Where do Rights originate?

FWIW I don't think God can make contradictory things happen. For example, an all-powerful God could make a person able to walk through a wall, but couldn't make it both true that the person walked through a wall and that person didn't ever walk through a wall. Because that second thing isn't really a "thing" at all, but a meaningless non-concept.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Mia
I think we both understand and essentially agree on the implications of determinism vs free will, with or without a supreme being.

As to whether quantum indeterminacy implies overall indeterminism, I don't want to say that I know it does or does not. Lets assume there is some indeterminacy that shows up at the classic (post coherence) scale.

I just wanted to put out there that introducing randomness (in my example, a little, but I think the implication is the same for a lot) does not improve the free will situation for the actor. Either the world is deterimined and free will is out, or what freedom there is is a result of external random influences and the actor cannot claim a free will type responsibility for these. This is a simplified argument I offer just to consider the point most broadly. Again, for more elaboration see Dennet's "Freedom Evolves". His point is not that the world is determined or not (he holds it is) but that this typical causative connection between indetermism and free will is not valid. Just for consideration.

Finally, none of this really influences the way we continue to go about choosing and avoiding, etc, I think we are all agreed, religious or no. As you say, at least national socialism is an ethos, and is thus much preferable to self negating ideas like anti-realism, or, as Walter would say, nihilsm. I would label a belief in determism or lack of belief in "typical" free will as "banal" rather than self negating, but perhaps that's just style. It governs my actions not a whit, which is what we both say. And this is what Dennet calls a free will worth wanting (vs the empty free will from the classic argument). Again, style.

Some of this might influence one's views on certain religious concepts, if we came to believe these concepts through some sort of critical decision process, which we do not, at least according to most evidence. This is not meant as an insult to religion or lack of it.

An odd destination for what looked like a legal history topic.
 
Stat, I was leading to what Huck said.

NBMisha, I agree with you almost (if not) completely. You take the argument past my personal comfort zone, so I'm trying to weasle myself back there. My point is not that quantum indetermanincy denies causality, but rather I'm suggesting that if randomness can exist on the quantum scale, then you can't rule it out on the macro scale, either. Can you build rigidly causal universe on the foundation of the quantum foam? Possibly, but I don't want to think about it cause it makes my head hurt.

Huck, that was what I was trying to say to Stat.

NetSlave, how 'bout this? I'll stop suggesting we don't have free will and you stop offering that God is omniscient. Either that, or I need you to admit the paradox and just say you don't have a problem with it. If either of those things happen, I'm fully prepared to go on. If not, I'm tapping out because we clearly aren't making any headway. No harm no foul, I've just said all I can say on the matter.
 
Agreed, God's limits are ineffable.Seems like we are falling into three camps.
In order of appearance....

Camp I
"Rights" are guaranteed under the authority of man.

Camp II
"Rights" are guaranteed under the authority of God.

Camp III
"Rights" are an evolutional requirement (evolutional determanism, if you will) which existed before reasoning.

Reading them written thusly, I'm somewhere between camps I and III.

Any more schools of thought?
 
Maybe "From whence doth rights originateth?"
wink.gif
Ultimately, I'd say Camp I, but with the recognition that the ideas from Camp II strongly influenced Camp I. Camp III is making noise as well, but it all leads to Camp I with the end decision.
 
I suppose that technically, "How and by what authority, if any, do rights originate?" would be a better title. For me, "rights" is a word like "love." It means different things in different contexts. In the political sense, rights are really just perceptions of influence over others-- perceptions that may be on the part of a potential actor or on the part of one potentially affected by the (in)action. They may only be on the part of a witness. Political rights are not necessarily moral, not necessarily absolute, and not necessarily meaningful in terms of what actually happens. They apparently change with time. Claiming a right is then, in a sense, no different than any other political discourse or proposition such as debating an appropriate speed limit.

As to the side discussion regarding free will's limiting God's omniscience, it seems people are making possibly unwarranted assumptions regarding the metaphysical consequences to supernatural beings. The fundamental question appears to be, "Can God let one choose between two things freely while aware of what his choice will be?" Applying systems of logic and analysis predicated on a sequential world governed by causality to a being which may be outside of spacetime itself is a useful way to begin to postulate answers to questions such as this. To say definitively that it answers them is to assert personal knowledge of God's power and the universe's deep nature.

The old question about whether He can make a rock too heavy for Him to move, as many here already know, is a classic equivocation on "too heavy for Him to move." God can make a rock as infinitely heavy as He pleases, and can likewise move a rock as infinitely heavy as He pleases. The nature of the question, just like, "Did you stop beating your wife?" tries to force an answer that really has little useful meaning.
 
I guess I'm saying "smelting" is not an evolutionary stage. If you want "in between" then you need to identify characterists we have, not accomplishments we've made. Your examples are trying to find the middle ground between us and, well, us. I agree that humans are special, but if you are trying to make a statement as to how special then you need to isolate specifically what you are talking about. I would argue that there really aren't many basic characteristics we have that at least some animals don't also have. Other animals have opposable thumbs, can vocalize, use tools, build complex structures, solve puzzles, have long term memories, some can even use a written language. You can't judge the advancement by resume, but rather by capacities. I would argue, for the most part, what makes is different is the specific combinations of evolutionary innovations, and not the innovations themselves.
 
Stat, camp III is NBMisha's, but I believe the argument is that there are inate behaviors which are selected upon. It is tempting to say that we have a conscience which tells us that we shouldn't murder, but if you subscribe to Camp III you are saying what is really driving the impulse is millions of years of evolution. My presumption for Camps I, II, and III is that they were the final authority for those behaviors. If you subscribe to camp I you are saying that if there is a God, then he doesn't so much care if I do a little insider trading. If you subscribe to Camp II then you believe that the rules that we follow in society have their roots from a theological perspective. We don't kill because it is not what God intends. If you are in Camp III then you are saying we have a biological imparative to behave in a certain manner, and all the rest of it is just a rationalization.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top