Truth, Justice, and the American Way

[Danoff]

I couldn't resist the superman reference with the thread title, but I do actually want this to be a fairly serious discussion of the nature of truth and justice. Joey D, YSSMAN and I have been discussing the concepts of truth, justice, and representative government in the "America" thread.

There is an attitude the truth is subjective, that justice is subjective, and human rights are in the eye of the beholder. That somehow society determines these things through convention, and this is the best we can do as a species.

This attitude is prevalent among socialists, communists, and political correctness police. The notion that no one person's judgment or thinking is better than anyone else's is part of the way that socialists defend rewarding all levels of effort equally, and it's the way political correctness enthusiasts justify enshrining some backward superstitious ritual as culturally important, diverse, and somehow desirable.

The problem is that declaring that truth or justice is subjective nullifies it's existence. If truth is in the eye of the beholder - there is no truth. If justice is different from one person to the next, or from one nation to the next, there is no such thing as justice.

But if justice or truth exists, then we can hold others accountable for immoral actions even though they are not in our legal system. If human rights exist outside of a subjective framework, then we can clearly identify a dictator as one who is committing human rights violations.

So what do you think? Is there a such thing as independent truth? Is justice rooted in logic or in emotion? Can we objectively say that every human on the planet has a certain set of rights? Or must we say that their rights change depending on the laws of the land.

 

[Sureboss]

I think a world where every single human has the same set of rights is impossible. We've touched on the differences of freedom of speech and that differs so much from country to country, even from the US to the UK, now transfer that the US and say China.

Emotion will always affect peoples logical thought processes towards a situation. Emotion goes down to the heart and speaking from the heart can be more violent than speaking from the head. A good example of this would be the death penalty for someone who murdered their wife/brother/sister/etc.

The last part of your post, Danoff is almost alluding to the idea of a United world.

 

[Famine]

I think a world where every single human has the same set of rights is impossible.

That's not in question - the question is rather not whether it will happen, but whether rights can be dependant upon regional laws.


The government of Kreplachistan chooses to execute all green-eyed females. Do green-eyed females not have the right to live - or is the right to live independant of the government of Kreplachistan?

 

[Pupik]

I think some people have a problem with defining things; to me, there's "truth" and "Truth". The first one (truth, with lowercase "t") is to describe an attribute within widely understood parameters or to describe something that can be measured empirically: This is red, or there are twelve of these.

Truth (with the big T) is the thing that unifies all of us, yet nobody can put words on it. Truth is the beginning, in-between, end, being and non-being, of anything and everything in between; the incomprehensible and indescribable. We use truth to define parameters for Truth; but since defining it (or in some case, over-defining it) is difficult to describe to others in plain language and the concepts are weighty for people to contain at all times, there are arguments and disagreements about what constitutes Truth.

Truth (big-T) is where we decide the fate of Important Things, guilty or not guilty; life, death, or imprisonment; payment or receipt...but everyone has an opinion on these matters, and because there are some many conditions, feelings, and emotions involved in the decision making, no two people have the same opinion when asked to make a decision.

Perhaps this is a rational component of our psyche; we do not want someone else calling the shots, unless we don't have an opinion on the matter or we can't make a decision on our own. We understand a mob doesn't think rationally as well, and this leads to dissolving the need for central authority and divine intervention lest we become railroaded by the system or wrongly accused by the All-Looking But Not All-Seeing.

Some people water this down to all aspects of life, to the point where a mere comment about television shows and dangerous activities alike get the worn-out response: "You shouldn't judge"...which is really a self-aggrandizing way of saying "What are you, God? I don't like your opinion, mortal."

I think you have to weigh parts of society's opinion, central authority, and personal opinion (although not necessarily in equal amounts) when it comes to Truth. If any one element becomes too lopsided, anarchy or slavery or mob-rule could occur.

Didn't Kant both define moral imperatives, only to discover that there were no true moral imperatives?

I'd better stop, I think I'm making less and less sense as quitting time nears.

 

[Danoff]

Famine is correct. One reason that this comes up is the complaint that many have had that America is exporting/imposing it's democratic system on other nations. Well, if you believe in an objective set of human rights, you'd come to the conclusion that a representative government (not necessarily American-style) is the only moral solution. So any other form of government is immoral and in violation of human rights.

Likewise one could conclude that any economic system not based on the free market is unjust, and also potentially in violation of human rights. At that point we can toss socialism out the window as an immoral system.

But for either of those conclusions to be reached, one has to buy into the notion that justice or rights exist objectively in the first place.

 

[Omnis]

To bust out the G. Edward Griffin:

RIGHTS ARE BORN ON THE BATTLEFIELD
In societies that have been sheltered for many generations from war and revolution, it is easy to forget that rights are derived from military power. That is their ultimate source. Initially, rights must be earned on the battlefield. They may be handed to the next generation as a gift, but they always are purchased on the battlefield. The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution is a classic example. The men who drafted that document were able to do so only because they represented the colonists who defeated the armies of Great Britain. Had they lost the War of Independence, they would have had no opportunity to write a Bill of Rights or anything else except letters of farewell before their execution. Unfortunately, Mao Zedong was right when he said that political power grows from the barrel of a gun. He could just as well have said rights. A man may declare that he has a right to do such and such derived from law or from a constitution or even from God; but, in the presence of an enemy or a criminal or a tyrant with a gun to his head, he has no power to exercise his proclaimed right. Rights are always based on power. If we lose our ability or willingness to physically defend our rights, we will lose them.

