Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't mean you are threatening to beat me up or something. I mean you are not talking about rights and you do not seem to know what the concept of rights actually involves. What you are talking about is coercion.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

If you exist in a society that condones slavery of the blonde haired, then the blonde haired have no right to freedom in that society. It only becomes wrong when viewed by someone who disagrees, for whatever reasons, with that slavery.

If that society is viewed by another group of people, who hold blonde haired people as equals, then it's a denial of the right of freedom in the new society's eyes, because blondes have that freedom, that 'right' in this other society. Rights are gleaned from the value system of the society that creates them.

What if the blond haired people disagree with their enslavement? Does it become wrong, and a violation of their rights then? Or can that only be decided by someone external to that society?

In his view, the blonde people's disagreement with their slavery only matters to the extent that the blonde people or someone else can overpower the people enslaving them. No rights are involved at all.

 Manchu wrote:
In his view, the blonde people's disagreement with their slavery only matters to the extent that the blonde people or someone else can overpower the people enslaving them. No rights are involved at all.

That's how I was interpreting it too, but I want to give him the opportunity to confirm that's where this is heading.

 Hordini wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

If you exist in a society that condones slavery of the blonde haired, then the blonde haired have no right to freedom in that society. It only becomes wrong when viewed by someone who disagrees, for whatever reasons, with that slavery.

If that society is viewed by another group of people, who hold blonde haired people as equals, then it's a denial of the right of freedom in the new society's eyes, because blondes have that freedom, that 'right' in this other society. Rights are gleaned from the value system of the society that creates them.

What if the blond haired people disagree with their enslavement? Does it become wrong, and a violation of their rights then? Or can that only be decided by someone external to that society?

Yes, it becomes wrong because they have the idea that their servitude is wrong and against their own wish to be free, their 'reality' their view of the reality is one where they are enslaved against their will.

What I was showing an example of was a society where something we find abhorrent was enshrined in the culture. So take that blonde slave race and make their servitude ritualized, a caste system. It's cultural for them but against our notions of slavery.


Also, Manchu, I think I've worked out why you reacted as you did. When I said 'absolutely', i was agreeing that I found the notion unpleasant and a breach of human rights as I understand them and apply them in my life, as the result of my upbringing and value set. I think you read it that I was saying 'absolutely' that is was not 'wrong'. I would find it 'wrong', because I am an adult result of my society's education and moral teachings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
In his view, the blonde people's disagreement with their slavery only matters to the extent that the blonde people or someone else can overpower the people enslaving them. No rights are involved at all.

No, I'm saying it only changes when they can overpower, by violence or social pressure btw, not just hitting each other, the current dominant thinking.



In real world terms, black people knew for them it was wrong to be enslaved, it only became wrong for those holding them as slaves when enough external pressure forced them to reevaluate their slave keeping culture. It is wrong, certainly, for us looking back on it, it was decidedly wrong for those in chains, it was not wrong for those who kept slaves at the time or they wouldn't have been doing it. It was not an issue of human rights in that time, remember the constitution regarded a black slave as being less of a human being than a white man. We now believe that is abhorrent, there are still racists in the nation, but they are a minority and it is viewed as a social stigma and potentially a crime to now hold views which were widespread at the time.

 Manchu wrote:
The term "human rights" refers to a subset of natural rights, which are in turn rights that arise from the nature of the being that possesses them rather than being posited by law (legal rights). Human rights are therefore those rights that arise from the nature of the human person (not the animal that is classified as human). Humans can posses both legal and natural rights..

I see. Personally, I do not believe that there are any such thing, if for no other reason than simply because no one has proved any such authority upon the universe as to decree them "universal". I again refer to Hobbes's opinion that all rights are derived through social contracts, and then the response to your previous question would be that those people abused by 'our' standards are not having their rights actually infringed upon because those rights are not recognized there.

