Official Discussion Forum for the works of Stephen R. Donaldson
https://kevinswatch.com/phpBB3/
Jan Narveson doesn’t think humane slaughter laws are justifiable. He thinks we have no obligations to future generations. In this, he is at least consistent, for these are the logical consequences of the view that morality is a contract and we only have moral obligations to beings who can reciprocate. And no doubt for the same reason, and with equal consistency, he would not see any need for laws regulating the conditions under which we slaughter people with profound intellectual disabilities, should we wish to eat them or use them for research, as long as they have no capacity to reciprocate, and do not have relatives who care about them and are capable of reciprocating.
Since I’m no great fan of resting our moral theories on commonly accepted intuitions, I do not regard the above as refuting a consistent contractarian view. But in the comment above, Narveson relies on a confusion to make his view seem more plausible than it really is. He says that people are “entitled” to their preferences or have “a perfect right” to them. That seems to be an attempt to win over those who believe in freedom of thought; but if it is, it muddles political and legal rights with the issue of philosophical justification for a moral theory. In the political and legal system that I support, Narveson has a right to say that there is no strong evidence that our continued emissions of greenhouse gases will change the climate of our planet.
Nevertheless, if he does say that, he will be saying something that is untrue. There is a fact of the matter here, and he has got it wrong. The interesting philosophical question is whether the same applies to moral judgments. People have a right to say that a world in which billions of animals suffer greatly is just as good as an otherwise identical world in which very few animals suffer. But if they do say that, is there a fact of the matter that they have got wrong? That’s too big a question for me to answer here, but I recommend those interested in this deep question to read Derek Parfit’s major work, On What Matters, which is scheduled to be published next month by Oxford University Press. Parfit argues for an affirmative answer to the question I just asked, and from now on, any serious discussion of whether there are objective moral truths, independently of what reciprocating beings may prefer, will have to take his arguments into account.
Exactly. Natural rights pretty much amount to a collection of nice ideas which get codified into law.....Sometimes, and usually with exceptions (which, of course, makes them privileges, not rights).Cybrweez wrote:If we're only talking natural, the only right is might. Because that's the only thing that can be practical. You can think anything is a right you want, but if you can't enforce such a right, who cares? The US founders had an idea of rights, but if the British won, they'd all be hanged.
I'm amazed both by how completely we agree and by how vehemently you deny it.Cail wrote:Exactly. Natural rights pretty much amount to a collection of nice ideas which get codified into law.....Sometimes, and usually with exceptions (which, of course, makes them privileges, not rights).Cybrweez wrote:If we're only talking natural, the only right is might. Because that's the only thing that can be practical. You can think anything is a right you want, but if you can't enforce such a right, who cares? The US founders had an idea of rights, but if the British won, they'd all be hanged.
So you're contending that in the absence of might on the side of another, people not only have the freedom to do whatever they will to that person but always will do what they want to to that person? Frankly, I can see that darker side of human nature there, but I can't accept that it's always going to be true. It's not even something that I'm repelled by, I just believe that humans will, even in the impossibility of actually bridging universes, at times be capable of recognizing the worth of a universe they will never experience and avoid inflicting suffering upon that other universe. If you aren't contending that, then rights are something that exist even without might, in that they are acknowledged even in the absence of might.Exnihilotto2 wrote:I'm amazed both by how completely we agree and by how vehemently you deny it.Cail wrote:Exactly. Natural rights pretty much amount to a collection of nice ideas which get codified into law.....Sometimes, and usually with exceptions (which, of course, makes them privileges, not rights).Cybrweez wrote:If we're only talking natural, the only right is might. Because that's the only thing that can be practical. You can think anything is a right you want, but if you can't enforce such a right, who cares? The US founders had an idea of rights, but if the British won, they'd all be hanged.
All rights ever are, is the consequence and implication of might. People have a right to be armed, for instance, because others are powerless to disarm an armed people with the will to resist. It really is that simple, and that empirical.
Rights exist in and through might. The efforts of a free people, properly armed and motivated, are stronger than those who would enslave them, all things being equal. How else do you explain the success of insurgency as a strategy? Napoleon in all his intimidating power and might could not subdue Spain, because they could not be made to submit no matter what he tried. And that is why they won, and why he fell. It is always easier to quit oppressing than it is to quit resisting, because the motivation to protect yourself, your family, your home, and your dignity has more inherent strength than the motivation to oppress others. Without might, the very notion of rights is still born.Holsety wrote:So you're contending that in the absence of might on the side of another, people not only have the freedom to do whatever they will to that person but always will do what they want to to that person? Frankly, I can see that darker side of human nature there, but I can't accept that it's always going to be true. It's not even something that I'm repelled by, I just believe that humans will, even in the impossibility of actually bridging universes, at times be capable of recognizing the worth of a universe they will never experience and avoid inflicting suffering upon that other universe. If you aren't contending that, then rights are something that exist even without might, in that they are acknowledged even in the absence of might.Exnihilotto2 wrote:I'm amazed both by how completely we agree and by how vehemently you deny it.Cail wrote:Exactly. Natural rights pretty much amount to a collection of nice ideas which get codified into law.....Sometimes, and usually with exceptions (which, of course, makes them privileges, not rights).
All rights ever are, is the consequence and implication of might. People have a right to be armed, for instance, because others are powerless to disarm an armed people with the will to resist. It really is that simple, and that empirical.
someone... wrote:In reality, there is no right and wrong.
Maybe not to you.Avatar wrote:I'm thinking more along the lines of making slavery legal doesn't make it moral.
Slaves have but to rise up and break their chains and they are free.Avatar wrote:I'm thinking more along the lines of making slavery legal doesn't make it moral.
--A
Good post. Thanks for your response. That being said, the fear of others might birth the belief that protecting your group might necessarily involve oppressing another group.Exnihilotto2 wrote:Rights exist in and through might. The efforts of a free people, properly armed and motivated, are stronger than those who would enslave them, all things being equal. How else do you explain the success of insurgency as a strategy? Napoleon in all his intimidating power and might could not subdue Spain, because they could not be made to submit no matter what he tried. And that is why they won, and why he fell. It is always easier to quit oppressing than it is to quit resisting, because the motivation to protect yourself, your family, your home, and your dignity has more inherent strength than the motivation to oppress others. Without might, the very notion of rights is still born.Holsety wrote:So you're contending that in the absence of might on the side of another, people not only have the freedom to do whatever they will to that person but always will do what they want to to that person? Frankly, I can see that darker side of human nature there, but I can't accept that it's always going to be true. It's not even something that I'm repelled by, I just believe that humans will, even in the impossibility of actually bridging universes, at times be capable of recognizing the worth of a universe they will never experience and avoid inflicting suffering upon that other universe. If you aren't contending that, then rights are something that exist even without might, in that they are acknowledged even in the absence of might.Exnihilotto2 wrote: I'm amazed both by how completely we agree and by how vehemently you deny it.
All rights ever are, is the consequence and implication of might. People have a right to be armed, for instance, because others are powerless to disarm an armed people with the will to resist. It really is that simple, and that empirical.
Well, no, obviously not to me.Cail wrote:Maybe not to you.Avatar wrote:I'm thinking more along the lines of making slavery legal doesn't make it moral.
That is sorta the whole point. However, I suspect that most people, certainly most people here, could agree with that statement.