Everyone is born with the rights to life and liberty. Justice is whether those rights are acknowledged and protected. So, rights are not up to a government to grant. However, they can be unjust in disregarding rights. I disagree with Mr. Griffin only because I think rights can never be lost and instead that it is for Justice that battle is done.

Regardless, both are completely objective.

 

[YSSMAN]

Its a touchy subject I suppose, and I guess on that part, I'm not exactly sure how to answer it.

On the personal level, I like to take the time to hear out all sides and make the best decision as to what is right and what is wrong because of course my stance going in may very well be the wrong one by days end. That of course doesn't necessarily apply as we add the layers of government on top of my own decision, where groups and general consensus much be reached in order to create a decision-making process that keeps the country, albeit the world on a balanced scale.

I forget who has said it, but the line "Democracy and Capitalism aren't the best systems of government and the economy, but they're the best we have so far," and I think there is a lot of truth in that. Without question I think the overwhelming majority of our policies here in the US are in fact "right" based on the principles and needs of the nation, but I find it hard to say with absolute certainty that say Germany or Pakistan are completely "wrong" on the same level... They, essentially, are doing the same thing we are.

Pupik hit it on the head: There are the "truths" and then there are the "Truths."

With the exception of very small groups of people, collectively I believe most of us value a human life, recognize that suffering shouldn't exist, and all that jazz that we're taught in the Bible, Vedas, Quran, etc that are meant to make our lives just a bit better.

===

So, in a thinking out loud moment:

Hitler was obviously wrong on so many levels, and yet, you have to rationalize his idea of uniting Germany once again.

Chairman Mao may have been a dirty pinko commie, but to millions of Chinese people, he managed to turn the country into the (relative) superpower it is today. Of course, they're still a bit ass-backwards... Thats a whole 'nother thread.

Bin Laden is obviously wrong on a lot of levels too, but then you take the time to attempt to understand his hatred for America because we're in their backyard, and then you understand a bit better.

====

What am I trying to get at?

I think there are absolute moments of "right" and "wrong" in any given situation, but the problem is that today we're faced with more of a gray area than ever before. Its no longer the US v the USSR, Capitalism v Communism, Whites v Blacks... Its the struggle to make your idea that is obviously good for millions of people better than another that may be just as good for a similar number of folk.

I dunno. I'm looking forward to hearing more of what people think. I guess I'm a bit split... My upbringing, state and national origin, preference for a way of life may be absolutely perfect to me and certainly would be "right" for billions of Western peoples, but I just can't see this same model working well when attempting to apply it to the Mid-East, or for that matter, having their model attempt to apply to the West either.

 

[Zrow]

I disagree with Mr. Griffin only because I think rights can never be lost...

What about when you infringe on someone else's rights, and your right to, say, freedom is suspended when you go to prison?

 

[Omnis]

What about when you infringe on someone else's rights, and your right to, say, freedom is suspended when you go to prison?

That was exactly my point. That rights are unalienable-- my infringing on someone else's rights is an injustice. The injustice is justified by the fact that a person's rights cannot be taken away.


Also, YSSMAN, "democracy and capitalism" should be a republic and a free market.

 

[Danoff]

I think some people have a problem with defining things; to me, there's "truth" and "Truth". The first one (truth, with lowercase "t") is to describe an attribute within widely understood parameters or to describe something that can be measured empirically: This is red, or there are twelve of these.

That is what I’m calling “Truth”.

Truth (with the big T) is the thing that unifies all of us, yet nobody can put words on it. Truth is the beginning, in-between, end, being and non-being, of anything and everything in between; the incomprehensible and indescribable. We use truth to define parameters for Truth; but since defining it (or in some case, over-defining it) is difficult to describe to others in plain language and the concepts are weighty for people to contain at all times, there are arguments and disagreements about what constitutes Truth.

Truth (big-T) is where we decide the fate of Important Things, guilty or not guilty; life, death, or imprisonment; payment or receipt...but everyone has an opinion on these matters, and because there are some many conditions, feelings, and emotions involved in the decision making, no two people have the same opinion when asked to make a decision.

That is what I’m calling “Justice”.

Didn't Kant both define moral imperatives, only to discover that there were no true moral imperatives?

Without looking it up, I believe that’s correct. Though, it wouldn’t be the first time Kant missed the mark.

I think you have to weigh parts of society's opinion, central authority, and personal opinion (although not necessarily in equal amounts) when it comes to Truth. If any one element becomes too lopsided, anarchy or slavery or mob-rule could occur.

The way I interpret this is a sort of “democratic” approach to justice. And that does very much imply that justice is subjective - because a different group of people might come to a very different conclusion. And, of course, what that tells me is that you don’t really believe in the notion of justice. You seem to believe more in a sort of justice-by-convention. (No fair checking my signature to see how I feel about that)

Though it is interesting that you seem to think truth is objective and universal. What if the principles of justice could be derived from truth? Would you then believe that justice is objective? ...that social opinion, central authority, and personal opinion could do nothing to define it? …because I claim that justice is derived from truth.

My upbringing, state and national origin, preference for a way of life may be absolutely perfect to me and certainly would be "right" for billions of Western peoples, but I just can't see this same model working well when attempting to apply it to the Mid-East, or for that matter, having their model attempt to apply to the West either.

You as well are saying that you don’t believe in justice. If it’s morally acceptable to apply the “model” that fits a particular culture best, then you’re putting results like stability, safety, or even wealth first – meaning that objective morality is out the window. I’d ask you to address the same question I posed to Pupik. If you believe in his “truth”, then what if I told you that justice was derived from truth?