At the same time, I consider it a great shame that they do not have said rights available to them, and I wish that there were some way to make them available, but I feel that those rights are a legal mandate, and not a divine/natural one.

 daedalus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The term "human rights" refers to a subset of natural rights, which are in turn rights that arise from the nature of the being that possesses them rather than being posited by law (legal rights). Human rights are therefore those rights that arise from the nature of the human person (not the animal that is classified as human). Humans can posses both legal and natural rights..

I see. Personally, I do not believe that there are any such thing, if for no other reason than simply because no one has proved any such authority upon the universe as to decree them "universal". I again refer to Hobbes's opinion that all rights are derived through social contracts, and then the response to your previous question would be that those people abused by 'our' standards are not having their rights actually infringed upon because those rights are not recognized there.

At the same time, I consider it a great shame that they do not have said rights available to them, and I wish that there were some way to make them available, but I feel that those rights are a legal mandate, and not a divine/natural one.

Great! This is basically what I've been saying for two pages.

Yep, this is also the gist of what I was saying 4 pages ago, before I got bored of the circular discussion.

The trouble remains, the concept of rights requires some sense of objective morality. Otherwise, politics is just a matter of might making right (pun intended) -- and whether one argues that this is "how things are" or not, the issue remains that actual rights language is a matter of challenging violence-based authority. The notion that rights are just points of view ultimately vests legitimacy in power alone.

 Manchu wrote:
The trouble remains, the concept of rights requires some sense of objective morality. Otherwise, politics is just a matter of might making right (pun intended) -- and whether one argues that this is "how things are" or not, the issue remains that actual rights language is a matter of challenging violence-based authority. The notion that rights are just points of view ultimately vests legitimacy in power alone.

I think you're making a mistake in fixating on 'might' and seeing it only as military force or the potential for dominating violence.

In this case, the power rests in the hands of the collective conscience of the dominant society, we view all the world via our morality, constructed from rules we've evolved from a range of influences that has built the Judeo-Christian Western morality. This massed majority dictates our 'rights', the 'might' involved is simple pressure of the majority view vs minority views, it is not literally the threat of violence, but force via cultural dominance and the will of the masses, it is applied whenever individuals or smaller groups breach that constructed set of sociological rules (rights) in a way the majority finds extreme; murder, abuse etc. If I say the sky is red and everyone else says the sky is blue, I become wrong and they become right, because the weight of their viewpoint sculpts reality as viewed by our shared society as the sky is now blue.

You continue to state that something 'else' exists beyond the sociological construction of morality and what is acceptable, that is is something that cannot be altered by views or majority pressure and is immutable as 'right'. What evidence do you have that something that appears to be constructed is actually existent beyond the constructs built by a society?

I believe we construct these rights and social rules along basic survival principals coupled with the needs of our society as it has evolved from a widely dispersed hunter gather to a densely packed consumer society. We have added the rules as we went along, to create order in our societies and, in enlightened self interest, to prevent ourselves falling victim to more predatory instincts among our peers. Not killing others is useful to me because it lessens my chances of being killed by another, not sleeping with my sister prevents inbred offspring with defects, not stealing means I'm less likely to be stolen from, not torturing people lessens my chances of being tortured.

Consider, MGS, what power enforces the preferences of your "massed majority." Your red sky/blue sky metaphor is telling. No matter how many people say the sky is red, it will still be blue. No matter what violence is brought to bear on the issue, the sky will remain blue. The natural world exists beyond our subjective experience. I say that morality is a dimension of the natural world, even if it is unavailable to abstracted empirical measurement.

It will still be the hue you refer to as blue, but, by virtue of everyone else declaring the sky red, the meaning of the language itself has changed.

Kinda like how I can no longer chop down a few trees and carry a (see forum posting rules) or two up to the house.

Or how, when I bake bread, I can (see forum posting rules) the leavening process by sticking the dough in the fridge for a day or so if I'm not ready to use it all.

 Manchu wrote:
Consider, MGS, what power enforces the preferences of your "massed majority." Your red sky/blue sky metaphor is telling. No matter how many people say the sky is red, it will still be blue. No matter what violence is brought to bear on the issue, the sky will remain blue. The natural world exists beyond our subjective experience. I say that morality is a dimension of the natural world, even if it is unavailable to abstracted empirical measurement.

