Originally posted by twhiteheadIt might help if we have some sort of definition for what you mean by 'rights'. For those of us who have not studied the topic, it is a little unclear. Are rights another way of looking at morals? Can all morals be express in terms of rights?
It might help if we have some sort of definition for what you mean by 'rights'. For those of us who have not studied the topic, it is a little unclear. Are rights another way of looking at morals? Can all morals be express in terms of rights?
One thing I am not clear on is why you think there cant be exceptions. For example, if God is not obligated to ...[text shortened]... u with impunity some how stop you having a right to life with respect to all other humans?
The subject of rights is a huge topic, and a site like this would only be the tip of the iceberg: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/. KellyJay brought the term into this discussion, and I am mirroring his usage. It is frankly less than clear how, precisely, KellyJay intends the term (and it is hopeless to ask him for precise clarification on that), but I am virtually certain that he intends it in a normative sense and not merely in the sense of "sovereign right" that vistesd mentioned. In general, 'right' in the sense here is a deontic term, related in that way to terms like duty and obligation. There are ethical theories that employ the term materially, and there are others that do not employ the term at all. Personally, I see no overwhelming need to use terms like 'right' or 'duty' or 'obligation' when discussing moral matters; but, of course, others have a different take on it. So, no I would not say rights are another way of looking at morals; and no, I would not say all morals can be expressed in terms of rights. I would just say that it is generally a deontic notion that features prevalently in some ethical theories, while not at all in others.
At any rate, in the current discussion, when I say, for example, that KellyJay's view entails that we have no rights, I take it that we are employing the term 'right' in a sense much like "status-based rights" (referencing that section of the article link above). In this sense, 'right' can be construed as a type of entitlement or it can be construed as more or less inter-definable with 'obligation'. Indeed some think rights and obligations are inter-definable, in the sense that if we say, for example, that one has the right to be treated with respect then that entails that others have the moral obligation to treat him with respect; and vice versa. Does this help any?
One thing I am not clear on is why you think there cant be exceptions. For example, if God is not obligated to respect your rights why does that imply you have no rights.
It is certainly not my stance that there can't be exceptions. I certainly think there can be exceptions to rights, even ones that are often assumed to be inalienable. For example, a person's right to life. Sure, we have an obligation not to deprive another person of his life. But, in my opinion, this is defeasible, and I do not think it is that hard to think of such circumstances. For instance, I have no obligation not to deprive one of his life if he happens to be in the process of attacking my family with the means and intent to kill.
Nowhere have I claimed that there can't be exceptions. Also, my argument is not that "if God is not obligated to respect your rights [then] you have no rights". To me, such a claim sounds literally self-contradictory. You seem to think my argument was the following: (1) A right is such that there can be no exceptions to it. (2) If God has no obligations to respect our rights, then there are exceptions. (3) According to KJ, God has no obligations to respect our rights. (4) Hence, under KJ's view, we have no rights. Except for the conclusion, that's not even remotely what I argued. First, I would explicitly deny (1). There could be such as a thing as an inalienable right, but there is no reason to think all rights will qualify as such. Second, I think (2) is just a bizarre claim. Third, I think (3) is false, so I would never import in such a premise for the purpose of my arguments here. I think KJ's view entails we have no rights, not that God has no obligations to respect rights we do have.
So let me try to clarify my argument again. What I said to KJ is that his view entails that we have no rights. I used the example of a right to life. If one had a right to life, what would that entail? It would entail that all other moral agents have an obligation not to deprive one of her life. Note, this is generally so but it need not be inalienably so. There may well be exceptions, where another moral agent does not have an obligation not to deprive the one in question of her life under such and such extenuating circumstances. But, under KJ's view, it is not even generally so. Under KJ's view, God is a moral agent and yet He has no obligation – not even a general one – not to deprive the one in question of her life. It cannot be that God has even a general or prima facie moral obligation not to deprive the one in question of her life under KJ's view because under KJ's view, God has the right to deprive of her life for whatever reason at all. Note here that there is nothing specified about extenuating circumstances. KJ is not -- I repeat not -- merely outlining some exception to one's right. He is in fact outlining conditions for which there can be no rights in the first place. I then also said that what goes for this example is extendable to other rights. Hence, we can have no rights under KJ's view. So my argument is not like the (1)-(4) listed above. It would be more like the following: (a) One's right to X entails that all other moral agents have moral obligation regarding X. (b) Under KJ's view, God is a moral agent and yet has no moral obligation regarding X as it relates to his creatures. (C) Therefore, under KJ's view, God's creatures have no right to X.
There is another simple (and sound) argument that shows that KJ's view does entail that creatures such as us humans have no rights. It goes like this. Under KJ's view, we are not moral patients. This follows directly, since by definition it is not permissible for a moral agent to treat a moral patient just any old way at all; whereas, under KJ's view it is permissible for God, a moral agent, to treat us just any old way at all. And things that do not even qualify as moral patients clearly do not qualify as rights-holders. So this argument is extremely straightforward and goes like this: (1) If X does not even qualify as a moral patient, then X is not a rights-holder. (2) Under KJ's view, no creature qualifies as a moral patient. (3) Therefore, under KJ's view, God's creatures are not rights-holders.
As example a rock may fall on you and kill you, but we would not say the rock was obligated to respect your right to life. So if God is seen as a natural force rather than a moral entity would that solve the problem?
Of course, but a rock is not a moral agent. Neither is a natural force. This type of objection is irrelevant to KJ's view. Under KJ's view, it is explicitly clear that God is a moral agent. For example, KJ and I have been discussing explicitly about the moral actions of God. Action in this sense, by definition, entails agency.
And if God is a moral entity, cant he be an exception? Would his right to kill you with impunity some how stop you having a right to life with respect to all other humans?
There can be many "moral entities" that nevertheless have no obligations. And that can all be perfectly consistent with our still having rights. However, such entities are moral patients but not moral agents. There are many such examples, like infants or non-human animals, etc. An infant, for example, is clearly a moral patient. But, just as clearly, an infant is not a moral agent and does not have moral obligations. This infant's not having obligations toward us does not mean that we have no rights. But here is the key point: an infant, though a moral entity, is not a moral agent! Explicitly in KJ's view, God is a moral agent. And, no, I deny the idea that we could have rights that do not entail any obligation whatsoever to another moral agent.
Honestly, under KJ's view, I am not sure if he thinks we have any rights. So far, he seems okay with the entailment of his view that we don't. If he tried to claim that humans have rights or moral obligations toward each other but that there is this other moral agent over here, God, who has no moral obligations toward humans; then I find that to be incoherent nonsense. That's not how moral obligations work. I would love to hear an account of how that makes any sense whatsoever. And further, this type of objection has the drawback that I alluded to previously in one of my posts: it would leave KJ with no basis at all for providing any non-arbitrary moral explanation. He cannot say that moral agent A has general moral obligation regarding X and that moral agent B doesn't. For I would ask for explanation regarding why agent A has such obligation, and he would need to provide reasons that provide such explanatory content (for example, general reasons why you or I ought not take another person's life). I would then ask why these reasons do also translate to the case of agent B. And he will have no good answer, at least no answers that do not make morality a matter of arbitrarity, such as stipulating that morality simply somehow depends constitutively on agent B.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayGenocide, infanticide...these are things that are always senseless. Finnegan also brought up Job. God visited suffering on Job despite Job's faithfulness. Yeah, that makes sense.
Show some arbitrary and/or senseless act in scripture please! The times I'm
aware of that nasty things were going on was when people we sinning and
God put an end to them. As I pointed out to you before that could have been
done a number of ways, why He choose to use us (people) I can only guess is
to stress what we needed to know, these types of actions they were being
judged for are not to be done!
Kelly
You and sumydid both seem to want to claim that God had good reasons for doing such things, in order to instruct us. Well, if God thinks such things are necessary for moral instruction, then He's clearly just not that bright. You should take that as a reductio of your claim that He is all-knowing.
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayI see you bring up "The potter may do whatever he likes with his pot" argument. I just wrote a whole post to you where I give reasons to think this argument is unsound and that an analogy of potter/pot is not apt in our context. Please actually address my concerns. I'm not going to repeat them here. You can re-read my previous post that outlines them (my second post from the top on page 9).
"How is that question relevant?"
You may as well have a computer program complain that the programmer who
is wrote the code did something the program didn't like. You may as well have
a pot complain that the potter made it with the wrong colors. You being
created, were created for the reasons of the Creator, so than how are you to
hold your Creator i ...[text shortened]... place all the rules you have
come to know and trust, and fumble about to understand.
Kelly
Originally posted by LemonJelloApparently you are not willing to be instructed by God or anyone else bearing the truth. You prefer to listen to Satan the devil because he tickles your ears. 😏
Genocide, infanticide...these are things that are always senseless. Finnegan also brought up Job. God visited suffering on Job despite Job's faithfulness. Yeah, that makes sense.
You and sumydid both seem to want to claim that God had good reasons for doing such things, in order to instruct us. Well, if God thinks such things are necessary for mora ...[text shortened]... ust not that bright. You should take that as a reductio of your claim that He is all-knowing.
3 edits
Originally posted by sumydidI see, so Job suffered to teach us all a lesson. The possessions he lost included human property - of course a man's family is his property and has no human rights. You can always get another one. Sadly, in any reasonable ethical framweork, it is not okay to harm one individual in order to teach others a lesson.
