussion of enlightenment values, but where do any of these rights actually come from? Is it from a deity, and if so where's the proof of that deity's existence? Is it a natural property of the universe, and if so can you prove it to me beyond emotional appeals?

Furthermore, how do you reconcile this with the fact that either "Might is Right" or "God said so" was the reasoning behind social structures back for the entirety of human history? (IMO, popular support is one of the better manifestations of "might is right"). Basically, what do you know that they didn't?

I argue that the "rights" are an intrinsic part of a human being. That is, it is inherent to our existence. Like the laws of the physical universe.

You can't argue that my arms are not mine, and that I have no right to my arms or to use them. The concept of of basic rights could be hardwired in our emotions through evolution, or our Creator, for the religious people.

As for emotional appeals, that is all we have. Ethics are all subjective. So are all moral systems.

The form of my human body dictates how my body functions, what it is capable of and what it is incapable of, be it no matter how hard I try otherwise.

Perhaps in the same way the form of my mental and emotional landscape dictates my "rights".

Quote :

I argue that the "rights" are an intrinsic part of a human being. That is, it is inherent to our existence. Like the laws of the physical universe.

Prove it. I can prove that a=F/m by experiment. I can prove that 2+2=4. I can prove that the planets go round the sun. I can prove that I am (Cogito Ergo Sum). There is no corresponding proof for your natural rights standpoint. In fact, you acknowledge that:

Quote :

As for emotional appeals, that is all we have. Ethics are all subjective. So are all moral systems.

In other words, morals exist because we perceive them to exist. Correct? That means that humans are the essential element to all morality because that morality stems from our perception of the universe. Our perception stems from our brain's interpretation of the raw data that our senses hit us with (To my understanding, this is what neuroscience is saying). Like everything else, these morals are what we interpret them to be. That means that they are created by man, and can be destroyed by man. Thus they are not universal.

Quote :

You can't argue that my arms are not mine, and that I have no right to my arms or to use them.

Sure I can:

You were born, and exist now, due solely due to the kindness of your parents. Without help from them, you would have long died of starvation and neglect, and in fact you would not exist at all. They created you; Therefore they can destroy you. Everything that you have and everything that you are is rightfully theirs, for as long as they live, because they created you by their own actions. Who are we to redistribute their investment in labor?

There is nothing grammatically incorrect with the statement "You neither have rights to the control of nor ownership of your body." In reality, I don't argue that. But the argument can be made. The argument has been made, in the context of slavery. If you are a physical laborer, are you not selling the rights to your body to your employer? You are abrogating your own rights. However, you do not have the authority to do that. According to you, your rights are universal, and no man (or woman) has the right to alter them, which would logically include yourself.

Why do I need to prove it? What is proof? I have identified these basic rights, by following laws of logic. Or, so I hope.

I hold these rights to be a self evident axiom.

Morals are different from rights, because morals and ethics are the interpretation and implementation of these basic rights. The problems of morality or amorality arise only from lack of understanding of these basic rights.

Just because my parents made me it does not give them the right to kill me! Because of the basic rights, which are axiomatic. That is, basic rights are a fact of reality, that have been identified by humans. These rights are a fact and require no proof.

Like I said, these rights are on intrinsic part of the human existence, of the human being. But they are not physical law of the universe, but are concepts that we apply to certain states of human existence, these states themselves being axiomatic.

In truth there is only one fundamental right, that is, the right to live, or to life. All other rights can be and are derived from this axiomatic right. No one has the right to deprive me of the right to life for the benefit of the collective or other human.

If the meaning of life is "proper" and "prosperous" survival, than without these rights man can not survive, so these rights are a REQUIREMENT OF HUMAN NATURE.

Quote :

Why do I need to prove it? What is proof? I have identified these basic rights, by following laws of logic. Or, so I hope.

You need to prove it because nothing can be said to exist without proof, or at the very least convincing evidence. Otherwise, Occam's Razor cuts it out of consideration. I have yet to see any proof, anywhere, that rights are anything but given by man to man. They are not "self-evident"- they stem from the intellectual tradition of the enlightenment, before which they were not considered to be clearly true, or even true at all. In many places in the world today, your ideas of universal rights are entirely foreign to the ways of thought of the people who live there.

Quote :

Just because my parents made me it does not give them the right to kill me! Because of the basic rights, which are axiomatic. That is, basic rights are a fact of reality, that have been identified by humans. These rights are a fact and require no proof.

Actually, if you are claiming them to be a fact, they need to be proven, otherwise they are not facts. Definition of a fact from dictionary.com:

fact(n.):Knowledge or information based on real occurrences

Essentially, facts have to be confirmed by experiment. If you cannot prove it, it is not a fact, it is a hypothesis at the very best.

You say that they have no right to kill you- and the laws and constitutions of most countries agree with you. I agree with you. But that does not make it fact. Those laws stop with the borders of the countries that enforce them.

Quote :

Like I said, these rights are on intrinsic part of the human existence, of the human being. But they are not physical law of the universe, but are concepts that we apply to certain states of human existence, these states themselves being axiomatic.

So in other words, it's subjective. Make up your mind- if it is a universal fact, then it is not subjective.

Quote :

In truth there is only one fundamental right, that is, the right to live, or to life. All other rights can be and are derived from this axiomatic right. No one has the right to deprive me of the right to life for the benefit of the collective or other human.

Can you prove to me that this is a fundamental right? Can you prove that there is such a thing as a fundamental right, outside of human legal systems? Certainly the very legal systems that are created to uphold these rights occasionally abrogate them with the death penalty. Eventually, the universe itself will abrogate our "right to live" when we die. If it were a universal right, surely the universe wouldn't take it away at a rate of 150,000 people each day.

Quote :

If the meaning of life is "proper" and "prosperous" survival, than without these rights man can not survive, so these rights are a REQUIREMENT OF HUMAN NATURE.

Who says that that's the meaning of everyone's life. The majority of humans, yes, but it's not a universal fact. Furthermore, that does not follow, and beyond that this sentence taken as a whole does not make sense to me.

Quote :

You need to prove it because nothing can be said to exist without proof, or at the very least convincing evidence.

Proof is irrelevant to something that is self evident, that is an axiom. Existence does not require proof, existence preexists proof.

Axiom=In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

Like I said, proof is not required for the axiomatic right, the right to live.

Quote :

They are not "self-evident"- they stem from the intellectual tradition of the enlightenment,...

Quote :

...so these rights are a REQUIREMENT OF HUMAN NATURE.

The last quote shows you why the right are indeed self evident, because they are a requirement of the human nature. Think about that.

Quote :

Actually, if you are claiming them to be a fact, they need to be proven, otherwise they are not facts.

Like I said, the right to live and life is axiomatic. Hence as much as you want to argue otherwise, your argument is a moot point, because axioms are an identification of a fundamental fact of reality. Proof, in this sense, is the identification of facts that agree with reality. Which is the right to live and life, is the axiomatic right of humanity because of the human nature. Because to be human, you need to be alive, you need to live!

Quote :

Quote:Like I said, these rights are on intrinsic part of the human existence, of the human being. But they are not physical law of the universe, but are concepts that we apply to certain states of human existence, these states themselves being axiomatic.


So in other words, it's subjective. Make up your mind- if it is a universal fact, then it is not subjective.

My mind is made up, the axioms are not physical constants of the universe. But are a fact of reality because of the HUMAN NATURE, and its STATES OF EXISTENCE.

Quote :

Can you prove to me that this is a fundamental right?

Quote :

...and beyond that this sentence taken as a whole does not make sense to me.

Sigh...Life...RIGHTS are CONDITIONS required by human nature for the humans proper survival. That is, LIFE.

Like daily intake of air, water and food is the requirement of mans NATURE for mans survival, so are the basic rights are the requirements of mans nature. Do you follow?

any way this is my philosophy, like you say

Quote :

You say that they have no right to kill you- and the laws and constitutions of most countries agree with you. I agree with you. But that does not make it fact. Those laws stop with the borders of the countries that enforce them.

I agree with you on this. There is no meaning in life, to life, no authoritative moral system that everyone follows, or should follow. No universal ethics that all should agree can be easily found and implemented. The arguments of amoral people make sense just as well as the arguments of the moral people.

This is why I claim that the right to life should be on axiom. So that all other rights would naturally flow from that single axiom. Based on this, I, then can make the claim that the concept of rights is in fact the law of nature.

Quote :

The popular author Ayn Rand also discusses a theory that she called 'Rational egoism' (or more specifically: 'Rational self-interest'). She holds that it is both irrational and immoral to act against one's self-interest.[10] Thus, her view is a conjunction of both rational egoism (in the standard sense) and ethical egoism, because according to objectivist philosophy, egoism cannot be properly justified without an epistemology based on reason:

There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level.[11]

Her book The Virtue of Selfishness (1964) explains in depth the concept of rational egoism. According to Rand's ethical egoism, every rational individual's own life should be his or her own highest value; rationality is every human being's highest virtue, and one's own happiness is the highest purpose of one's life.

Quote :

Proof is irrelevant to something that is self evident, that is an axiom. Existence does not require proof, existence preexists proof.

Axiom=In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

Like I said, proof is not required for the axiomatic right, the right to live.

I do not find it to be a self-evident right, given the fact that I do not think that there is such a thing.

Perhaps you don't have to prove it to yourself- but if you want to make a CSCS you have to prove it to me and to all of the others that don't see the point of "natural law". I do not see the justification for just saying "Well, there is really no evidence and no real reason to say this, but there are rights that are inherent to all humans."

Quote :

The last quote shows you why the right are indeed self evident, because they are a requirement of the human nature. Think about that.

I did think about it. I read it several times, and then thought about it some more. It still makes no sense to me. If you are arguing that human nature stems from these rights, then this is a very easy argument for me to win. If you are arguing that these rights stem from human nature, I think it's still not that difficult of an argument for me. Which do you mean, or do you mean something totally different?

Saying the same thing in the same way rarely clears up anything.

Quote :

Like I said, the right to live and life is axiomatic. Hence as much as you want to argue otherwise, your argument is a moot point, because axioms are an identification of a fundamental fact of reality. Proof, in this sense, is the identification of facts that agree with reality. Which is the right to live and life, is the axiomatic right of humanity because of the human nature. Because to be human, you need to be alive, you need to live!

"I don't need to prove it because I chose it to be true so it is!"

Is basically what that boils down to. Saying that you don't need to prove it because it is an axiom is a tautology.

From Dictionary.com:

Axiom (n.)-

1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. Logic, Mathematics: a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

If you are using definition 1, then it is a tautology. If you are using definition 2, then it is not an axiom, because it wouldn't be universally accepted, because I do not accept that there is such a thing as a universal or natural right. If it is the 3d, then this is still not an axiom because you are assuming it as a point of fact as opposed to as a theoretical.

Quote :

My mind is made up, the axioms are not physical constants of the universe. But are a fact of reality because of the HUMAN NATURE, and its STATES OF EXISTENCE.

This is a bit unclear, but I do not see why a right to life stems from a Human's want of life. As any kindergarten teacher will tell you, you can't always get what you want. If just about everyone wants it, that is a good reason for a government to make it a right; however, that would make it a right made by man and by nobody else, and something that can be taken a way by a vote or by other legal action.

Quote :

Sigh...Life...RIGHTS are CONDITIONS required by human nature for the humans proper survival. That is, LIFE.

But this goes back to the fact that the unproven assumption is considered a right.

Quote :

This is why I claim that the right to life should be on axiom. So that all other rights would naturally flow from that single axiom. Based on this, I, then can make the claim that the concept of rights is in fact the law of nature.

I agree that we as humans should come together to make that a right- but we haven't done that yet, so it is not a universal right, though it is in many individual countries.

Please don't tell me that we've got a Randroid around.

....because I do not accept that there is such a thing as a universal or natural right.

Just because you fail to see it, understand it, it does not mean it not true. Just like the universe and its constants, We as a human race found out about these constants only recently but they have existed since the big bang.

I suspect the the ethical constants, are far more difficult to discover and understand.

Here is why it is a natural law, that is an axiom.

Like daily intake of air, water and food is the requirement of mans NATURE for mans survival, so are the basic rights are the requirements of mans nature. Do you follow?

Quote :

Just because you fail to see it, understand it, it does not mean it not true. Just like the universe and its constants, We as a human race found out about these constants only recently but they have existed since the big bang.

So you're back to arguing that it's a universal constant?

This is ridiculous. You are switching back and forth between it being a universal thing and a human thing, whenever it suits you, refusing to prove it, and then calling me obtuse for failing to understand the lack of logic.

The fact is, I'm not dumb. If you were making sense, I would at least understand where you are coming from, though I might or might not agree. Your "logic" just makes no sense.

Huh? Did I rub you the wrong way?

I argue that the "rights" are an intrinsic part of a human being. That is, it is inherent to our existence. Like the laws of the physical universe.

Read carefully, I said they are LIKE the laws of the universe, not that they were laws of universe.

Again, here is what I wrote before "Like I said, these rights are on intrinsic part of the human existence, of the human being. But they are not physical law of the universe, but are concepts that we apply to certain states of human existence, these states themselves being axiomatic."

Human existence! The nature of it! I have been very consistent with my argument. That these rights are a requirement of the human nature. Therefore these rights are law, because you cant change your nature.

Don't take this personally.

I was stating a fact- if you were making sense, I would understand you. I do not understand your argument. Therefor you are not making sense.

As long as you are using the same words, you are likely to continue not making sense. What I want is a mechanism whereby these laws are made to be the nature of human existence, ex. postulates with logical interpretations that lead to this as a logical conclusion. Hey, maybe they're literally written in our DNA (though you seem to be using more than G,A,T, and C in your posts so something tells me they're not ).

"I do not understand your argument. Therefor you are not making sense." lol.

The law of nature= I need air, water and food to survive. Its a requirement of nature. Do you agree with me on this?

Just the same, the basic right, the right to life, is the requirement of HUMAN NATURE. Because simple the imperative of my biology is too live. This is the law of nature. Therefore, nature grants us the capacity to live, our whole biology is geared toward survival. Therefore the right to life is, is nature.

Quote :

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) included a discussion of natural rights in his moral and political philosophy. Hobbes' conception of natural rights extended from his conception of man in a "state of nature". Thus he argued that the essential natural (human) right was "to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own judgment, and Reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto." (Leviathan. 1,XIV)

This is basically what I said, "My mind is made up, the axioms are not physical constants of the universe. But are a fact of reality because of the HUMAN NATURE, and its STATES OF EXISTENCE".

Quote :

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.[1] As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (which is man-made) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.[2] In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.

I cant say that any other way. You are obviously biased against the idea of natural law.

Anyway, that is my idea, lets hear yours. What ethical system do YOU propose? Because we need one for the "clean slate society" to function.

Quote :

The law of nature= I need air, water and food to survive. Its a requirement of nature. Do you agree with me on this?

Well, it's not "The" law of nature, it's A law of nature- or rather a cause and effect relationship based on the structure of our body and the laws of physics. Basically I am agreeing with you, but the term "law of nature" is somewhat ambiguous.

Quote :

Just the same, the basic right, the right to life, is the requirement of HUMAN NATURE.

Actually, from your point of view, it is an effect of the nature of humans. It is a very important distinction to make (However much I might like to argue over pointless semantics, this is far from pointless). The concept of Human Nature is, give or take, psychological (or at least relating to human thought processes and tendencies, since it predates modern psychology). This is because human nature refers to the idea that humans are inherently selfish and barbaric- in other words, it was supported by your friend Hobbes.

When you say that it is a requirement of human nature, that parses based on logical interpretation of your words to a chain of logic "Human Nature is such and so, and thus this natural law exists because without it Human Nature would not be such and so."

When you say that again, it does not change what it parses to, it just makes it look like you're either unable to phrase it differently, possibly because you're parroting an ideologue, or dodging the question.

Quote :

Because simple the imperative of my biology is too [sic] live.

Are you familiar with the Is-Ought Problem? First thought up by David Hume in 1739, it states that it is very difficult or impossible to go from objective facts ("Is") to moral imperatives or laws ("Ought") through reasoning without logical fallacies. I stand by this assertion.

In this case, you go from the assertion that your Biology has an "imperative" (Which is defined as "a command" in the dictionary) to live. Now, you actually mean that the goal of life forms is to live. This is different than saying that this is the imperative of life. If you're going to use enlightenment-style logic, you have to be careful to say precisely what you mean.

Now, most life does not really have a conscious goal- only humans do. However, since we are talking about humans this is one case where a lack of precision does not affect the outcome.

Quote :

This is the law of nature.

Actually, "survival of the fittest" (best able to create viable offspring that themselves have children) is "the law of nature" in the sense of the primary law in the domain of the world of non-human animals. Unfortunately, we are talking about humans here, one of whose defining features is the ability to chose to help their fellow man. Biologically, I suppose "survival of the best able to create viable offspring that themselves have children" is still relevant, but certainly much less important. However, I'll pretend for a second that this dot connects to the next one for the sake of argument, even though it doesn't.

Quote :

Therefore, nature grants us the capacity to live, our whole biology is geared toward survival.

Fair enough.

Quote :

Therefore the right to life is, is nature.

This is where the "Is-ought problem" comes in. Life is. However, unless you have some more proof, "Is" is not the same as "ought". Therefore, your assertion that this leads to moral imperatives is false. Death is as well. Does that mean We should all commit suicide? The universe fights a war of attrition against us from the moment we are born, and given time it will always win. Does that mean that death is good? I don't think so.

Quote :

You are obviously biased against the idea of natural law.

I am familiar with many of the philosophies of natural law, and the problems inherent to all of the ones that I have so far encountered. If a conclusion based on an analysis of the logic employed to defend a class of theories is biased, yes, I am biased.

Quote :

What ethical system do YOU propose? Because we need one for the "clean slate society" to function.

It's late here, would you mind if I were to address this tomorrow? I'm tired and I have to get up semi-early tomorrow, but I will answer it (Feel free to hold me to it).

Quote :

Actually, from your point of view, it is an effect of the nature of humans.

Yes, but then humans are of nature, so ultimately it is a law of nature.

Quote :

The concept of Human Nature is, give or take, psychological (or at least relating to human thought processes and tendencies, since it predates modern psychology).

I agree with you that human nature is psychological, but here we should not be concerned with human mental functions and behaviors. Because I base the natural law, rather, on the human physiology, which is a product of nature.

Quote :

When you say that it is a requirement of human nature, that parses based on logical interpretation of your words to a chain of logic "Human Nature is such and so, and thus this natural law exists because without it Human Nature would not be such and so."

Why is that wrong to say? It is the natural law of human physiology. Its not a law of the universe, as I have said before, it's like it, but it's not. Rational thought is required to identify primary facts of the reality and the reality of human nature. Logic is that thought process, using this logic does not negate my conclusions.

Quote :

Now, you actually mean that the goal of life forms is to live.

No I said, "...simple the imperative of my biology is to live". Notice that this is out of our hands, it is the function of human physiology, and not psychology. The goals of humans is what ever they choose to pursue in life, but life is a STATE OF EXISTENCE. Besides I never said anything about goals, for, as far as I can see, nature has no goals. Simple, the actions that are needed to be taken, to exist, stay, continue, in this state of existence, is what gives us the natural rights.

I am trying to derive an ethical system based on the requirements of human physiology. This has nothing to do with human consciousness.

Quote :

This is where the "Is-ought problem" comes in. Life is. However, unless you have some more proof, "Is" is not the same as "ought". Therefore, your assertion that this leads to moral imperatives is false. Death is as well. Does that mean We should all commit suicide? The universe fights a war of attrition against us from the moment we are born, and given time it will always win. Does that mean that death is good? I don't think so.

I hold it that the good is found in humans, when humans try to fulfill the requirements of nature, that is, live. Galt said "...the alternative mans nature offers man is: rational being or suicidal animal". As a rational being, I hope, I have discovered facts of reality.

The action taken by a human to live, are the consequential rights of the said action. The right to live is derived from natures (forced) requirement to live, the action taken by a human being, to live, may not deprive another human being of their right to live.

I can clearly see this fundamental right to life as a requirement of human physiology. I cant say it any other way. I don't think you have demonstrated well that I am wrong.

I hate for it to be that ethics are the whims of societies norms.

First, my ethical system:

Objectively, none. "Good" and "Bad" are concepts that exist in the human mind and in human language, and nowhere else. The universe simply is. There is no natural law (trust me, I've looked), and there is no god and even if there were I'm not sure it would have the authority to make a natural law.

In terms of societal values, that is the primary composition of the Social Contract. The social contract is a (usually) unwritten document that represents the summation of the values of each individual person.

I have suggested a place to create such a document, written out, in this thread.

Quote :

Why is that wrong to say? It is the natural law of human physiology. Its not a law of the universe, as I have said before, it's like it, but it's not. Rational thought is required to identify primary facts of the reality and the reality of human nature. Logic is that thought process, using this logic does not negate my conclusions.

Actually, the natural law of human physiology, if there is one, is that no matter what you do, death is inevitable. The universe isn't a particularly nice place, noble goal trying to squeeze a bit of niceties out of a reality that doesn't care, but the fact is that they are contrived and not useful.

You are not using logic properly if you are missing an important postulate: Why is your supposed "law" of human physiology a good thing? Why should we act in accordance with a transitory result of a random process that was driven primarily by radiation and error, and created cancer far more times than anything else? The emergence of order from chaos is amazing, but not a basis for an ethical system.

Quote :

I hold it that the good is found in humans

Prove it. This would seem to be inherent to your philosophy, and for it to be a valid philosophy you absolutely need to prove where the good comes from, which you have not as of yet.

I wish someone would murder you, Redsand11j. Or at least try to. After all, they wouldn't be in the wrong, since you have no actual right to be alive.

Moral relativism simply leads to nihilism.

I can't prove people have certain inalienable rights to you, since you're demanding evidence which doesn't exist. If you're denying that people have any rights at all, you don't belong in a Cleanslate Society.

Okay, let me ask you a question for your ethical system - why should I be bound by the values that other people hold? Why shouldn't I just take whatever I want? Why do you consider it a good that a "social contract" exists?

Quote :

I wish someone would murder you, Redsand11j. Or at least try to. After all, they wouldn't be in the wrong, since you have no actual right to be alive.

Objectively, no, they are not in the wrong. They are not in the right either. Objectively, they simply are. Presumably, in their opinion, they are in the right. However, in my opinion they are in the wrong (presumably). In the opinion of society as a whole, they are in the wrong. Therefore, society as a whole (hopefully) stops it based on its opinion that killing people is bad. It does this by sending in the police. Perhaps "They" is a better article than "It" because society is the sum of its members.

Quote :

Moral relativism simply leads to nihilism.

If you believe this to be a reason why Moral Relativism is wrong, then may I introduce you to the Naturalistic Fallacy? I know it's a bit annoying to keep linking to formal philosophy, but I think this is an important point (And a bit of an appeal to authority )- the palatability of effects does not affect the causes. Unpleasantness doesn't change the facts.

That said, Moral Relativism has been the norm for at least a century now, and I am the exception as opposed to the norm in specifically stating that there is no objective right and wrong. I think society is still fairly functional, probably moreso than it has been at any other time in human history. If it's any comfort, even Nietzsche made a point to say that just because one chooses one's morals doesn't make them invalid (Then again, Nietzsche wasn't quite a nihilist). Nihilism is antithetical to human psychology, IMO. There's nothing logically wrong with it, but humans don't tend to be nihilists, rendering it essentially a non-issue, even if it were one (and excessive nihilism does presumably have negative societal repercussions).

Quote :

...you're demanding evidence which doesn't exist...

Just as I suspected- without that vital evidence, the whole idea of natural law falls apart.

Quote :

If you're denying that people have any rights at all, you don't belong in a Cleanslate Society.

Firstly, and overwhelmingly more importantly: Take a look at my post history, both here and anywhere else, IE newmars primarily. Do I seem like someone who does not belong here? If I do, how do you plan to get me to leave? From my understanding of your ethics, that would be immoral to you.*

Secondly, and much less importantly, I do not deny the concept of rights, I deny the concept of objective rights. You have what rights you create for yourself and what rights society gives you. In Liberal Democracies, this is a fairly extensive amount of rights. Elsewhere, less so.

Quote :

Why should I be bound by the values that other people hold? Why shouldn't I just take whatever I want?

Well, you tell me, it's your choice. I mean, if you break the law you will face the consequences, but you are a part of society because you choose to be. For individual people, I imagine it's some combination of self-preservation, self advancement (economically), social connections, convenience, nationalism, etc. Personally, I act as a part of society because I feel that that is how I can best help people, which is something that I choose to do. Also, there are plenty of benefits for me in being a part of society, a good job (perhaps even something so good as a rocket scientist), a good education in topic that interest me, and all of those good things society has produced.

Quote :

Why do you consider it a good that a "social contract" exists?

Subjectively, I consider a social contract to be more of a fact than a positive or negative. When two people talk to each other, a social contract exists that they will use the same language and not kill each other. This kind of understood social contract is inherent to the interaction between humans; it is the stage on which they interact.

If crafted correctly, a social contract can be a subjectively positive force for good. It can set up the social, political, and economic norms in such a way as to create a greater good for a greater number, which I consider to be a good thing.

Quote :

In the opinion of society as a whole, they are in the wrong.

What if, in the opinion of society as a whole, they are in the right? If you are to be believed, it is okay for the minority to be oppressed by the majority, and the opinion of society as a whole is that this is okay.

Quote :

When two people talk to each other, a social contract exists that they will use the same language and not kill each other.

No, it does't. When one of the parties is threatening the other with violence, it most certainly doesn't. There's no "social contract" involved in them using the same language - the fact is, if they didn't they wouldn't be able to talk to each other at all.

Quote :

which I consider to be a good thing.

But why? Prove that this is a good, and maybe I shall believe that the CSCS should follow it

Quote :

What if, in the opinion of society as a whole, they are in the right?

Then quite frankly, I am fucked. "Natural law" or no, if society isn't enforcing it it's not going to do anything against a gun.

Quote :

If you are to be believed, it is okay for the minority to be oppressed by the majority, and the opinion of society as a whole is that this is okay.

You're not getting this "subjective morality" thing. It is not okay, but on the other hand it is not not okay. It simply is.

The fact is that society is a composite of its members. The majority is naturally more influential than the majority, because nobody inherently has more power than anyone else. Those who are more assertive tend to have more influence, but there's no reason why someone else couldn't be them. As a matter of fact, a vehement minority could easily affect the social contract. People are people- they are not inherent parts of a class or any other group. Everyone is a free agent in a minority- a minority of one. if enough people come together to do something, then it will be done.

IMO, and I apologize if I have not been saying this clearly, a "social contract" is the sum of every relationship between people in a country. Violence is a way to interact with other people, thus it is part of a social contract. As with most things, a social contract is. It is neither good nor bad, it is the essence of the way people interact with each other, nothing more. Speak in the same language, speak in a different language, don't speak- just by being within the same observable universe as the other person you are in some senses interacting with each other.

Quote :

But why? Prove that this is a good, and maybe I shall believe that the CSCS should follow it.

It seems I am not being clear. I consider it to be a good thing. It is not a good thing. It is not a bad thing. It simply is. However, I consider it to be a positive action. This is my own decision, based on who I am. If you agree that this is good, then (I consider that to be) great. But if not, then we'll have to come to some compromise. I don't need to prove it because I explicitly acknowledge that it is an arbitrary decision on my part based on my psychological makeup. In that sense, the proof that I have decided that is in the fact that I have decided it. A bit tautological, but logically consistent- like everything else, it simply is.