What power enforces the preferences? Current thinking, ideas, points of view achieving popularity. What is taken on as majority view will appeal to senses as 'best' and be adopted.

Sky analogy: No, if enough people say that the sky is red, it is now red. Blue is a construct.

You can say morality is a dimension of the natural world all you want, you still have no ability to prove it. Sorry.

When I say "rights" I mean the thing that the study of rights contemplates rather than the empty signifier that anyone can fill with any perspective. Similarly, when I say "blue" I do not mean the word blue as an empty signifier but rather the match of the signifier with the signified band of electromagnetic radiation. The purported arbitrariness of the signifier is beside the point, except inasmuch as I'm asking you to in good will say blue when you mean blue. I detect here a kind of totalitarianism: if the Party says the sky is Red then the sky is Red.

 Manchu wrote:
When I say "rights" I mean the thing that the study of rights contemplates rather than the empty signifier that anyone can fill with any perspective.

And what is that? Because I'm well aware you can study 'rights', just as you can study 'democracy' or 'fascism' or 'romantic love' and they will all still be man made constructs with a variable quality according to the observer. Please stop skirting around with elaborations on the study of or the consideration of rights when you are claiming that rights exist beyond our construction of them. Are you or are you not saying that 'rights' exist in a state beyond the human construction of them, because if you are, I want to know where they originated, what they are made of and how you prove to the rest of us that they exist in the state you claim they do, other than what you've given here so far, which is 'it's obvious' or 'undoubtably', don't claim absolutes, prove it.

 Manchu wrote:

Similarly, when I say "blue" I do not mean the word blue as an empty signifier but rather the match of the signifier with the signified band of electromagnetic radiation.

You mean the electromagnetic radiation's registered effect on the human brain as filtered through to it via the human eye. Fair enough, that electromagnetic radiation will indeed still exist, we will call it what the majority regard is the right term for it and all the connotations we then care to attach to that. BTW, I can demonstrate the sky exists and that electromagnetic radiation exists to a wavelength that we call 'blue', can you now reciprocate and prove 'rights' exist as you've claimed?

 Manchu wrote:

The purported arbitrariness of the signifier is beside the point, except inasmuch as I'm asking you to in good will say blue when you mean blue. I detect here a kind of totalitarianism: if the Party says the sky is Red then the sky is Red.

Reality and the rules we conduct ourselves by within it are dictated by mob rule, at the very basic level. If you buck against that too far, we put you in an asylum or a prison. Life and living in the natural world has a totalitarianism about it, you conform to rules or you don't make it very far.

I'm not going to replicate everything MGS has said thus far, so just try to visualise me popping out from behind his shoulder doing pistol fingers and shouting 'Yeeah, bwooyy!', Flava Flav-style.



Because I agree with him most strenuously.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

The purported arbitrariness of the signifier is beside the point, except inasmuch as I'm asking you to in good will say blue when you mean blue. I detect here a kind of totalitarianism: if the Party says the sky is Red then the sky is Red.

Reality and the rules we conduct ourselves by within it are dictated by mob rule, at the very basic level. If you buck against that too far, we put you in an asylum or a prison. Life and living in the natural world has a totalitarianism about it, you conform to rules or you don't make it very far.

1. Mob rule is actually not the basis of physical authority. Supreme force is, If one individual was more powerful than the mob it would not matter what the mob wished to impose upon said individual as they would not be able to physically force the issue. See the movie Hancock.

2. I don't necessarily understand why you are arguing the way that you are MGS, as pretty much everything you've said when related back to the thread is that the Spanish are right in doing what they wish to their bulls because within Spain that is the "mob rule" and it will not change until the mob does or an outside population forces the issue through violence. So in relation to the thread at hand it would seem that you're committing argumentative suicide.

 Ratbarf wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

The purported arbitrariness of the signifier is beside the point, except inasmuch as I'm asking you to in good will say blue when you mean blue. I detect here a kind of totalitarianism: if the Party says the sky is Red then the sky is Red.