Then you demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of even the most rudimentary teachings of the bible.
Job suffered to teach all of us, including and especially Satan, an unforgettable lesson about faith and perserverance.
Job suffered so that the rest of us could have a better understanding. In the end, Job's possessions--and more--were returned to him. and Satan are not on friendly terms and don't meet at the local pub to make arbitrary bets.
I can understand from an unbelieving perspective, that this appears to be God and the devil making an arbitrary "bet," sort of like Ralph and Mortimer Duke in the movie Trading Places.
That's because in the story as told in the Bible it is God and the devil making an arbitrary "bet." Your comparison seems fair enough too though I have not seen the film.
I do not agree that it is necessary to be an unbeliever to read the story of Job as I did. I suggest that you are failing to appreciate its allegorical significance and indeed, that it represents a very interesting refinement of the type of thinking in the Old Testament, written at a time when the Jewish faith was maturing. Not is it necessary to be an unbeliever to refer to God in humorous terms. Incidentally, the story makes no sense at all if it is thought of as anything other than an allegorical tale, a parable. After all, are we expected to assume that when Jesus told parables in his Sermon on the Mount that every word described literally stuff that really happened? This business of the Truth of the Bible is highly confused.
You have the amusing capacity to admit that this was an example of arbitrary and undeserved mistreatment and to try and undo this evident flaw in your argument by saying that it has a place in the wider context of the whole biblical story. The trouble is that, whatever its place in the wider picture, it is indeed an example of arbitrary injustice. By compensating him later, any apparent injustice is not wiped out but merely acknowledged. Even God (as described) admits he was unjust! Why do you argue with Him?
Your reading of Job seems crass to me. Firstly, I do not agree that it is possible to read the Bible seriously without recognizing the the God described there is capable of being vindictive and unjust at times. Secondly, I do not think any religion would work if it failed to recognize that "stuff happens" in life and that faith is no guarantee of material comfort. Life is far darker than that and any serious religion has to take that into its picture.
Originally posted by finneganExactly. But we're dealing with bizarro-ethics here. One set of rules (or no rules at all?!) for God, and the people who act on his behalf (well, at least, while they are acting on his behalf - if they did the exact same things without permission, they'd be in big trouble), and another for the rest of us.
Sadly, in any reasonable ethical framweork, it is not okay to harm one individual in order to teach others a lesson.
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitI am not on the "us" side in this case. 😏
Exactly. But we're dealing with bizarro-ethics here. One set of rules (or no rules at all?!) for God, and the people who act on his behalf (well, at least, while they are acting on his behalf - if they did the exact same things without permission, they'd be in big trouble), and another for the rest of us.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou are glossing over the fact that God sets the time table for all death, so He can
Genocide, infanticide...these are things that are always senseless. Finnegan also brought up Job. God visited suffering on Job despite Job's faithfulness. Yeah, that makes sense.
You and sumydid both seem to want to claim that God had good reasons for doing such things, in order to instruct us. Well, if God thinks such things are necessary for mora ...[text shortened]... ust not that bright. You should take that as a reductio of your claim that He is all-knowing.
again pick any time method He desires it is with Him that power and/or authority
resides. I also question why you think God's reasons for His actions are something
you can pass judgment upon? You know what is and is not important to God, since
again He setup the universe for His reasons, your acceptance of His plans and
purposes are as meaningful as you ability to make God grant you a longer life or
make you 3 inches taller.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayMaybe because it is far from clear that this is the case. If God sets the timetable, (and thus takes full responsibility), how can you call a murderer responsible? In fact, even someone who commits genocide should hold no responsibility because death, you claim, is entirely in the hands of God.
You are glossing over the fact that God sets the time table for all death,
so He can again pick any time method He desires it is with Him that power and/or authority
resides.
So we can even blame God for all genocides, not just the ones in the Bible. Any death, no matter how nasty was specially picked by God for reasons unknown.
I also question why you think God's reasons for His actions are something
you can pass judgment upon? You know what is and is not important to God, since
again He setup the universe for His reasons, your acceptance of His plans and
purposes are as meaningful as you ability to make God grant you a longer life or
make you 3 inches taller.
The question here is whether or not 'passing judgement' results in an 'OK' if Gods actions match Gods desires. If something is important to God and he realizes it, does that make it OK? You are essentially claiming Gods desires supersede everyone else's and you have to justify this beyond simply pointing out that he is the creator.
Originally posted by finneganIt's a little odd that you describe family members as if they are personal property and "possessions."
I see, so Job suffered to teach us all a lesson. The possessions he lost included human property - of course a man's family is his property and has no human rights. You can always get another one.