 

[YSSMAN]

To be honest, I'm not completely sure.

There are obviously cases in which there are absolute rules when it comes to truth or justice that I assume are "baked in" when it comes to human nature. Things like murder, stealing, etc are wrong and we shouldn't do it. But then we have things here in the US where women are allowed to do whatever they want, when they want, while in Saudi Arabia they must cover their hair, always have a male escort, and cannot drive or go to school, or whatever... And they're often killed for breaking the rules.

I can very easily stand here and say to them "you are wrong on every level" (which at least in my opinion is a truth), but I know that culturally its hard to condemn them because its just something they do, and have done for thousands of years. I don't like what they do, and I'd advocate that my western ideals that billions of other people subscribe to are certainly "better," but they may not work well for them.

(...which is a bad arguement, because we look at Dubai or Lebanon or really the rest of the Mid-East and we see that Western standards work fine...)

While I definitely prefer my was as an American, as a westerner in general, I still place value on the truth/justice/ways of other cultures. I dunno, its weird I suppose. I think its dreadfully interesting how Chinese farmers live their lives, not too different as to how their ancestors lived centuries ago. They may not have lived at my standards and done everything the way I'd do it, but the cultural exchange that we can have over it seems far more important than me telling them "you're wrong" and showing them how to do it "right."


===


This discussion kinda reminds me of the book The Ugly American - By Bill Lederer. Although the title certainly may be damning, the "based on true events" nature of the book is at least interesting. In that, we find many civil service Americans heading over to an imaginary country in SE Asia attempting to help them recover from WWII, and of course, fighting the Communists. The differences described in the book are mainly over the Americans who come in to share ideas/knowledge without telling them "you're wrong, change now" versus the "you're wrong, change now, or you get no money" folks.

What am I getting at?

Again, not sure. I'm good at thinking out loud.

Its very easy for us to go out wherever and say that our ideas are better, but its very different if someone comes here and does the same thing. Although we are certainly within our rights to believe that our ideas are the best, and certainly in many cases they are and have proven to work in most places, there is still some "truth" in what others believe and do, and I'm not sure if its within our rights to make them change for any reason at all.

 

[Danoff]

To be honest, I'm not completely sure.

You're not sure it can be done? Or you're not sure that if I proved to you that certain rights were derived from basic logic that you'd think those rights were "inalienable" regardless of nationality or culture?

There are obviously cases in which there are absolute rules when it comes to truth or justice that I assume are "baked in" when it comes to human nature. Things like murder, stealing, etc are wrong and we shouldn't do it.

I'll play devil's advocate here. Why? What makes these rights universal?

But then we have things here in the US where women are allowed to do whatever they want, when they want, while in Saudi Arabia they must cover their hair, always have a male escort, and cannot drive or go to school, or whatever... And they're often killed for breaking the rules.

It's easy to prove using reason that this is immoral. Trivial in fact. That's the thesis of this thread. Should we deny reason simply because someone happens to live in a different part of the world?

but I know that culturally its hard to condemn them because its just something they do, and have done for thousands of years.

It doesn't matter how long they've been violating human rights. If it's an immoral tradition, it's still immoral.

I don't like what they do, and I'd advocate that my western ideals that billions of other people subscribe to are certainly "better," but they may not work well for them.

Does it matter whether it "works"? If human rights exist, they have to be observed.

(...which is a bad arguement, because we look at Dubai or Lebanon or really the rest of the Mid-East and we see that Western standards work fine...)

Again, I submit that it doesn't matter whether it "works".

While I definitely prefer my was as an American, as a westerner in general, I still place value on the truth/justice/ways of other cultures.

Again, you're sticking with the notion that justice is subjective. If they can have a different set of human rights than we do, and you value theirs and ours, you're basically saying that objective human rights do not exist. What if you can derive human rights from fundamental truth?

but the cultural exchange that we can have over it seems far more important than me telling them "you're wrong" and showing them how to do it "right."

What if they are in fact objectively wrong?

 

[YSSMAN]

When I say "I dunno" I literally mean that I don't know... Unfortunately this isn't something that I attempt to rationalize too often.

Like I've said, I think its very easy for us to say that they are wrong in very obvious circumstances. Saudi Arabia is still ass-backwards under most circumstances, and I certainly think that if they are to be a part of the modern world, they are going to have to change it. I don't think there is really any challenging that.

I think my problem is that I'm not sure if we really have the moral high ground to tell people how things should be. Although I'm not personally against the death penalty, many people hold that over our heads as something barbaric in nature. We've still got a racial issue to deal with, treating African-Americans and Hispanics like second class citizens. The list goes on and on...

I don't really think anyone other than whatever higher power is out there actually has the authority to say "this is wrong, this is right, don't question it" on most occasions. We as human beings, however, certainly have advocated for a way in which we have collectively decided what is good and bad, and of course, how to deal with circumstances that operate beyond that. Lets look at it this way: A basic moral code has essentially been developed by the laws "given" to us by the Bible/Torah, Quaran, Vedas, etc that the majority of the world lives with. Other "minor" religions (oddly?) share the same basic values as the big four or five out there. On those principles, I assume, humans co-exist on those "truths" and have helped to form those "Truths" that have been outlined previously.

Again, I'm just typing out loud here. I guess I really don't know what I'm talking about. And yes, I'm being serious when I type it, because I generally attempt to avoid the paradoxes of human rights/religion/etc on most occasions.

My basic way of living is "respect mine, I'll respect yours" and we'll all be fine. I very well may be wrong, but its worked so far.

 

[Pupik]

The way I interpret this is a sort of “democratic” approach to justice. And that does very much imply that justice is subjective - because a different group of people might come to a very different conclusion. And, of course, what that tells me is that you don’t really believe in the notion of justice. You seem to believe more in a sort of justice-by-convention. (No fair checking my signature to see how I feel about that)

Though it is interesting that you seem to think truth is objective and universal. What if the principles of justice could be derived from truth? Would you then believe that justice is objective? ...that social opinion, central authority, and personal opinion could do nothing to define it? …because I claim that justice is derived from truth.

No fair...I said I wasn't finished.

Justice is vaguely to get what one deserves; but if nobody is intrinsically owed the right to anything, then merely unalienable rights exist. However, even "basic human rights" have limits; we sentence people to death for grave crimes, we can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded public place (unless there really is a fire), the right to liberty does not include opening someone's mail, slander and libel are not lawful ways to inform the public, et cetera.

Justice has to weigh the circumstances of each crime (or non-crime). It can't just say, "You've been accused of this; thus, this is your punishment". There must be decisions made in due course and with diligence, not to quickly dispose of all wrongdoers. Without understanding the reasons behind a crime, we shall never eliminate it or properly keep it in check, so that the public is informed of what constitutes wrongdoing and understands its possible punishment. Justice should not be confusion and mayhem, it should not be so complex such that the populace becomes paranoid or afraid to leave their homes. Sentences should rehabilitate as best as possible, not act as means to fill coffers for the benefit of others.

If there was a set of true and absolute basic human rights, then why hasn't some worldwide political body such as the United Nations set forth a framework for what is acceptable. What would the U.N. do if it found a member state or rouge nation playing by its own rules? There probably would be a lot of discussion, but nobody would actually get on a ladder to screw in the light bulb, that's what. What else can I say, I'm an idealist trapped in a curmudgeon's body: Why hasn't this occurred yet? Will it occur in my lifetime?

Nobody wants a single entity or state telling anyone else what's right or wrong, since we're all individuals. It's an identity-crisis paradox; I am unique, I direct and produce my own movie, I want unique circumstances; yet I want to fit into society and be like everyone else and to hell with what they think anyhow.

Justice is sometimes no more complicated than a bunch of people getting to together sand saying, we agree people shouldn't do this, or that, except in this circumstance, or when that happens. And it has to continuously be redefined and edited, or people find loopholes and play the system out. Justice lives on long after nations fall and judges and offenders alike die off; its just that some states have much more anarchy and quirky laws than others.

 

[Danoff]

I think my problem is that I'm not sure if we really have the moral high ground to tell people how things should be.

That’s because you don’t understand how the moral high ground is established. I’m telling you right now, it’s established via logic and reason.

Although I'm not personally against the death penalty, many people hold that over our heads as something barbaric in nature. We've still got a racial issue to deal with, treating African-Americans and Hispanics like second class citizens. The list goes on and on...

First of all, I’ve never seen anyone justify a certain kind of treatment by other citizens as a right. Secondly, I don’t see how you would establish the death penalty as a right (of the state??), but it’s easy to explain why the right to life is forfeit in cases of severe crime.

I don't really think anyone other than whatever higher power is out there actually has the authority to say "this is wrong, this is right, don't question it" on most occasions.

This conflicts with your official “I don’t know” stance. Here you take a stand “nobody but God can say with any authority what is right and wrong”. So you’re answering my question. You think objective right and wrong exist but that human minds can’t know it. What if we use reason from basic fact to establish right and wrong? Then the human mind can derive it. You say that right and wrong are clear cut in certain cases. Is this because God has ordained it? Or because there are some logically identified human rights?

Again, I'm just typing out loud here. I guess I really don't know what I'm talking about. And yes, I'm being serious when I type it, because I generally attempt to avoid the paradoxes of human rights/religion/etc on most occasions.

It’s an important question. If you’re going to criticize America for “exporting democracy” you should first know whether we’re justified in doing so.

Justice is vaguely to get what one deserves; but if nobody is intrinsically owed the right to anything, then merely unalienable rights exist. However, even "basic human rights" have limits; we sentence people to death for grave crimes, we can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded public place (unless there really is a fire), the right to liberty does not include opening someone's mail, slander and libel are not lawful ways to inform the public, et cetera.

Basic logic can establish a right to life, a right to ones productivity or property, and laws the penalize others for directly causing physical or financial harm to those around them. All of these rights can be forfeit depending on our actions.

Justice has to weigh the circumstances of each crime (or non-crime). It can't just say, "You've been accused of this; thus, this is your punishment". There must be decisions made in due course and with diligence, not to quickly dispose of all wrongdoers. Without understanding the reasons behind a crime, we shall never eliminate it or properly keep it in check, so that the public is informed of what constitutes wrongdoing and understands its possible punishment. Justice should not be confusion and mayhem, it should not be so complex such that the populace becomes paranoid or afraid to leave their homes. Sentences should rehabilitate as best as possible, not act as means to fill coffers for the benefit of others.

I agree that justice should not be confusing (like it is in America today). And logic or reason can be difficult to apply in matters of sentencing. I’m not necessarily advocating a cookie-cutter sentencing structure for all crimes – or even necessarily limiting criminality to human rights violations. What I’m claiming is that human rights can be established.

If there was a set of true and absolute basic human rights, then why hasn't some worldwide political body such as the United Nations set forth a framework for what is acceptable.

They have.

What would the U.N. do if it found a member state or rouge nation playing by its own rules? There probably would be a lot of discussion, but nobody would actually get on a ladder to screw in the light bulb, that's what.

Right on the money. It also very much depends on how much leverage that nation has over the other nations involved. The mandates of the UN are not always just because it is effectively a rule-by-mob rather than ruling based on principle.

Nobody wants a single entity or state telling anyone else what's right or wrong, since we're all individuals.

It’s not really a matter of what people want. It’s a matter of what is objectively right and wrong (if you believe in that sort of thing).

Justice is sometimes no more complicated than a bunch of people getting to together sand saying, we agree people shouldn't do this, or that, except in this circumstance, or when that happens.

What you’re describing is majority rule – which has no inherent safeguards for human rights. The majority can easily act immorally.

And it has to continuously be redefined and edited, or people find loopholes and play the system out.

The implementation of justice perhaps has to be perfected in a trial and error sense. But basic human rights do not. To do so is very tricky.

Here’s part of an essay I’ve been working on to shed a little more light on what I’m advocating. I wrote this for my “Human Rights” thread, but never got around to posting it.

On Human Rights​

Intro

The US constitution and Bill of Rights prescribes certain “inalienable” rights to all citizens under the concept that these rights are “endowed by [man’s] creator”. But these rights do not require religious convictions of any kind to understand and be seen as necessary, they can be derived from a very fundamental concept of logic and justice.

So the first questions one might ask are “do logic and justice exist”? That’s a debatable question. One can prove that it is possible that logic does not exist, and that would render justice – which is derived from logic, non-existent as well. That argument, however, renders (almost) all knowledge unattainable and eliminates all rational thought. That anti-concept, that reality may not exist, while potentially correct, is something that can’t enter into a more practical philosophical discussion of this kind because man cannot function under the premise that he does not know reality. As such, we must proceed assuming that logic and reality exist as we perceive them.

So we’ve accepted logic as truth (as close to truth as man can perhaps ever achieve), but what about justice? Many people believe that justice is subjective - that what is just for one person is not just for others. This is another anti-concept that nullifies the existence of justice altogether and would render the discussion of it moot. Luckily, justice can be derived from logic, and is, therefore, not moot. Rights are then derived from justice.

Right to Life, Liberty

The general case, among the human species, is that each member is able to understand the basic consequences of his actions. Man is self-aware – he understands the nature of his existence (in a basic sense), and the nature of the existence of other men (and other animals). More specifically, man understands his own mortality, he understands pleasure and pain, the existence and nature of emotions, the existence of intelligence other than his own, and he grasps the fundamental concepts in logic and math. Combining this understanding, and man’s ability to factor all of this in to his choices allows us to distinguish man from other animals. I’ll refer to this set as “higher order brain functions” from here forward.

Ignoring, for a moment, the exceptions to the rule, man develops these higher order brain functions by adulthood. Different members of the human race will posses different particular talents (whether that be a result of concerted effort, or the result of genetics), but self-awareness – higher order brain functions are present. Objectively determining which set of particular attributes or talents is superior to others is not possible from an objective point of view, and so we are left with the basic concept that man is “created” equal – equal in the possession of higher order brain functions.

What follows from this notion is that no man can be objectively considered to be superior to others. Note that this does not eliminate a subjective evaluation but, for the purposes of defining rights, an objective standard is all we will use.

If man is “created” equal, then men cannot be permitted to use force (where the force is physical or the threat of physical force) against each other since the justified ability for one person to use force against another either implies superiority. It’s a simple concept, but it holds. If no one person’s life, or thoughts, or productivity cannot objectively be more protected than any other man’s, then we’re left with two options. Either all must be protected equally, or none must be protected. If none must be protected, then we’re left with the notion that man’s rights are determined by his ability to impose force on those around him – which violates the notion that all men are created equal.

Thus, we establish our first right, the right not to have physical force used against you. With this right, we establish the need for government (more on that later). Because this right is enabled by man’s higher order brain functions, it is taken away when he demonstrates his inability to grasp the basic injustice inherent in any violation of this right. So a man who violates this right is open to the use of force against him. This right requires a free (ie: not forced) exchange of goods and services between individuals and is used to establish capitalism as the only moral economic structure since it is, by definition, the economic structure that functions without coercion.

The existence of “higher order brain functions” significantly distinguishes man from other animals because without it, one cannot grasp the concept of justice – and without the ability to grasp justice one cannot practice it. Since rights are reciprocal (as established above), those without the ability to understand and practice justice (animals) are not guaranteed a full compliment of rights.

Returning, now, to the exceptions to the rule regarding higher order brain functions - very young children and malformed, injured, or sick adults my not currently have, or have ever had higher order brain capability. If one is presumed to eventually develop higher order brain functions, one can easily argue for the protection of that future individual’s rights even before they have fully developed (unless those rights conflict with another’s, at which point one individual must be considered superior). Similarly, one can argue that it is important to continue to observe an individual’s rights after death (or incapacitation), since the individual did exist at one point and their rights in the past were no less than the rights of individuals in the present. On the otherhand, it is impossible to argue for the rights of individuals who never develop higher order brain functions (or the ability to recognize the rights of others).

This actually establishes a great deal of government. I go on in the essay to discuss property rights, self-defense, etc. and the general role of government. But I’ll stop here since I’m just using it to make my point clear.

 

[Danoff]

Hmmmm... I was hoping to get someone's take on that snippet of the essay I've been working on... rather than what actually happened - which was that I obliterated the conversation.

 

[Zrow]

Hmmmm... I was hoping to get someone's take on that snippet of the essay I've been working on... rather than what actually happened - which was that I obliterated the conversation.

Must study now, but will absolutely read tomorrow.

 

[FoolKiller]

OK, just now having time to really focus on this thread. I have been busy lately with a product roll out at work and haven't had much time.

And I won't comment on your essay now, but I will address the OP.

If truth is in the eye of the beholder - there is no truth. If justice is different from one person to the next, or from one nation to the next, there is no such thing as justice.

I really like this statement.

So what do you think? Is there a such thing as independent truth? Is justice rooted in logic or in emotion? Can we objectively say that every human on the planet has a certain set of rights? Or must we say that their rights change depending on the laws of the land.

Human rights absolutely cannot, will not, and do not change just because of the law of the land. Legal rights, yes. Human rights, no.

This is the one thing that the founders of the US understood. It is why they wrote the Constitution in the way they did. The Constitution limits the government. It prevents laws of the land from violating human rights. That is its goal. That is why America is not a pure democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. That means that we have an elected government which is limited in its abilities by the Constitution.

Why did our founding fathers create the Constitution in such a way? Because they saw first-hand how the laws of the land can ignore human rights and they were determined that the country they were creating would not do the same thing, no matter the situation.

This is what kills me when I hear people refer to the Constitution as a living document and say that its meanings can change with the times. NO!!! There are inalienable human rights and those must always be recognized, no matter the times.

Now, when we look out at the world scale we see cultures who have barely moved beyond the idea of slavery (and some that haven't). I don't care what they think is their right, violating the rights of others is wrong. You will not convince me otherwise.

But of course the question of should we hold these cultures and leaders accountable seems black and white by my thought. But the follow up is then, can we? The only feasible way to do this is to deal with extreme cases individually, at likely one at a time, while working to educate the other cases where the citizenry has the ability to make their own changes.

The biggest risk we run in trying to enforce the rights of others is losing our ability to protect ours.

While Superman reference in the title was intended as a joke, it would truly take a superman to guarantee human rights in the entire world.

I do not know how it should be done when a unified world body, such as the UN, will have members that are from areas that are part of the problem. Perhaps a unified body that only allows membership from countries that meet the responsibilities of protecting all human rights. Anyone who has read Orson Scott Card's "Shadow of the Giant" may understand what I am getting at here.

I hope that answers your OP.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Ahoy all... haven't been around for a while due to a coinciding thesis, move to a new home, and other factors, but I'm glad to see a thread like this blooming... I've given it a cursory scan and am planning to go back over it this evening. Danoff, your essay excerpt is particularly insightful - a systematic evaluation of concepts oft-touted but rarely examined has been long in coming; it or something like it deserves attention far beyond the scope of internet debate.

 

[magburner]

Very impressive write-up Danoff! I'm new to this kind of discussion, but I'll give a go anyhow.

Thus, we establish our first right, the right not to have physical force used against you.

Surely the first right, is the right to life. You can't use physical force against something that does not exist. I'd say that the right not to have physical force used against you would be the second right.

If man is “created” equal, then men cannot be permitted to use force (where the force is physical or the threat of physical force) against each other since the justified ability for one person to use force against another either implies superiority.

Physical force is not the only type of force that can be exerted on an individual. There are other 'non-violent' forms of force that exist too, indoctrination being one of them. I feel that your definition of force is too narrow, but if your definition of force was expanded, it could form the basis of another human right - free will.

(1) First you say this:

The existence of “higher order brain functions” significantly distinguishes man from other animals because without it, one cannot grasp the concept of justice – and without the ability to grasp justice one cannot practice it. Since rights are reciprocal (as established above), those without the ability to understand and practice justice (animals) are not guaranteed a full compliment of rights.

(2) Then you say this:

On the otherhand, it is impossible to argue for the rights of individuals who never develop higher order brain functions (or the ability to recognize the rights of others).

(3) This (to me), contradicts statement (2):

If no one person’s life, or thoughts, or productivity cannot objectively be more protected than any other man’s, then we’re left with two options. Either all must be protected equally, or none must be protected. If none must be protected, then we’re left with the notion that man’s rights are determined by his ability to impose force on those around him – which violates the notion that all men are created equal.

I find it strange that animals are afforded (though not guaranteed) a full compliment of rights, when an individual who may never understand logic or justice is afforded none at all. Surely justice should dictate that a man (whether aware or not), should be granted the same rights as those who have 'higher brain functions'?

 

[Danoff]

Surely the first right, is the right to life. You can't use physical force against something that does not exist. I'd say that the right not to have physical force used against you would be the second right.

When I say you have a right not to have force used against the right to life is implied. It's freedom from violence, including lethal violence.

Physical force is not the only type of force that can be exerted on an individual. There are other 'non-violent' forms of force that exist too, indoctrination being one of them. I feel that your definition of force is too narrow, but if your definition of force was expanded, it could form the basis of another human right - free will.

The only way I can see to subvert free will is through physical force. How does indoctrination remove free will?

(1) First you say this:



(2) Then you say this:



(3) This (to me), contradicts statement (2):

You're right, I should have said it is impossible to argue for a full compliment of rights to an individual who does not and has not ever possessed higher order brain functions.

Because objectively speaking, the one with higher order brain functions can be considered a superior. I should have gone into more detail about that as well. But I was planning to address it when I addressed animal rights.

Surely justice should dictate that a man (whether aware or not), should be granted the same rights as those who have 'higher brain functions'?

Well, that's my basic thesis. That higher order brain functions are what makes man superior to other living creatures. Otherwise how can you claim that plants do not have the same rights as a human being?

 

[magburner]

When I say you have a right not to have force used against the right to life is implied. It's freedom from violence, including lethal violence.

Ah, I get you now, but shouldn't the right to life be explicit rather than implied? Even if that is what you mean't? I'd like to think that my human rights were not open to interpretation.

The only way I can see to subvert free will is through physical force. How does indoctrination remove free will?

Isn't religion (ie. false belief, or blind faith) a form of indoctrination?

You're right, I should have said it is impossible to argue for a full compliment of rights to an individual who does not and has not ever possessed higher order brain functions.

edit: changed context of answer/question.

That sounds more reasonable, but still unacceptable.I have a good think about this point a lot this weekend, examining it form all angles to come to a conclusion, and I think (finally), that EVEN those without higher brain functions should have equal rights - a full compliment if you like.

my reasons for this are:

1) ignoring the rights of any man goes against logic, but maybe not reason. If you want it enough, you can lend reason to anything you want (Hitler proved that). Surely reason and logic should balance for what your saying to be acceptable? I also believe, that what your saying goes against logic because you stated earlier that 'all men are created equal'. Therefore it is illogical to say that some men are not created equal and thus do not have the same rights.

2) A disability should not be stigmatized period! What your proposing is borderline eugenics. There have been some amazing people that have triumphed and achieved despite their obvious disability. An individual can have brain impairment, and yet be still fully functional.

I know this from experience. My youngest daughter has brain damage, and yet she is no different from any other little girl of her age. She cannot walk, but apart from that she is as bright as a button. Would my daughter have a 'full compliments of rights'? Feel free to be frank about this, I will not take personally anything you say, though I may not agree with you! 👍

3) Lastly, I'm wondering, is this a system for all men, or a system for some men?

 

[nk4e]

Just reading this thread, I wondered why there are certain circumstances for some "Truths, Justice, and the American Way" The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ( well, Bill of Rights) grants American citizens "Freedom of Speech" though there are several Supreme Court Cases(Texas v Johnson) that some group of Americans deemed it unpatriotic to do the action. IMO the reality of it. That for that moment of time. It is the best choice for that specific situation. Or am I making any sense at all.

2) A disability should not be stigmatized period! What your proposing is borderline eugenics. There have been some amazing people that have triumphed and achieved despite their obvious disability. An individual can have brain impairment, and yet be still fully functional.

I know this from experience. My youngest daughter has brain damage, and yet she is no different from any other little girl of her age. She cannot walk, but apart from that she is as bright as a button. Would my daughter have a 'full compliments of rights'? Feel free to be frank about this, I will not take personally anything you say, though I may not agree with you! 👍

I help trained a old co-worker of mine that use to be a Correction Officer for the majority of his life. What happen to him that he was involved within a near-death accident when a teenager made a U-turn on a highway and hit him while he came from work on his motorcycle. This guy tried his best to learn my current job. But they had to let him go because he was deemed "slow" for the job.

 

[magburner]

I help trained a old co-worker of mine that use to be a Correction Officer for the majority of his life. What happen to him that he was involved within a near-death accident when a teenager made a U-turn on a highway and hit him while he came from work on his motorcycle. This guy tried his best to learn my current job. But they had to let him go because he was deemed "slow" for the job.

Obviously, I never said everyone with a brain impairment would be fully functional, I just said they can be. This is the crux of the argument.

Danoff has stated that those without higher brain functions would not have a full set of rights, who decides that? An able bodied person? It begs the question, what right has one man to decide what is acceptable for another? Of course, this goes against the statement that 'all men are created equal'.

 

[nk4e]

Obviously, I never said everyone with a brain impairment would be fully functional, I just said they can be. This is the crux of the argument.

Danoff has stated that those without higher brain functions would not have a full set of rights, who decides that? An able bodied person? It begs the question, what right has one man to decide what is acceptable for another? Of course, this goes against the statement that 'all men are created equal'.

edit: Forget this post( I just reread what Magburner put and I got it.).
I wanted to give another example of it. Though I don't think that anyone has the right to do so. Probably the statement" All men are created equal" is meant to be that all men have the choice to do but I think that people put circumstances within those certain points of time or events.

 

[Danoff]

Ah, I get you now, but shouldn't the right to life be explicit rather than implied? Even if that is what you mean't? I'd like to think that my human rights were not open to interpretation.

Valid point. I'll adjust it to make that more explicit despite the fact that I see it as an unavoidable conclusion.

Isn't religion (ie. false belief, or blind faith) a form of indoctrination?

Yes. But religion is not a form of subversion of will. The person still has an option to reject the notion of religion - despite exposure to the concept. I guess I don't believe that people can be brainwashed to the point that they no longer have the option to believe.

That sounds more reasonable, but still unacceptable.I have a good think about this point a lot this weekend, examining it form all angles to come to a conclusion, and I think (finally), that EVEN those without higher brain functions should have equal rights - a full compliment if you like.

So.. plants then?

my reasons for this are:

1) ignoring the rights of any man goes against logic, but maybe not reason. If you want it enough, you can lend reason to anything you want (Hitler proved that). Surely reason and logic should balance for what your saying to be acceptable? I also believe, that what your saying goes against logic because you stated earlier that 'all men are created equal'. Therefore it is illogical to say that some men are not created equal and thus do not have the same rights.

Well... when I quote "all men are created equal" I'm talking about conscious individuals. Not those who have never been self-aware and never will be.

2) A disability should not be stigmatized period! What your proposing is borderline eugenics. There have been some amazing people that have triumphed and achieved despite their obvious disability. An individual can have brain impairment, and yet be still fully functional.

Not to the extent that I'm talking about. If you've lost what I've defined as "higher order brain functions" then you're no longer functional at all. You're barely an animal. Nobody would afford someone in that state a full set of rights. They would be confined to a care facility, mental hospital, or hospital.

I know this from experience. My youngest daughter has brain damage, and yet she is no different from any other little girl of her age. She cannot walk, but apart from that she is as bright as a button. Would my daughter have a 'full compliments of rights'? Feel free to be frank about this, I will not take personally anything you say, though I may not agree with you! 👍

Provided that she is self-aware or will become self-aware, I put her on equal footing with all other people as far as rights are concerned.

Just reading this thread, I wondered why there are certain circumstances for some "Truths, Justice, and the American Way" The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ( well, Bill of Rights) grants American citizens "Freedom of Speech" though there are several Supreme Court Cases(Texas v Johnson) that some group of Americans deemed it unpatriotic to do the action. IMO the reality of it. That for that moment of time. It is the best choice for that specific situation. Or am I making any sense at all.

Freedom of Speech doesn't include the right to violate the rights of others with speech. It's a bit complicated but where there's a conflict of rights they have to be reconciled. Freedom of speech, for example, is not permitted on the stand in a courtroom.

It begs the question, what right has one man to decide what is acceptable for another? Of course, this goes against the statement that 'all men are created equal'.

I also said:

What follows from this notion is that no man can be objectively considered to be superior to others. Note that this does not eliminate a subjective evaluation but, for the purposes of defining rights, an objective standard is all we will use.

A subjective evaluation about who is capable of performing certain jobs/tasks is certainly still an option. But as far as law is concerned, as long as the person is aware of himself, and how his actions can violate the rights of others, he should be treated equally. I claim that this is the case because I see no objective method determining inherent superiority among self-aware humans.

 

[magburner]

Yes. But religion is not a form of subversion of will. The person still has an option to reject the notion of religion - despite exposure to the concept. I guess I don't believe that people can be brainwashed to the point that they no longer have the option to believe.

Maybe your right there, but religion would subvert reason and logic. Religion by its very nature is irrational, and would go against the thoughts and actions of a rational man would it not?

So.. plants then?

Obviously not, I was talking in the context of human beings!

Well... when I quote "all men are created equal" I'm talking about conscious individuals. Not those who have never been self-aware and never will be.

Maybe I misunderstood what you mean't. I assumed you mean't that all mean are created equal in the eyes of the law/rights, and not determined on their physical characteristics. Maybe its just me, but I think there is a difference.

Not to the extent that I'm talking about. If you've lost what I've defined as "higher order brain functions" then you're no longer functional at all. You're barely an animal. Nobody would afford someone in that state a full set of rights. They would be confined to a care facility, mental hospital, or hospital.

I've been thinking about this today. Instead of arguing the point now, it might be better to argue the point when I actually know what the difference in rights will be.

Provided that she is self-aware or will become self-aware, I put her on equal footing with all other people as far as rights are concerned.

I get you know. From my (mis)understanding of what you said, I assumed that the individual in question would have to understand logic. There are many people who are not disabled that would have a hard time understanding logic. Being-self aware is a more reasonable standard.

A subjective evaluation about who is capable of performing certain jobs/tasks is certainly still an option. But as far as law is concerned, as long as the person is aware of himself, and how his actions can violate the rights of others, he should be treated equally. I claim that this is the case because I see no objective method determining inherent superiority among self-aware humans.

got ya!

 

[Omnis]

Maybe your right there, but religion would subvert reason and logic. Religion by its very nature is irrational, and would go against the thoughts and actions of a rational man would it not?

Religion does not subvert logic. Religion is conditionally valid.

 

[ledhed]

The contitution of the USA says we are all equal .

Show me the spot in it that says --dumb--morons--idiots--handicapped---etc..

DO NOT HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS.

Logic may say that a dope should not vote .

I say LOGIC is RIGHT .

BUT ...smarter people tahn me recognised that that CHOSING who is a dope ---is SUBJECTIVE ---and not an exact science ,,,,lol ,,, so they gave equal protection under the law .

We MAY have PERVERTED the almost perfect document --for freedom and human rights --that has ever existed in the worlds HISOTORY --in the past ---and may still do so in the future,...

But--thankfully I have my second ammendment rights to cancel your right to say I am " too dumb " or " not qualified " to VOTE .

These guys who made us a great document ---you all should read the thing some time--

Made sure when the " elitist " decided who had a say in things, would restrict our right as free people --WE THE PEOPLE --would have a way to remove any such restrictions .

I must say the guys who wrote the thing -- must have been able to read the future--

Or MAYBE ...they just may have known that we are human ...and its in our nature to TRY to set up a " class" that always knows what is right for us ....

Nemo me impune lacessit ....

up yours .

 

[Danoff]

But--thankfully I have my second ammendment rights to cancel your right to say I am " too dumb " or " not qualified " to VOTE .

Who is telling anybody they are too dumb to vote?