Connecticut (et al)

[pErvinalia]

He's not exactly making that claim, though. What he claims is that every person has a inherent right to defend their life. I presume this belief stems from the fact that evolution selects broadly for life, not death. Now, I have an argument with people all the time about this issue, and I make the point that it is not a naturalistic fallacy to consider life better than death. The problem with Seth's argument is that this doesn't really mean much. Sure, I might be able to make a case that I should be able to do whatever I like to preserve my life, but rights aren't just proclamations. They need to be underwritten for them to become an actual right. A right, without expectation of actually being able to reasonably experience that right, isn't a right at all. It's just an empty statement. That's what Seth does. Without society to underwrite rights, there are none.

[Warren Dew]

Actually, anyone who claims that what is "natural" is better, has no conception of human progress. In days of great ancientness, when humans hunted mammoths, life spans were short, and most children born died within a year.

Actually, the evidence is that infant mortalilty back when we were hunting mammoths was quite a lot lower than it was later, with the invention of agriculture.

But having pointed that out, let me also say that there is nothing "natural" about bearing arms. Our evolution has not equipped us for it, either physically or mentally. Hence the fact that those who bear arms have a high rate of both committing murder and being murdered.

Evolution equipped us both for bearing arms and for murder. Whether it's "better" is a separate question, but it's quite natural.

[JimC]

Actually, anyone who claims that what is "natural" is better, has no conception of human progress. In days of great ancientness, when humans hunted mammoths, life spans were short, and most children born died within a year. Women died in childbirth, and the only thing keeping the human species going was that women stayed almost continuously pregnant from puberty until their early death.

"Natural" is bad. Artificial is good.

But having pointed that out, let me also say that there is nothing "natural" about bearing arms. Our evolution has not equipped us for it, either physically or mentally. Hence the fact that those who bear arms have a high rate of both committing murder and being murdered.

I will disagree to an extent here. I suspect that evolution (in both its physical and cognitive aspects) has equipped the hominid line with both weapon making and weapon using skills and proclivities. Sure, many uses of these weapons were for hunting, but they were also very suitable for seeing of rival bands of our own species.

I will also say that self-defence is a fairly natural tendency in most animals, including ourselves, but that tendency does not translate into rights, which as many here have stated, are to do with various implicit social contracts, rather than some mystical concept of rights.

And even a right to self-defence (which is given limited currency in most legal systems) does (or should not) equate to a right to own destructive modern weapons.

[Blind groper]

Without society to underwrite rights, there are none.

I totally agree with this statement. I normally replace 'society' with 'those in power', but I think the message is the same.

The most advanced set of "rights" today are those in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. The second amendment by comparison, is a primitive and now obsolete privilege granted by a government based on temporary expedience.

[MrJonno]

Actually going down the biological route everyone has a 'right' to reproduce but after that they can be terminated. Cancer as generally an older person disease is nature way of saying you are no longer needed

[Seth]

I'm disappointed Seth. I thought you were a champion for "natural rights". It seems Beatsong and I were right that principles have nothing to do with your philosophy. All your beliefs and choices are predicated on what is best for YOU, not a general principle (other than gross selfishness).

That happens to be true for every human being on the planet, bar none. It's a biological imperative. Anybody who says they are doing it for others is a liar, because at the core they are doing it for themselves, to satisfy some inner need of some kind. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

Bollocks. It would suit me personally to do a lot of things, but I don't do many of them, and not because they're illegal. There's such a thing as discipline and self-restraint in the interest of the common good.

Everything you do is done to satisfy some internal need you have, therefore everything you do is based on what's best for you.

It matters not a whit that your internal need is to be a good socialist and act "in the interest of the common good," you still do it because it satisfies YOUR internal needs for conformity or something else. That it happens to be in the interests of the common good is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that's important is your internal motivations, which are entirely selfish in nature and origin.

When the term "selfishness" is used, it's not used in the sense you are using it here - that is, everyone's primary behavioural goals are focused on the 'self'. It's used to mean the distinction between people who's actions benefit only themselves (more or less), as opposed to people who's actions also greatly benefit others.

No, that's how YOU would like things to be. But they are not. You don't get to define terms. I'm speaking of the core motivation for every human act, which is intrinsically selfish.

[Seth]

How do you morally justify forcing Person A to pay for the needs of Person B against Person A's will?

Again, Seth, you are going all religious on us. "Morally' is a term related to religion. "Moral behaviour' is imply doing whatever you believe the deity of your choice is telling you to do. If you have no deity, as I do not, then there is no such thing as 'moral' behaviour.

Hm, nice explication of the principle of moral relativism. Bullshit, but still nicely stated bullshit.

The Definition of Morality
First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Mar 14, 2011

The term “morality” can be used either

descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

moral
 
mor·al
[mawr-uh l, mor-] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2.
expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3.
founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4.
capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5.
conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral ): a moral man.

Word Origin & History
moral
mid-14c., "pertaining to character or temperament" (good or bad), from O.Fr. moral, from L. moralis "proper behavior of a person in society," lit. "pertaining to manners," coined by Cicero ("De Fato," II.i) to translate Gk. ethikos (see ethics) from L. mos (gen. moris) "one's
disposition," in plural, "mores, customs, manners, morals," of uncertain origin. Meaning "morally good, conforming to moral rules," is first recorded late 14c. of stories, 1630s of persons. Original value-neutral sense preserved in moral support, moral victory, with sense of "pertaining to character as opposed to physical action." The noun meaning "moral exposition of a story" is attested from c.1500. Related: Morally.

However, if you behave in such a way as to benefit the people around you, this is called 'ethical' behaviour. Ethical behaviour has its origin in evolution. Since humans are gregarious and social, then cooperation, and working to help the group, are behaviours which assist in survival. So we have evolved the trend to help others.

Thanks for that new piece of interesting bullshit. Nice try but...Fail.

ethics
 
eth·ics
[eth-iks] Show IPA
plural noun
1.
( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2.
the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3.
moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4.
( usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
Compare axiological ethics, deontological ethics.

Origin:
1400–50; late Middle English ethic + -s3 , modeled on Greek tà ēthiká, neuter plural

Synonyms
2. See moral.
(Emphasis added)

You really ought to look up the definition of terms that you are unfamiliar with before you fling them about as if you know what the fuck you're talking about.

Of course evolution permits substantial variation from person to person, and some people lack the instinct to help others. These people are known as psychopaths.

Wrong again:

psychopath
 
psy·cho·path
[sahy-kuh-path] Show IPA
noun
a person with a psychopathic personality, which manifests as amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc.
(Emphasis added)

There's a substantial difference between being a psychopath and not being willing to hand out the products of one's own labor and property to any Tom, Dick or Harry who comes along with his hand out. And objecting to Tom, Dick and Harry getting together and persuading the government to send out its jackbooted thugs with machine guns to collect their boodle is hardly an indication of psychopathy.

I think expecting other people to labor on your behalf against their will and using the Mace of State and jackbooted thugs to enforce it DOES qualify the proponent as a psychopath or perhaps just a sociopath.

sociopath
 
so·ci·o·path
[soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-] Show IPA
noun, Psychiatry.
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

That pretty accurately defines Liberals and the dependent class.

But for 'normal' people (not psychopaths) doing something to help other people is simply being ethical. Paying our taxes is ethical, since it helps others.

Paying taxes is ethical because (when it's appropriate) it compensates society for the costs incurred by the individual in using and enjoying the services and amenities offered by society through government. "Help" to others is merely a side effect of paying one's way in life.

Stealing the labor and property of others to satisfy one's own greed and compensate for one's sloth or personal limitations is called "theft" in every culture on earth...except Marxism.

However, there is a reason for paying taxes that will appeal even to psychopaths. if you do not pay, you go to prison.

The excuse of every tyrant, despot and thief in history. Just because you have the Mace of State and the jackbooted thugs to make your robbery successful doesn't make it either ethical or moral. It just makes it an exercise in Law of the Jungle superiority of force.

[Seth]

He's not exactly making that claim, though. What he claims is that every person has a inherent right to defend their life. I presume this belief stems from the fact that evolution selects broadly for life, not death. Now, I have an argument with people all the time about this issue, and I make the point that it is not a naturalistic fallacy to consider life better than death. The problem with Seth's argument is that this doesn't really mean much. Sure, I might be able to make a case that I should be able to do whatever I like to preserve my life, but rights aren't just proclamations. They need to be underwritten for them to become an actual right. A right, without expectation of actually being able to reasonably experience that right, isn't a right at all. It's just an empty statement. That's what Seth does. Without society to underwrite rights, there are none.

No, they don't have to be underwritten, they just have to be successfully defended. It matters little who or how rights are defended. If you and I are on a desert island and there's only one cocoanut for food, the right to that cocoanut as food belongs to whomever has the ability to defend that claim successfully.

Society is merely a more complex and less violent way of resolving ownership and possession of the resources necessary for life. We use lawyers and courts as our proxies for single combat. But the nature of the right doesn't change. A right is a freedom of action that can be defended against intrusion by others. It doesn't require "underwriters", although society does so underwright the enforcement of rights in a complex society. The right exists independent of the society however, and is formed by the individual's claim of freedom of action and his ability to defend it against intrusion by others.

[MrJonno]

No, they don't have to be underwritten, they just have to be successfully defended. It matters little who or how rights are defended. If you and I are on a desert island and there's only one cocoanut for food, the right to that cocoanut as food belongs to whomever has the ability to defend that claim successfully.

On a desert island you don't have any rights (or responsibilities which are how you pay society for them)

[Blind groper]

There's a substantial difference between being a psychopath and not being willing to hand out the products of one's own labor and property to any Tom, Dick or Harry who comes along with his hand out.

That is true. But being unwilling to engage in activities to help others is one (not the only one) of the characteristics of a psychopath. The other main characteristic of a psychopath, which ties in, is having no human feelings, concerns, conscience or love in relation to one's fellow humans.

The epitome of the psychopath is that British hero, James Bond. James Bond shows the following psychopath qualities.
1. He kills without hesitation, without qualms, and without any regrets.
2. He uses women sexually, and then drops them and never thinks of them again. He certainly has no concern about their emotional trauma as a result of the way he treats them.
3. He destroys property, and hence the way of life of those whose property is destroyed, again with no qualms, conscience, or regrets.
4. He uses charm as a tool - not because he genuinely likes anyone. Just to get his own way.
I can assure you that, if James Bond was real, and I met him, I would loath the man.

The non psychopath has human feelings, and human concerns, and feels human love. Such a person is someone I can feel real liking and respect for.

The excuse of every tyrant, despot and thief in history. Just because you have the Mace of State and the jackbooted thugs to make your robbery successful doesn't make it either ethical or moral. It just makes it an exercise in Law of the Jungle superiority of force.

I disagree with this. Rather, the above statement is the excuse of the selfish bastard who is unwilling to pay taxes which can go to help others.

[Seth]

No, they don't have to be underwritten, they just have to be successfully defended. It matters little who or how rights are defended. If you and I are on a desert island and there's only one cocoanut for food, the right to that cocoanut as food belongs to whomever has the ability to defend that claim successfully.

On a desert island you don't have any rights (or responsibilities which are how you pay society for them)

Only if you're alone on the island.

If even one other person exists on the island with you, there will always eventually be a conflict over the acquisition, possession and use of resources necessary for survival. That's where rights come in, as a method of adjudicating those disputes.

All the rest is just more or less complexity in the administration of that adjudication. But the core principle is that the rights come into play whenever there is a conflict over resources, and the disputes are resolved according to the established hierarchy of rights. The most primitive resolution is, of course, Law of the Jungle undiluted force, with the fittest surviving. And that's why a "right" is a "freedom of action that can be defended against intrusion by another."

The one who claims that freedom to act holds it as a right for so long as he can defend that freedom against intrusion by another. Civilization, and laws, are merely complex methods of non-violently adjudicating disputes over the exercise of freedoms (rights) that come into conflict with one another.

[Seth]

There's a substantial difference between being a psychopath and not being willing to hand out the products of one's own labor and property to any Tom, Dick or Harry who comes along with his hand out.

That is true. But being unwilling to engage in activities to help others is one (not the only one) of the characteristics of a psychopath. The other main characteristic of a psychopath, which ties in, is having no human feelings, concerns, conscience or love in relation to one's fellow humans.

The epitome of the psychopath is that British hero, James Bond. James Bond shows the following psychopath qualities.
1. He kills without hesitation, without qualms, and without any regrets.

For reasons that he finds to be morally necessary and acceptable. You may disagree with his moral judgments, but that's of no import in his psychological analysis.

2. He uses women sexually, and then drops them and never thinks of them again. He certainly has no concern about their emotional trauma as a result of the way he treats them.

So you're saying that women are helpless creatures that must be protected? How...sexist. Bond merely assumes that women are adults fully capable of making rational decisions about their sexual activity and accepting the consequences of their own actions without imposing any expectations on anyone else, just as Bond always accepts the consequences of his decisions as a rational adult.

3. He destroys property, and hence the way of life of those whose property is destroyed, again with no qualms, conscience, or regrets.

For reasons that he finds to be morally necessary and acceptable. You may disagree with his moral judgments, but that's of no import in his psychological analysis.

4. He uses charm as a tool - not because he genuinely likes anyone. Just to get his own way.

Everyone does that. Quite literally everyone.

I can assure you that, if James Bond was real, and I met him, I would loath the man.

I'm sure that he would feel much the same about you.

The non psychopath has human feelings, and human concerns, and feels human love. Such a person is someone I can feel real liking and respect for.

Having them doesn't mean that you have to feel them for every Tom, Dick or Harry that comes along with his hand out. Compassion and charity can be tempered with good judgment and a discerning eye about who is and is not worthy of such compassion and charity without the individual being labeled as a psychopath.

The excuse of every tyrant, despot and thief in history. Just because you have the Mace of State and the jackbooted thugs to make your robbery successful doesn't make it either ethical or moral. It just makes it an exercise in Law of the Jungle superiority of force.

I disagree with this. Rather, the above statement is the excuse of the selfish bastard who is unwilling to pay taxes which can go to help others.

If I find others that need my assistance, I'll assist them...as, when and to the extent I choose to do so, not based on your, or anyone elses assessment of their need and my ability.

You deliberately misapprehend when you imply that I'm uncharitable and selfish. I'm not. I just get to pick and choose to whom and how much charity I feel is just, righteous and proper in any particular situation. I refuse to allow YOU, or any government functionary to arrogantly presume to know better than I do where to best expend my charitable and altruistic labor and property, because most of the time people of your ilk take it from me by force and give it to those who are entirely unworthy of the fruits of my labor.

[Blind groper]

The one who claims that freedom to act holds it as a right for so long as he can defend that freedom against intrusion by another.

The flaw in that argument is that it assumes individual action. As I have said before, humanity is a social and gregarious species. We do not act as individuals, but as a society. Human rights are determined by the decisions of the social unit, and enforced by whoever is in power. If an individual decides to defend something he/she believes to be a right, and which the group or the group's leaders decides is not a right, then that individual will get short shrift.

You may disagree with his moral judgments

It is not his moral judgments that is what I was talking about. it is his feelings, qualms, conscience and his regrets. As I have told you before, my father spent four years as a volunteer in WWII and fought on the front line. I found out after he died that he had killed two German soldiers, almost face to face. His ex WWII buddies told me. My Dad had told them not to reveal any of this while he was alive. The reason was that he was emotionally devastated by the fact that he had killed, in spite of the fact that the circumstances made the killings necessary. My father's response is that of a non psychopath. To kill without feelings, qualms, regrets or conscience is the mark of a psychopath, whether the circumstances justify it or not.

Bond merely assumes that women are adults fully capable of making rational decisions about their sexual activity and accepting the consequences

Hardly. Bond is a sexual predator who doesn't give a shit about his female victims.

Everyone does that. Quite literally everyone.

There is an exercise of charm that is characteristic of a psychopath (only those who are smarter, of course), where there is zero sincerity, and a complete focus on achieving a goal. This is demonstrated by the fact that, when the goal is achieved, the psychopath ditches those he is charming like they are made of garbage. Very characteristic of the movie version of James Bond. He gets what he wants, then leaves and never looks back.

Compassion and charity can be tempered with good judgment and a discerning eye about who is and is not worthy of such compassion and charity without the individual being labeled as a psychopath.

That is very true. Sadly, though, it is not characteristic of most people. Most of the people I know will give a few dollars to a charity when asked, but nothing of real significance. Lots will give nothing. When a need requires thousands of dollars per person, some compulsion is required.

Of course, governments over-tax in order to finance unworthy things, like going to war in Iraq. That cannot be justified. But to help those who are in need is not something we should argue against.

[Seth]

The one who claims that freedom to act holds it as a right for so long as he can defend that freedom against intrusion by another.

