Are rights objectively real?

Well, is reality even objectively real?

You first need to establish the state of realness to be objective to ask this question. The opposite of real is fake. In our language these words can represent authentic, and counterfeit. Counterfeit things do exist, so to further muddy the waters of contextual ambiguity, fake things can be real.

the_recruit said:

Well, no, that's not what objective means in this context.

Click to expand...

I gave the definition of "objectively real" that I was using in the OP. It's no response to tell me that I ought to use a different meaning, especially of the one term that has just the one meaning.

the_recruit said:

Ethical claims are by definition not empirical - they are not claims about what is the case, they are claims about what ought to be. We make empirical observations of what is the case. Ethical claims actually make no prediction about what is existent, about what can be observed. This is why science has essentially nothing to say on the matter.And to head this off now, I'm not saying this isn't a problem for ethics being objective. There are indeed problems. Epistemological problems. How do we access ethical facts if not by observation, etc.

Click to expand...

So #1 is true and I was right that #2 ("rights are objectively real") is wrong. You seem to be disagreeing with me but quibbling about the terms I am using to discuss it. (I know I'm not adopting the language of the philosophy of ethics, but that because I'm taking aim at the non-philosophical claims I say made in political discussions that, for example, the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are real - objectively real, existing independent of governments or anything, something that is supposedly inherent in the existence of human life but not testable or provable).

You cannot logically respond to my posts by saying "rights are objectively real in another way than you define objectively real" for the simple reason that there is only one objective reality: what is and what is testable. There aren't different objective realities depending on what in reality you are discussing. There is the one.*

Basically, your explanation of why you think I put the question the wrong way functions as an argument for the position that #1 is correct, just using different terms: "rights" are not objectively real, hence ethical claims are not empirical, hence someone who says that the bill of rights describes objectively real rights is wrong. It is a statement of what should be, a statement we bring closer to some semblance of reality by using force to enforce the described rights. But if this was 30,000 years ago when earlier homo sapiens grunted at each other without giving a hoot for "rights", then nobody has a right to anything.....well....other than the victors in disputes over who had the "right" to the elk haunch).

Indeed science has nothing to say on the matter. It has nothing to say on the matter because rights are not objectively real. Either I wasn't clear enough or you misread the first two rather lengthy posts.





*And if something like multiverse theory is true, then the multiverse = the entirety of objective reality.

Master PO said:

rights are from a higher power, whether that be god or not, the founders knew government did not grant them.

Click to expand...

Then your position falls under #3, which is explicitly excluded from the thread and from logical argument.

If you appeal to an unproveable higher authority to claim that rights are "real", you necessarily shield your argument from logical response. You cannot prove your claim and I cannot disprove it, because it is a claim relying on things beyond objective realty. It is an opinion, not an argument. It is only convincing if I adopt your belief in the entity-beyond-proof.



What sense does it make to say: Mr Person, your argument that rights are not objectively real is wrong because "god or not" made rights real, and I win no matter what because nobody can prove or disprove the existence of a "god or not" that exists in some unnamed realm beyond objective reality.

?

That's why I ruled out religion (and by extension, a not-religious entity that is functionally equivalent to a religious one, such as the "or not" that you suppose might have made "real" rights). It's simply unanswerable using the language of objective reality (empiricism).

Master PO said:

Law of nature, or natural law; in its most extended sense, refers to certain principles inspired only by nature that are common to men and to animals: on this law are based the union of male and female, the procreation of children and concern for their education, the love of liberty, the conservation of one's own person, and the effort each man makes to defend himself when attacked by others.
But it is an abuse of the term natural law to use it to refer to the impulses that govern the behavior of animals; for they have not the use of reason and are therefore incapable of perceiving any law or justice.


More frequently, we mean by natural law certain rules of justice and equity, which natural reason alone has established among men, or to put it better, which God has engraved in our hearts.
Such are the fundamental precepts of law and of all justice: to live honestly, to offend no one, and to render unto every man what belongs to him. From these general precepts are derived many other particular rules, which nature alone, that is to say reason and equity, suggests to men.
This natural law , based as it is on such essential principles, is perpetual and unvarying: neither law nor custom can contravene it, nor dispense a man from its obligations; in this way it differs from positive law, that is to say those rules which exist only because they were established by formal laws. Since this positive law is subject to alteration by the same authority that established it, private persons may even contravene it by an express agreement, as long as the law does not prohibit it.


