Are Humans Equal?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2013, 09:01 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2013 09:10 PM by Heathen.)
RE: Are Humans Equal?
(22-03-2013 08:32 PM)Ghost Wrote:  "Hey, Heathen.

Why are people not equal?"


Choose any way you wish to measure it. Bob is heavier than me. Judy has a higher IQ than me. Ernesto runs faster than me. Humans are unequal. It's what makes our world interesting. That's all I was saying, nothing very profound really. Just stating the obvious, I thought.

It is the obligation of the State to "treat" all people equally under it's laws. Not to "make" all people equal through it's laws.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2013, 05:22 AM
RE: Are Humans Equal?
(22-03-2013 05:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  Where did you read 'unlimited' in my statement? I have a right to my person. You have the right to yours.

I think I made it utterly clear what happens if someone disagrees. Dodgy

I put a question mark behind it. That means I was asking a question, not telling you.

You are claiming rights, that you do not have, irrationally and arbitrarily. You might as well just claim unlimited rights, i.e. rights to all things within your ability to back up, as that might actually make sense. What you said was just complete bullshit.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2013, 05:28 AM
RE: Are Humans Equal?
(22-03-2013 08:32 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Truly.

Quote:Yeah, that's what I was disagreeing with.

OK. You've officially lost me.

Even assuming you were talking outside of states, with written and enforced social contracts, I didn't like the word 'illusion'.

With claimed natural rights, it might make some sense; but to me, it doesn't even seem as if people have any natural rights, which 'illusion' might imply, making it misleading.

Delusion maybe.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2013, 07:21 AM
RE: Are Humans Equal?
I feel the need to point out again that the notion that equality means identical is actually a strawman argument.

There is not a single human being, ever, proposing that humans are identical to one another. No one. Never. Not ever. Because it's so painfully obvious that humans are not identical that only someone with mashed rutabaga for brains would make such a claim. We look different. We're different sizes. There's sexual dimorphism. Anyone with the brain power of a two year old knows this. So no one, ever, is saying that equality is about people being identical.

Hey, Truly.

Quote:Even assuming you were talking outside of states, with written and
enforced social contracts, I didn't like the word 'illusion'.



With claimed natural rights, it might make some sense; but to me, it
doesn't even seem as if people have any natural rights, which 'illusion'
might imply, making it misleading.



Delusion maybe.

OK. I'm not even joking or trying to put you down. I just really have no idea what you're talking about. I would really like it if you could elaborate.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2013, 12:58 PM
RE: Are Humans Equal?
Quote:OK. I'm not even joking or trying to put you down. I just really have no idea what you're talking about. I would really like it if you could elaborate.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Replace the word 'illusion', with the word 'delusion'. People who think they have natural, inherent rights are delusional.

It's just that using the word 'illusion' bothered me. For legal rights, i.e. laws, those are real, even if they are just written by humans and without a connection to any inherent, natural rights. Illusion is a word that, to me, implies that there is some perception, or false sense, that would lead you to thinking that something is true, when it isn't; and for natural rights, I can't see any thing that would give a person even a false perception, or reason to believe, that those rights existed. It's just purely a delusion and irrational, mostly tied to a belief in god and/or primitive instincts.

I guess I also just don't like the word 'right(s)' in general, especially when tied to inherent or natural, as it, to me, would imply a natural entitlement, like somehow, some thing, outside of your self and abilities, gives you the entitlement to take certain things and/or actions.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2013, 02:45 PM
RE: Are Humans Equal?
Hey, Truly.

OK. I think I'm picking up what you're putting down.

My contention is between the notion of rights being something we HAVE vs rights being something we're GIVEN.

The contention of Les Philosophes was that rights are something that we have. We all possess rights. It is that notion that the founding fathers were working with. It is that which we are told.

In reality, rights are something we are given. We have the right to do whatever is enshrined in law as a right. Anything that is not enshrined in law is not a right.

So the illusion is that we are being led to believe that we have rights, when the reality is that we are given them.

Your position is different. You disagree with the premise that rights are something that we have. Thus anyone who thinks we have rights is delusional. Which I get. It's just very different to what I'm saying.

My personal belief is that we are born with full rights and full freedom; however, we trade in some of our rights and freedoms in return for societal living. Societal living requires certain restrictions, a price we happily pay so we aren't eaten by lions.

But in hierarchical societies, that is turned on it's head. We are born without any rights or freedoms except for what is enshrined in law. If we want more rights or freedoms, we have to convince the elite to grant them to us; something that is against their best interests. This is an unresolvable conflict.

So when we're told we have inalienable and inherent and inviolable human rights, it's actually a lie, or an illusion (not in the sense that you mean, ie, we don't have them because we don't have them, but rather in the sense that Les Philosophes meant, ie, we should have them but in actuality they've been usurped but we're still told we have them). We, in the context of our hierarchical society, are given rights.