Reality and the rules we conduct ourselves by within it are dictated by mob rule, at the very basic level. If you buck against that too far, we put you in an asylum or a prison. Life and living in the natural world has a totalitarianism about it, you conform to rules or you don't make it very far.

1. Mob rule is actually not the basis of physical authority. Supreme force is, If one individual was more powerful than the mob it would not matter what the mob wished to impose upon said individual as they would not be able to physically force the issue. See the movie Hancock.

And I was not, at any stage discussing physical authority, but the acceptance of a viewpoint becoming the agreed reality. Separate figurative conversation and metaphor from the literal.

 Ratbarf wrote:

2. I don't necessarily understand why you are arguing the way that you are MGS, as pretty much everything you've said when related back to the thread is that the Spanish are right in doing what they wish to their bulls because within Spain that is the "mob rule" and it will not change until the mob does or an outside population forces the issue through violence. So in relation to the thread at hand it would seem that you're committing argumentative suicide.

Allow me to enlighten you, Manchu had stated that gifting 'rights' to animals was daft, I then countered that human rights were as much a construct and if you can give rights to humans, there is nothing stopping a society awarding rights to animals, so in a legal and ascribed sense, Manchu claimed human rights were an absolute, a 'given' that existed beyond the physical or the constructed and were therefore intrinsic whereas any right given to an animal would be a nonsense. We carried on from there and taking my discussion on that and then reapplying it to the original post is misleading and false.

But I've got a nice cup of tea here and I've finished my chores for the day, so I'll indulge you with a counter.

If (and I'm not sure it's the case at all) the majority in Spain thought there was nothing wrong with bullfighting, then, for the Spanish cultural mindset, there would be nothing wrong with bullfighting. However, then being viewed by the larger majority of the European Union, it was viewed poorly, it would be wrong, in the European mindset. If it's considered cruel by a majority of the Western World, then it becomes something wrong in the mindset of the Western World.

We then come to the degrees of wrongness, on a scale, measured against acceptability, this can be argued to further exist on a 'for vs against' scale and the larger the numbers for or against vs the smaller the numbers for or against will continue to tip those scales towards or away from a practice or act being acceptable, as something continues down this scale of unacceptability, it passes beyond what might be considered eccentric or unusual until it reaches unacceptable, once a culture believes something is unacceptable to it's masses, things become the criminal or the insane.

Let's consider one of the most widely reviled abuses of human rights, the abuse of a child. In the medieval society, the vast population were for (or mostly indifferent) to a 13 year old marrying. As time went by, health and longevity improved and notions of childhood were constructed, it became less and less acceptable and age restrictions were imposed and moved. Now, in most of Europe (not Spain btw, it's still 13 there...) the age of consent to intercourse is much older. You engage in sexual acts with a 13 year old in the UK and you're likely to end up in a very very large amount of trouble and labelled more severely than a murderer. This can relate back to Manchu's 'absolute' human rights, many if asked, would cite 'child abuse' as an attack on a human right, but is a man of 20 sleeping with a child of 13, who consents to the act, a human rights abuse? Absolutely yes here and now, in the US or UK, in medieval Europe, nope, that's just sex, in parts of Asia or Africa, nope, that's just sex. In many of these societies, a long childhood is not indulged and work and 'real life' kicks in a lot earlier, also the life expectancy is much shorter, again, reducing the indulgence of a long period of considered childhood vs acceptable entry to the adult world.

Welcome to sliding scales of grey and a world with no absolutes.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

The purported arbitrariness of the signifier is beside the point, except inasmuch as I'm asking you to in good will say blue when you mean blue. I detect here a kind of totalitarianism: if the Party says the sky is Red then the sky is Red.

Reality and the rules we conduct ourselves by within it are dictated by mob rule, at the very basic level. If you buck against that too far, we put you in an asylum or a prison. Life and living in the natural world has a totalitarianism about it, you conform to rules or you don't make it very far.

1. Mob rule is actually not the basis of physical authority. Supreme force is, If one individual was more powerful than the mob it would not matter what the mob wished to impose upon said individual as they would not be able to physically force the issue. See the movie Hancock.