Some mistakenly confuse the natural law with the law of peoples: the latter is also composed in part of rules which right reason has established among all men; but it also includes certain practices against the natural order that men have agreed on, war, for example, or different kinds of slavery: whereas the natural law allows nothing but what is consistent with right reason and equity.
The principles of the natural law are thus included in the law of peoples, and especially in that part of it which is oldest; they are also included in public and private law: for the precepts of natural law listed above are the purest source, and the foundation, of the greatest part of both public and private law. But public and private law include other rules based on positive laws.

Law of Nature, or Natural Law

Click to expand...

Well, see, this kind of statement (copy/paste, rather) is why I started the thread. I've had enough of listening to people tell me that rights are real, that natural law is real, and then being completely unable to defend their claims on their own merits. This is especially true when said persons tell me that my position is wrong because they made assertions not subject to empirical (or logical) proof or disproof).

You just cited a source that says it is right because it said that it is right. Unless you can prove that "natural law" is objectively real, then my posts were right: #1 is the only logical position one can take.

(Ok. Not quite. The other position one could logically take is to say "I believe in a God-or-not that created rights that I believe are real" BUT that has to be coupled with the statement that "I understand that my irrational belief cannot be used as a cudgel to say your logical and/or empirically based is false". It never is so coupled).


Anything else is an appeal to things that are neither provable nor disprovable, and therefore has no place in a logical discussion about objective reality.

RetiredNSmilin said:

You only have the rights you can afford to pay for.

Ask anyone who has ever been in jail.

Click to expand...

Or their attorney.

Mr Person said:

Then your position falls under #3, which is explicitly excluded from the thread and from logical argument.

If you appeal to an unproveable higher authority to claim that rights are "real", you necessarily shield your argument from logical response. You cannot prove your claim and I cannot disprove it, because it is a claim relying on things beyond objective realty.



What sense does it make to say: Mr Person, your argument that rights are not objectively real is wrong because "god or not" made rights real, and I win no matter what because nobody can prove or disprove the existence of a "god or not" that exists in some unnamed realm beyond objective reality.

?

That's why I ruled out religion (and by extension, a not-religious entity that is functionally equivalent to a religious one, such as the "or not" that you suppose might have made "real" rights). It's simply unanswerable using the language of objective reality (empiricism).

Click to expand...

i explaining to you constitutional law , history, and federal law.

Mr Person said:

Well, see, this kind of statement (copy/paste, rather) is why I started the thread. I've had enough of listening to people tell me that rights are real, that natural law is real, and then being completely unable to defend their claims on their own merits. You just cited a source that says it is right because it said that it is right.

Unless you can prove that "natural law" is objectively real, then my posts were right: #1 is the only logical position you can take.


Anything else is an appeal to things that are neither provable nor disprovable, and therefore has no place in a logical discussion about objective reality.

Click to expand...

its to bad people have not read up on natural rights, and our history

Mr Person said:

I gave the definition of "objectively real" that I was using in the OP. It's no response to tell me that I ought to use a different meaning.

In fact, there is ONE meaning of "objectively real" - by definition there is only one objective reality - hence my framing.



So #1 is true and I was right that #2 ("rights are objectively real") is wrong.

You cannot logically respond to my posts by saying "rights are objectively real in another way than you define objectively real" for the simple reason that there is only one objective reality: what is and what is testable. There aren't different objective realities depending on what in reality you are discussing. There is the one.*

Basically, your explanation of why you think I put the question the wrong way functions as an argument for the position that #1 is correct, just using different terms: "rights" are not objectively real, hence ethical claims are not empirical, hence someone who says that the bill of rights describes objectively real rights is wrong. It is a statement of what should be, a statement we bring closer to some semblance of reality by using force to enforce the described rights.

Indeed science has nothing to say on the matter. It has nothing to say on the matter because rights are not objectively real. Either I wasn't clear enough or you misread the first two rather lengthy posts.





*And if something like multiverse theory is true, then the multiverse = the entirety of objective reality.

Click to expand...

You are free to define objective however you want. But what I'm pointing out is that by doing so you are no longer talking about what philosophers are talking about when they discuss ethics as objective vs subjective. You're having a completely different discussion that has nothing to do with what philosophers mean when they say that "rights are objective". Which is, presumably, the very debate you're trying to weigh in on.

Mr Person said:

I'm going to bounce off someone else's comment in a more politically oriented forum to launch this, because what I was going to say doesn't really belong to the thread that started it. However, it does have some relation to politics because it is an oft-asserted claim regarding the constitution.



I have heard this said by many people. I see three categorical possibilities with regard to the existence of "human rights" or "natural rights", whatever you wish to call them:

1. They are not objectively real. To the extent they are real, they exist only because human beings agree as a group to act as if they are real. In the context of governments, this is the age-old proposition of "social contract" theory. (Locke, etc). The constitution is the embodiment of such a contract; we agree that in this country, we will act as if the right to "due process of the law" is a real thing. (In contrast to countries like North Korea, where there is no agreement that such a right should be respected and it is therefore not).

2. They are objectively real (non-religious). This proposes that rights are actually part of reality and that whether or not human beings respect them has no relation to whether or not they are in fact real. Therefore, something like the constitution notes the existence of those rights, but does not create them. Despite the objective reality of rights, the rights may be violated with impunity unless stopped by force. (ie, North Korea can starve millions to death for political reasons and "rights" cannot stop them...only an invasion and deposition of its government could).

3. They are objectively real (religious). This proposes that there exists a deity that has commanded that certain things must not happen to persons. These rights exist without regard to whether they are violated, and presumably violations will be punished in the afterlife (unless there is divine intervention).

I do not purport to discuss 3 because religious doctrine where there is an all-powerful deity by definition puts itself beyond proof or disproof.



Another post incoming.

Click to expand...

"Rights" as such area subjective human social construct: they are relative to a given society or hierarchy.

A right cannot exist spontaneously for any individual, unless there is another or set of individuals to recognize said rights. There a right, such s a "natural right" cannot exist between a man and a wild animal, or a prehistoric man and another man or set of them.

Like any law, a "right to live" for instance stops with the commission of an act that society deems to be a capital offense.

The "right to eat" for instance is only controlled by governmental budgeting and politics, like to "right to good health", which is why so many people suffer hunger and health problems. Therefore, rights are anything but objective.

Master PO said:

i explaining to you constitutional law , history, and federal law.

Click to expand...

No, you weren't.

Master PO said:

its to bad people have not read up on natural rights, and our history

Click to expand...

I know more history and law than you, I suspect, seeing as I'm an attorney whose main off-time hobby is arguing about both.


I note that neither you or Mr. Recruit have attempted to respond to the points actually raised.

Mr Person said:

No, you weren't.




I know more history and law than you, I suspect, seeing as I'm an attorney whose main off-time hobby is arguing about both.


I note that neither you or Mr. Recruit have attempted to respond to the points actually raised.

Click to expand...

wrong... i have already posted today from the constitution, and told you of enabling law, and of history today, BUT what is so funny is those that say there are no natural rights, have only their own words and nothing from law.

the_recruit said:

You are free to define objective however you want. But what I'm pointing out is that by doing so you are no longer talking about what philosophers are talking about when they discuss ethics as objective vs subjective. You're having a completely different discussion that has nothing to do with what philosophers mean when they say that "rights are objective". Which is, presumably, the very debate you're trying to weigh in on.

Click to expand...

That's nice. Incidentally, one of my other qualifications is that I effectively double-majored in philosophy, and while I don't remember every last detail of every last thing I studied, I do recall perfectly well that none of the philosophers we engaged with/about thought that saying "well, your term is wrong in vague ways I'm not going to discuss, and instead, I'm going to vaguely cite unnamed philsophers and tell you that you are wrong because you aren't talking about things like they did."

In fact, one of the things I remember most clearly is that one of the main contentions in any philosophical debate was whether people were in fact using a term right. In doing so, they spent quite a lot of careful thought in presenting an argument on why their term was right and the others were wrong. That requires careful argument, not declarations that one is right because they have announced their rightness.

In contrast, you have (1) ignored every last point I made, (2) asserted without argument why my terminology is "wrong", (3) made no argument of your own as to why the terminology you want me to use is the only "right" terminology, (4) made no argument on that front, (5) failed to so much as identify the philosopher(s) whose terminology you think is right, let alone the particular essays I'm supposed to be responding to, (6) completely ignored the context of the OP, (7) amazingly, snarked despite all this.

You haven't "pointed out" anything because you haven't said anything other than "you're wrong, but I'm too lazy to explain why I think that....some unnamed philosophers said other stuff, so shut up".







Go away.

Master PO said:

wrong... i have already posted today from the constitution, and told you of enabling law, and of history today, BUT what is so funny is those that say there are no natural rights, have only their own words and nothing from law.

Click to expand...

What's funny...or sad....is that you think quoting the constitution in any way contradicts posts 1 and 2.




The constitution and our courts enforcement of it - rather than empirically measurable enforcement of it by the "God or not" you propose but of which you fail to prove the existence - is actually support for my position that #1 is correct.

The fact that you cite random internet sources saying that natural law is real and purporting to describe it, but failing utterly to prove that it is objectively real via empirical proofs - like physics - is a further indication I am correct.

Mr Person said:

What's funny...or sad....is that you think quoting the constitution in any way contradicts posts 1 and 2.




The constitution and our courts enforcement of it - rather than empirically measurable enforcement of it by the "God or not" you propose but of which you fail to prove the existence - is actually support for my position that #1 is correct.

The fact that you cite random internet sources saying that natural law is real and purporting to describe it, but failing utterly to prove that it is objectively real via empirical proofs - like physics - is a further indication I am correct.

Click to expand...

i already have posted from the constitution today -->to you, it seems you did not read it.

i also told you of u.s.enabling laws----- which you have no idea what they are.

and i have told you already today the the romans of history knew of natural rights......what is sad is you think you know law, but you don't, and you do not post anything to counter what i posted.

i suggest you learn constitutional law, Enabling laws and history

Mr Person said:

I note that neither you or Mr. Recruit have attempted to respond to the points actually raised.

Click to expand...

Because they aren't wrong. Definitions aren't claims. They are not truth-apt. But you haven't said anything as to whether philosophers are mistaken when they say "rights are objective" (though it seems that's what you're trying to do) because you mean something different by "objective" than they do. You're not disagreeing, disagreement requires that you understand what the other person means.

Master PO said:

i already have posted from the constitution today -->to you, it seems you did not read it.

i also told you of u.s.enabling laws----- which you have no idea what they are.

and i have told you already today the the romans of history, knew of natural rights......what is sad is you think you know law, but you don't, and you do not post anything to counter what i posted.

i suggest you learn constitutional law, and enabling laws and history

Click to expand...

Romans now, is it?

Last year, I finished my Roman history project: All of Livy, Biography of Ceasar, Ceasar's account of the Gallic War, Ceasar's account of the Civil War, Augustus (Anthony Everitt), Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Don't recall any of them proving that "rights" were "objectively real".



As for quoting things, I directed you back to the parts where I said I was hoping that people would actually make arguments on their own merits, rather than unsupported appeals to unidentified authorities (the_recruit) or copy/pastes of stuff other people said without any attempt at explanation for how they prove rights are "objectively real" (you). I mean, you aren't even trying to address what "objectively real" means.

Go away.

the_recruit said:

Because they aren't wrong. Definitions aren't claims. They are not truth-apt. But you haven't said anything as to whether philosophers are mistaken when they say "rights are objective" (though it seems that's what you're trying to do) because you mean something different by "objective" than they do. You're not disagreeing, disagreement requires that you understand what the other person means.

Click to expand...

Oh please. I'm not convinced you've read any ethical philosophy.

A student of philosophy would have, at the very least, reiterated the arguments of philosophers with whom he/she agrees in taking on my framing of the argument head on. You just keep referring to "they" without identifying who they are, what they said, why it is right, or anything.

Besides, I just took a peak at your profile and it seems the vast majority of your comments are just pot-shots. I was hoping for an in-depth discussion.



Again, go away.

Master PO said:

i already have posted from the constitution today

Click to expand...

Just say "DERP", will you?

If you "posted the constitution" and counted that copy/paste as an argument that rights are objectively real, without no explanation of anything, you have done the exact thing that I took aim at.