With all due respect, there's not much else to say in reply to that, other than your premise is so skewed, it's hardly worthy of a response.
Originally posted by LemonJelloThanks for the long reply. I wont respond to all of it, but I did read it all and try to understand it, though I am still a bit shaky on some points.
The subject of rights is a huge topic, and a site like this would only be the tip of the iceberg: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/.
KellyJay brought the term into this discussion, and I am mirroring his usage. It is frankly less than clear how, precisely, KellyJay intends the term (and it is hopeless to ask him for precise clarification on that), but I am virtually certain that he intends it in a normative sense and not merely in the sense of "sovereign right" that vistesd mentioned.
I am not convinced that the two of you share an understanding of its usage. It was quite clear from some of his posts that he believes rights must be enforceable for them to have meaning suggesting that he is thinking along the lines of legal rights.
Under KJ's view, God is a moral agent and yet He has no obligation – not even a general one – not to deprive the one in question of her life.
Maybe, rather than concluding that we have no rights, you can conclude that God is not a 'moral agent' but more akin to a natural phenomena? But I suppose this also contradicts any claims regarding Gods 'goodness' or 'justness' and thus renders that bizzaro speech.
Originally posted by finneganNo, it's not an example of "arbitrary injustice," except--and wrongfully--in the minds of those who don't get it. And by "it" I mean the bigger picture.
You have the amusing capacity to admit that this was an example of arbitrary and undeserved mistreatment and to try and undo this evident flaw in your argument by saying that it has a place in the wider context of the whole biblical story. The trouble is that, whatever its place in the wider picture, it is indeed an example of arbitrary injustice.
Job is better off because of what happened. We are better off because of what happened. The lesson was taught at Satan's expense.
God took Satan's challenge (not "bet" as you conveniently describe it) and made it a win-win. That's the beauty of it.
As a Christian, I do not see that an injustice has occurred; even though Job did not deserve the relatively fleeting amount of suffering he endured; because in the end he was rewarded with gifts infinitely greater in value than what he had.
In my opinion, and again with all due respect, it is only the narrow-minded, short-sided view that could come away from this story thinking it was an injustice.
Originally posted by twhiteheadDon't forget that God is also said to be truthful. A natural phenomena would not be described as truthful. Only a person is described as truthful.
Thanks for the long reply. I wont respond to all of it, but I did read it all and try to understand it, though I am still a bit shaky on some points.
[b]KellyJay brought the term into this discussion, and I am mirroring his usage. It is frankly less than clear how, precisely, KellyJay intends the term (and it is hopeless to ask him for precise clarific ...[text shortened]... ny claims regarding Gods 'goodness' or 'justness' and thus renders that bizzaro speech.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are glossing over the fact that God sets the time table for all death, so He can
You are glossing over the fact that God sets the time table for all death, so He can
again pick any time method He desires it is with Him that power and/or authority
resides. I also question why you think God's reasons for His actions are something
you can pass judgment upon? You know what is and is not important to God, since
again He setup the univers ...[text shortened]... ningful as you ability to make God grant you a longer life or
make you 3 inches taller.
Kelly
again pick any time method He desires it is with Him that power and/or authority
resides.
I guess I didn't realize that is to be taken explicitly as a fact under your view. God sets the time table for all death? I thought you were committed to some deaths being set by things putatively outside God's direct control, such as human free will. At any rate, even if this is a fact, it is irrelevant. Yes, I already understand that God is putatively all-powerful and can successfully impose His will to the fullest regard possible. That's irrelevant to my argument.
I also question why you think God's reasons for His actions are something
you can pass judgment upon? You know what is and is not important to God, since
again He setup the universe for His reasons, your acceptance of His plans and
purposes are as meaningful as you ability to make God grant you a longer life or
make you 3 inches taller.
Well, when someone sanctions genocide or infanticide, etc, then it's hard not to question his reasons, especially because there simply seem to be no good reasons for such things. The simple fact that God has reasons for his actions justifies nothing. After all, one's reasons for acting can be poor, silly, pernicious, etc, etc.
This is more bizarro behavior. You have some God who putatively undergirds all of morality and is supposedly the epitome of love, justice, etc. One would think that if He is all this, His reasons for acting should bear the weight of some honest scrutinies! After all, one cannot demonstrate wisdom if he is not in touch with good, solid practical reasons. If anything, you should be encouraging others to scrutinize your God's reasons, such that they can come to better learn how to be wise individuals themselves. But, oh yeah, that's right: you cannot do this because your God is a bizarro-moral-examplar. You should only do as He says, not as He does! So you have to actually dissuade others from scrutinizing and studying the reasons of the one who supposedly embodies all virtues and wisdom! In a word: bizarro.