The flaw in that argument is that it assumes individual action. As I have said before, humanity is a social and gregarious species. We do not act as individuals, but as a society.

No, we act as individuals. We are not a hive mind like ants, we are individuals who act on our own behalf first and on behalf of others second, and for the benefit of the collective third.

As I said before, nothing you do is not aimed at satisfying some internal, personal need. Monsters from the Id if you will.

Human rights are determined by the decisions of the social unit, and enforced by whoever is in power.

Sez you. Fortunately you are not in charge of anything, and those who formed this country disagree completely with you.

If an individual decides to defend something he/she believes to be a right, and which the group or the group's leaders decides is not a right, then that individual will get short shrift.

That's merely an expression of superiority of force, not a denigration of the rights of the individual.

You may disagree with his moral judgments

It is not his moral judgments that is what I was talking about. it is his feelings, qualms, conscience and his regrets. As I have told you before, my father spent four years as a volunteer in WWII and fought on the front line. I found out after he died that he had killed two German soldiers, almost face to face. His ex WWII buddies told me. My Dad had told them not to reveal any of this while he was alive. The reason was that he was emotionally devastated by the fact that he had killed, in spite of the fact that the circumstances made the killings necessary. My father's response is that of a non psychopath. To kill without feelings, qualms, regrets or conscience is the mark of a psychopath, whether the circumstances justify it or not.

Who says Bond has no feelings about those whom he has killed? All of them that I know of deserved, nay NEEDED to be killed. One can have feelings about the need to kill without it being an obvious or disabling thing. Your superficial analysis of Bond is, well...superficial. And no, it's not the mark of a psychopath to kill someone and not regret it if the circumstances justify it. Maybe Bond cries like a baby while he's sitting on the toilet taking a shit. You don't know because you've never seen him taking a shit have you? You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions based on scanty evidence and faulty analysis.

Bond merely assumes that women are adults fully capable of making rational decisions about their sexual activity and accepting the consequences

Hardly. Bond is a sexual predator who doesn't give a shit about his female victims.

I've never seen him rape anyone. He's a hot guy and the women flock to HIM, he doesn't have to pursue them. They are getting what they want, nothing more, nothing less. Just because lots of his second dates are at the morgue is hardly his fault, it's just that a lot of bad girls find him irresistible and they get what's coming to them...or they are victims of evil masterminds over which Bond has no control. He appears to regret those deaths and he always avenges them in the end. That's the opposite of a psychopath.

Everyone does that. Quite literally everyone.

There is an exercise of charm that is characteristic of a psychopath (only those who are smarter, of course), where there is zero sincerity, and a complete focus on achieving a goal. This is demonstrated by the fact that, when the goal is achieved, the psychopath ditches those he is charming like they are made of garbage. Very characteristic of the movie version of James Bond. He gets what he wants, then leaves and never looks back.

He's a secret agent on the job and being charming is a necessary job skill in his profession, and usually he doesn't look back because somebody's shooting at him or trying to fry his nuts with a "Laser" or something.

Compassion and charity can be tempered with good judgment and a discerning eye about who is and is not worthy of such compassion and charity without the individual being labeled as a psychopath.

That is very true. Sadly, though, it is not characteristic of most people.

Most people you know. Perhaps you should hang out with a better class of people.

Most of the people I know will give a few dollars to a charity when asked, but nothing of real significance. Lots will give nothing.

Perhaps they find that they need their money more than someone else does. Go figure.

When a need requires thousands of dollars per person, some compulsion is required.

Why? Just because you or some bureaucrat decides what the "need" is without considering what MY needs are first? Fuck that. You want my charity, then you have to prove TO ME that you are genuinely in need and that you're worthy of my charity and labor, and then I have to decide if my need is greater than yours.

Of course, governments over-tax in order to finance unworthy things, like going to war in Iraq. That cannot be justified. But to help those who are in need is not something we should argue against.

I "need" a new Mercedes Benz. Send me a check for $75,000 right away or I'll send out the jackbooted thugs to take it from you by force.

[Blind groper]

Seth

People are not as much individuals as you think. We are all part of a society. Even hermits need to buy stuff, produced by wider society.

If you are going to go off doing what you think is for your individual needs without reference to the rules of society, then society will react against you. In due course, you will be in prison, or in hospital, or dead.