It's like seeing a thread on how Americans tend not to eat healthy food and an American posting "I just ate ten big macs in one meal. You're wrong HAHA!"*

Mr Person said:

That's nice. Incidentally, one of my other qualifications is that I effectively double-majored in philosophy, and while I don't remember every last detail of every last thing I studied, I do recall perfectly well that none of the philosophers we engaged with/about thought that saying "well, your term is wrong in vague ways I'm not going to discuss, and instead, I'm going to vaguely cite unnamed philsophers and tell you that you are wrong because you aren't talking about things like they did."

In fact, one of the things I remember most clearly is that one of the main contentions in any philosophical debate was whether people were in fact using a term right. In doing so, they spent quite a lot of careful thought in presenting an argument on why their term was right and the others were wrong. That requires careful argument, not declarations that one is right because they have announced their rightness.

In contrast, you have (1) ignored every last point I made, (2) asserted without argument why my terminology is "wrong", (3) made no argument of your own as to why the terminology you want me to use is the only "right" terminology, (4) made no argument on that front, (5) failed to so much as identify the philosopher(s) whose terminology you think is right, let alone the particular essays I'm supposed to be responding to, (6) completely ignored the context of the OP, (7) amazingly, snarked despite all this.

You haven't "pointed out" anything because you haven't said anything other than "you're wrong, but I'm too lazy to explain why I think that....some unnamed philosophers said other stuff, so shut up".

Click to expand...

The only sense in which a definition is "right" or "wrong" is that you are using in the same sense with the parties with which you're trying to communicate. Otherwise no one is communicating. You're talking past each other. How can you expect to weigh in on philosophical debate if you're using a different meanings than the philosophers doing the debating?

mr person said:

romans now, is it?

Last year, i finished my roman history project: All of livy, biography of ceasar, ceasar's account of the gallic war, ceasar's account of the civil war, augustus (anthony everitt), gibbon's decline and fall of the roman empire.

Don't recall any of them proving that "rights" were "objectively real".



As for quoting things, i directed you back to the parts where i said i was hoping that people would actually make arguments on their own merits, rather than unsupported appeals to unidentified authorities (the_recruit) or copy/pastes of stuff other people said without any attempt at explanation for how they prove rights are "objectively real" (you). I mean, you aren't even trying to address what "objectively real" means.

Go away.

Click to expand...

i guess you didn't study enough, i suggest cicero

section 2 of article 3 of the constitution states clearly that the judicial system of the federal courts, can adjudicate cases of equity

all state and federal governments recognize natural law/rights.......via Enabling laws.


Now please stop acting as if you know law, which you do not!

Mr Person said:

Oh please. I'm not convinced you've read any ethical philosophy.

Click to expand...

I haven't read a lot of ethics actually. But metaethics - the topic here - I have. What with your double-major in philosophy I'm sure you already knew the difference. :lol:

Mr Person said:

Again, go away.

Click to expand...

You are free to stop engaging me at any point.

the_recruit said:

How can you expect to weigh in on philosophical debate if you're using a different meanings than the philosophers doing the debating?

Click to expand...

How can you expect to lecture people on what "philosophers" supposedly say without identifying the philosophers or the essays that are supposed to be relevant?

the_recruit said:

I'm an atheist (for most notions of god anyway. Some, the spinozan god, for example I can't say I'm an atheist because I don't really understand what Spinoza even means by it).

Click to expand...

Or even being able to understand what they mean.....





You're just trolling here, as you are in most of your posts.

the_recruit said:

I haven't read a lot of ethics actually. But metaethics

Click to expand...

What is the maximum density of an internet post?

Whatever branch of ethics, is philosophers aren't talking about the objective reality of rights, that's because rights aren't objectively real and they're talking about something rather different, which is worth discussing. If they saw a thread like this, they'd say "yup, he's right. People who act like rights are objectively real in political debate threads are being dumb" and then move on.

You're only right in that I shouldn't engage with you. Waste of time.

from USLegal .com

Equity – Common Law


Equity supplements strict rules of law and allow courts to use discretion and apply justice in accordance with natural law.


Article III.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

the_recruit said:

I haven't read a lot of ethics actually. But metaethics - the topic here - I have. What with your double-major in philosophy I'm sure you already knew the difference. :lol:



You are free to stop engaging me at any point.

Click to expand...

mr person is in over his head, and clearly does not know law, as much as he claims