For example, the Parti-Quebecois, the party that has formed a minority government in Quebec, is trying to pass Bill 14 right now. In it is long list of sweeping amendments to "the Charter of the French language, the Charter of human rights and other legislative provisions". One such proposal is the amendment of "ethnic minorities" to "cultural communities". The rights of ethnic minorities are protected under international law, but if the minority groups in Quebec (Anglophones and Allophones) are reclassified as cultural communities, then we lose our internationally recognised legal rights. That law, as written, would not protect our rights, ergo, we'd lose them. They also propose to add the right, "to live and work in French," which doesn't say we aren't allowed to speak another language, but, because of the omission, it's not a right. Therefore if the government prevents us from speaking English, we cannot say they are violating our rights, because the right does not exist.

That's some bullshit.

FIGHT BILL 14!!!

ON EDIT: If Bill 14 passes, then in Quebec, not everyone has equal protection under the law.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
23-03-2013, 07:00 PM
RE: Are Humans Equal?
(23-03-2013 02:45 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Truly.

OK. I think I'm picking up what you're putting down.

No. Maybe what I was saying was just not applicable to what you were saying, because now you are confusing me. I'll explain my position one more time, but I guess you can just ignore my original point if it's not applicable or caused more confusion.

To add quickly, I don't know what you meant by Les Philosophes but: Jeremy Bentham: from Wiki: "he opposed the idea of natural law and natural rights, calling them 'nonsense upon stilts'." I'd have to assume he wasn't the only one who thought that way.

My view is that you can either view natural rights more as abilities, natural liberties maybe, in which case you would have unlimited rights (rights to whatever you claimed rights to and/or could physically do); or you can view rights as natural entitlements, in which case you have no rights at all.

Then there are obviously, yet separately, legal rights, or at least, rights part of a social contract. I view those as the only valid rights.

The latter part (legal rights) is obviously real; it just simply describes what is part of your social contract with other people and/or law, usually, specifically law(s), e.g. in the US there is a constitutional right to free speech. No illusion there, unless you don't believe the Constitution is real. Rights are just describing the law.

For the former, however, claiming a right to what is within your ability to do, e.g., a right to fend off a predator or attacker, the right to hunt and kill for food, the right to land, the right to a house you built, a right to your opinion, etc., is kind of null and void, since it simply states things you can naturally do, and going, even unnecessarily, further, obviously someone can disagree and prevent you from doing any of those things, as long as they had the power/ability.

Viewing it as if you are naturally entitled to those things, i.e., it is more than just an ability but somehow given or granted to you by some outside or higher force, is just a delusional position. There is absolutely nothing to lead you to believing that, and reality/perception, as it does with the idea of a god, provides tremendous evidence and reasons to believe the opposite. So, no illusion there, just delusion. It's not coming from the outside in; but it's coming from inside out.

Now, there is, also, however, like I mentioned in my first post, morality, which you can likely work into the idea of rights, moral rights, but that would not be inherent and natural, only philosophical, and would lead to it basically being still being similar to social contract. Rhetorically: What good is a natural right that can be taken away? There isn't any thing inherently making moral behavior a necessity, so I don't use morality along with rights.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TrulyX's post
23-03-2013, 09:48 PM
RE: Are Humans Equal?
Hey, Truly,

For the record, Les Philosophes were men like Voltaire, Diedrot, Montesquieu and Rousseau. These were the men that directly influenced the founding fathers.

Quote:Then there are obviously, yet separately, legal rights, or at least,
rights part of a social contract. I view those as the only valid rights.

Interesting.

Quote:What good is a natural right that can be taken away?

I know this was rhetorical but it was one of the few things I understood Cool When your rights are removed, you're being oppressed.... is what I would say anyway.

Quote:My view is that you can either view natural rights more as abilities,
natural liberties maybe, in which case you would have unlimited rights
(rights to whatever you claimed rights to and/or could physically do);
or you can view rights as natural entitlements, in which case you have
no rights at all.

I kinda feel bad that I'm not understanding you. But I'm not. This seemed like a pretty pivotal paragraph, but I can't make sense of it.

So yeah, clearly there's a disconnect here. If you're game, I'm happy to try and see if we can figure out what it is.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 12:56 AM
RE: Are Humans Equal?
When I first interjected, I thought you two were of the same position but putting your views in different words. I have since come to see Truly's perspective is what I originally thought Ghost's was. Haha and hooray for consciousness!

(23-03-2013 09:48 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I kinda feel bad that I'm not understanding you. But I'm not. This seemed like a pretty pivotal paragraph, but I can't make sense of it.

I believe Truly was saying that people's use of the phrase "natural rights" can either refer to physical ability or physical entitlement. I believe Truly's implication was that there is no such thing as physical entitlement, so people who believe in objective entitlement are deluded, and thus the only "natural rights" are our physical abilities, so using the phrase "natural rights" is redundant.

Does that clarify things, Ghost? Was I way off, Truly?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 01:17 AM
RE: Are Humans Equal?
Hey, fat.

It clarifies the question I now have to ask.

What the crap do physical ability and physical entitlement mean?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: