@wildgrass saidIt's pointless to call something a "right" if the majority can justifiably take it away., where does it come from, this education that they have a right to?
Rights are provided by whatever system of laws and governance that your society sets up.
Marauder will tell you about natural rights philosophy stuff, but that clouds the practical application.
Change in laws will change your rights.
Real rights are based on our nature, not what some group of politicians, generally doing the bidding of the rich and powerful, decide is a minimum they have to grant the People.
@no1marauder saidI disagree, John Locke
It's pointless to call something a "right" if the majority can justifiably take it away.
Real rights are based on our nature, not what some group of politicians, generally doing the bidding of the rich and powerful, decide is a minimum they have to grant the People.
The natural state of humanity is tribal, ruthless, territorial, and does not abide by common rights. Where examples of a social contract are found in nature, they do not exist beyond ones own tribe.
Moreover, discussions of which natural rights are real or not is unfalsiable, it night as well be religious.
Practical rights exist with government, organizing bodies, international organizations. Any real debate about which rights should be afforded to a people go through government. These can be given and taken away, depending on who is in charge.
@wildgrass saidUnless you make it illegal to take it away.
I disagree, John Locke
The natural state of humanity is tribal, ruthless, territorial, and does not abide by common rights. Where examples of a social contract are found in nature, they do not exist beyond ones own tribe.
Moreover, discussions of which natural rights are real or not is unfalsiable, it night as well be religious.
Practical rights exist with governme ...[text shortened]... to a people go through government. These can be given and taken away, depending on who is in charge.
We used to think this is what the Constitution did.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidThe Natural State of Man existed long before tribes and territoriality. Anthropological evidence is overwhelming that bands were equalitarian and cooperative and that because of the incest taboo and other factors, cooperation between groups, not murderous warfare, was undoubtedly the norm. This just makes evolutionary sense; groups which engaged in high risk behavior like violence with other groups would suffer losses which would diminish the survival chances of not only individuals but the group itself.
I disagree, John Locke
The natural state of humanity is tribal, ruthless, territorial, and does not abide by common rights. Where examples of a social contract are found in nature, they do not exist beyond ones own tribe.
Moreover, discussions of which natural rights are real or not is unfalsiable, it night as well be religious.
Practical rights exist with governme ...[text shortened]... to a people go through government. These can be given and taken away, depending on who is in charge.
Numerous experiments have shown humans make moral decisions quickly with little conscious thought and that even babies show a preference for cooperative action. For example:
"There is evidence that at least the precursors of moral judgment are present in humans at birth, suggesting an evolutionary component. In a widely cited study, Kiley Hamlin and colleagues examined the social preferences of pre-verbal infants (Hamlin, Wynn, and Bloom 2007). The babies, seated on their parents’ laps, watched a puppet show in which a character trying to climb a hill was helped up by one puppet, but pushed back down by another puppet. Offered the opportunity to reach out and grasp one of the two puppets, babies showed a preference for the helping puppet over the hindering puppet. This sort of preference is not yet full-fledged moral judgment, but it is perhaps the best we can do in assessing the social responses of humans before the onset of language, and it suggests that however human morality comes about, it builds upon innate preferences for pro-social behavior." https://iep.utm.edu/m-cog-sc/
Sorry, Hobbes got it wrong.
EDIT: I remember a long time ago on this Forum starting a thread discussing this article; https://gould.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/ilj/assets/docs/19-2%20Fruehwald.pdf
"A BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF RIGHTS"
From page 7 of the Article:
"Behavioral biologists believe that morality (our sense of right and
wrong) is a universal that is hardwired into our brains (a “universal moral
grammar&rdquo😉 and that has aided survival.58 Moral judgments are generally
intuitive and unconscious; they often occur automatically and allow us to
make rapid judgments.59"
@wildgrass saidYup. 😆
Moreover, discussions of which natural rights are real or not is unfalsiable, it night as well be religious.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidInteresting. Thanks for sharing. It's mostly hokum from a biology perspective.
The Natural State of Man existed long before tribes and territoriality. Anthropological evidence is overwhelming that bands were equalitarian and cooperative and that because of the incest taboo and other factors, cooperation between groups, not murderous warfare, was undoubtedly the norm. This just makes evolutionary sense; groups which engaged in high risk behavior lik ...[text shortened]... intuitive and unconscious; they often occur automatically and allow us to
make rapid judgments.59"
The arguments in this article claim a solid premise in biology and state some experimental evidence, but the actual data supporting the claims are extremely thin. It is obviously not written by a biologist. I was trying to track down the published evidence that human rights are "hardwired into our brains" but could not find one research-based citation in the article (only philosophical suppositions).
In fact, neuroscientists mostly disagree. Instead, the author uses evidence from the field of evolutionary psychology, which raises huge red flags. Many prominent biologists have gone out of their way to strongly criticize this field as pseudoscience, because the methods aren't falsifiable. There's a well reviewed book called "Alas, Poor Darwin" which completely destroyed evolutionary psychology, with writings from Steven Jay Gould and other evolutionary biologists and neuroscientists.
The viewpoint that we are collectively programmed at birth with the same complex notions of morality (because of magical evolution, no less) is oversimplified and dehumanizing.
@AverageJoe1 saidYou can't kid a kidder.
Now, here we have another lib example. Like when one of you says Trump is stupid. Y'all just say things as if they are a given, as if they are fact. You say here that the military is bloated, as if ,,,,it is bloated? It is?
You say we need to increase taxes. 1% of us, we pay 50% of all of taxes. Tell us, what would be Nirvanna to you.....1% support the rest of us? ...[text shortened]... comments. Query: Why isnt his audience out working?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSC1_vXNCJ0
lol... Little joe with a "youtube" video link; go figure...lol...
😉 😆
@wildgrass saidActually:
Interesting. Thanks for sharing. It's mostly hokum from a biology perspective.
The arguments in this article claim a solid premise in biology and state some experimental evidence, but the actual data supporting the claims are extremely thin. It is obviously not written by a biologist. I was trying to track down the published evidence that human rights are "hardwired into ...[text shortened]... plex notions of morality (because of magical evolution, no less) is oversimplified and dehumanizing.
"Humans show remarkable preferences for fairness and social equality. This behavioral characteristic appears as inequality aversion, which has been intensively studied in a wide range of disciplines such as psychology and economics (Adams, 1965, Camerer, 2003, Fehr and Schmidt, 1999). Recent research has begun to illuminate the neural bases and evolutionary origins of inequality-averse social preferences in humans (Fehr and Fischbacher, 2004a, Rilling and Sanfey, 2011)."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168010214002909
The article is from Neuroscience Research
Volume 90, January 2015, Pages 33-40
@wildgrass saidHere's a neuroscientist:
Interesting. Thanks for sharing. It's mostly hokum from a biology perspective.
The arguments in this article claim a solid premise in biology and state some experimental evidence, but the actual data supporting the claims are extremely thin. It is obviously not written by a biologist. I was trying to track down the published evidence that human rights are "hardwired into ...[text shortened]... plex notions of morality (because of magical evolution, no less) is oversimplified and dehumanizing.
"In his book The Altruistic Brain, Pfaff argues that findings from neuroscience and behavioral science point to a new model of altruism—one that sees altruism not as a response to moral authority, but as an instinct that is hard-wired into our brains.
In other words, we are “born to be good,” he argues: We have the brain circuitry that allows us to be sensitive to what other people are thinking and feeling, to empathize with their suffering, to care about their welfare, and to translate that information into compassionate action. Many of these neural mechanisms may fall below our conscious awareness; but they exist and drive our actions."
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_altruistic_is_your_brain
@wildgrass saidWould someone who is a Professor at Duke's Department of Psychology and Neuroscience do?:
Interesting. Thanks for sharing. It's mostly hokum from a biology perspective.
The arguments in this article claim a solid premise in biology and state some experimental evidence, but the actual data supporting the claims are extremely thin. It is obviously not written by a biologist. I was trying to track down the published evidence that human rights are "hardwired into ...[text shortened]... plex notions of morality (because of magical evolution, no less) is oversimplified and dehumanizing.
" One of our most important studies was a huge study we did with over 100 human children and over 100 chimpanzees. We gave them a big battery of tests – a big IQ test if you will. It covered understanding of space, causality, quantities, as well as social learning, communication, reading the intentions of others.
We found that 2-year-old children – before they can read or do anything mathematical – look just like the apes on physical things, such as causality, quantities and space. But in the social domain, they are already way ahead.
So it’s not just that humans are generally smarter, it’s that we have a special kind of smarts. We are able to plug into the knowledge and skills of other people and to take their perspective, by collaborating, communication and learning from them in unique ways."
"For 99 percent of our evolutionary history humans lived in hunter-gatherer groups. Hunter-gatherer groups are highly cooperative. It’s sort of like one big family. They are all helping one another and sacrificing for one another all the time. And being able to get along in that special way enables us to put our heads together to create new things and to solve problems that we couldn’t solve on our own."
https://today.duke.edu/2019/04/michael-tomasello-what-makes-humans-human
1 edit
To reinforce my point about the incest taboo:
"One might assume that small group sizes would necessitate inbreeding. However, hunter-gatherer groups, despite their modest size, often practiced exogamy. This means individuals were compelled, by custom or social rule, to find mates outside their immediate band. This necessitates a degree of inter-group contact and cooperation. These groups would likely engage in seasonal gatherings for trading, social exchange, and, importantly, mate selection. Such gatherings provided a larger mating pool and decreased the likelihood of inbreeding."
https://enviroliteracy.org/how-did-hunter-gatherers-avoid-inbreeding/
And, of course, when you did marry off little Sal or Sally to the group in the next valley, that would increase cooperation and interactions between the groups and lessen the chance of conflicts between them. So prehistory doesn't seem to support your idea that "The natural state of humanity is tribal, ruthless, territorial, and does not abide by common rights. "
@spruce112358 saidWhen we are at 'last resort', of course all of our present practices would be replaced with emergency mode.
Yes. I think government should act as the 'charity of last resort' for e.g. widows and orphans and the mentally ill who cannot do for themselves. No one on US soil should ever die of hunger or exposure - I think guaranteeing that right is required to justify guaranteeing the right to property that most of us pay much more daily attention to.
I think private charities ...[text shortened]... ate system work very well at a place where I volunteer which is about 1/3 gummint funded in opex. 😆
We would look back to the past and lament that it was good that we got rid of useless failed agencies, like FEMA, thus saving revenus to apply to charities.
@AverageJoe1 saidWhy do you regard Federal agencies doing good work in this country as "useless" or "failed"?
When we are at 'last resort', of course all of our present practices would be replaced with emergency mode.
We would look back to the past and lament that it was good that we got rid of useless failed agencies, like FEMA, thus saving revenus to apply to charities.
Because Donald Trump says so? How pathetic.
@no1marauder saidI fully agree with this.
Would someone who is a Professor at Duke's Department of Psychology and Neuroscience do?:
" One of our most important studies was a huge study we did with over 100 human children and over 100 chimpanzees. We gave them a big battery of tests – a big IQ test if you will. It covered understanding of space, causality, quantities, as well as social learning, communication, ...[text shortened]... ldn’t solve on our own."
https://today.duke.edu/2019/04/michael-tomasello-what-makes-humans-human