And I was not, at any stage discussing physical authority, but the acceptance of a viewpoint becoming the agreed reality. Separate figurative conversation and metaphor from the literal.

Then what authority were you discussing? An agreed upon viewpoint leading to an agreed upon reality are not necessarily in tune with reality. Also you should note that you were indeed discussing physical authority in the paragraph that I was referencing. As you stated that if one bucks against the mob's rule too far the mob then places you in prison or in an asylum. That would indicate that you are saying that they have the force to do that, as they can't well imprison you if you do not agree to it and they cannot physically make you. Heinlein once wrote that all real authority is based in force, and that is pretty much the truth, and it still applies to moral authority.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

2. I don't necessarily understand why you are arguing the way that you are MGS, as pretty much everything you've said when related back to the thread is that the Spanish are right in doing what they wish to their bulls because within Spain that is the "mob rule" and it will not change until the mob does or an outside population forces the issue through violence. So in relation to the thread at hand it would seem that you're committing argumentative suicide.

Allow me to enlighten you, Manchu had stated that gifting 'rights' to animals was daft, I then countered that human rights were as much a construct and if you can give rights to humans, there is nothing stopping a society awarding rights to animals, so in a legal and ascribed sense, Manchu claimed human rights were an absolute, a 'given' that existed beyond the physical or the constructed and were therefore intrinsic whereas any right given to an animal would be a nonsense. We carried on from there and taking my discussion on that and then reapplying it to the original post is misleading and false.

But I've got a nice cup of tea here and I've finished my chores for the day, so I'll indulge you with a counter.

If (and I'm not sure it's the case at all) the majority in Spain thought there was nothing wrong with bullfighting, then, for the Spanish cultural mindset, there would be nothing wrong with bullfighting. However, then being viewed by the larger majority of the European Union, it was viewed poorly, it would be wrong, in the European mindset. If it's considered cruel by a majority of the Western World, then it becomes something wrong in the mindset of the Western World.

We then come to the degrees of wrongness, on a scale, measured against acceptability, this can be argued to further exist on a 'for vs against' scale and the larger the numbers for or against vs the smaller the numbers for or against will continue to tip those scales towards or away from a practice or act being acceptable, as something continues down this scale of unacceptability, it passes beyond what might be considered eccentric or unusual until it reaches unacceptable, once a culture believes something is unacceptable to it's masses, things become the criminal or the insane.

Let's consider one of the most widely reviled abuses of human rights, the abuse of a child. In the medieval society, the vast population were for (or mostly indifferent) to a 13 year old marrying. As time went by, health and longevity improved and notions of childhood were constructed, it became less and less acceptable and age restrictions were imposed and moved. Now, in most of Europe (not Spain btw, it's still 13 there...) the age of consent to intercourse is much older. You engage in sexual acts with a 13 year old in the UK and you're likely to end up in a very very large amount of trouble and labelled more severely than a murderer. This can relate back to Manchu's 'absolute' human rights, many if asked, would cite 'child abuse' as an attack on a human right, but is a man of 20 sleeping with a child of 13, who consents to the act, a human rights abuse? Absolutely yes here and now, in the US or UK, in medieval Europe, nope, that's just sex, in parts of Asia or Africa, nope, that's just sex. In many of these societies, a long childhood is not indulged and work and 'real life' kicks in a lot earlier, also the life expectancy is much shorter, again, reducing the indulgence of a long period of considered childhood vs acceptable entry to the adult world.

Welcome to sliding scales of grey and a world with no absolutes.

I would assume that the majority of the people on earth do not give two feths about bullfighting in Spain, seeing as a vehement opposition to animal bloodsport is something that appears to be unique to the modern western world. That said, why are you even discussing the goings on of the Spanish government and people when you recognize that they're okay with it, in addition to recognizing the very likely fact that you are part of the minority when it comes to opposition to animal abuse when the human population is taken as a whole. Should you not then limit your conversations and opinions to things that are only applicable to your sphere of influence? Namely the British Isles and (I think) America.