I asked him about rights realism because he was framing his discussion in terms of rights. — Terrapin Station


Since rights aren't exclusive to ethical realism, that makes no sense. — S

He was framing it in terms of whether it's true or false, whether it's the case, that we have such and such right, where he clearly wasn't talking about what present laws are in a given locale.

No, you're a loony, out there, outspoken, fringe view kind of guy. — S

And?

Er, I guess to an uber-conformist that's a bad thing?

Too bad everyone wasn't jumping off a bridge in your neighborhood.

Interesting. Can you explain the "interpretation of rights consistent with that stance"? It would seem to me that claiming you have rights when you say you don't believe rights are real surely involves a contradiction. — petrichor

It's not that simple, and it's not as absurd as it sounds. I'm not so much saying that they're not real, as that they're not objective. They're as real as all the other subjective stuff.

Subjectively, rights are moral stances that you feel strongly enough about that you feel they should be inviolable in principle no matter what.

What does that even mean, that I "have a right"? It isn't quite the same as saying that I am unconstrained, physically or otherwise. It isn't quite the same as saying that something is legal. What is it exactly? I honestly find it puzzling. I wonder if we know what we are talking about when we speak of rights. — petrichor

Probably the only precise definition of right is in legal terms. Outside of legal terms, it's probably sufficient to ask what we should do.

It seems to me that it is primarily rooted in a feeling, maybe something like what a small child feels when screaming, "MINE!" Is it more than this? Is that feeling justified? Is it some kind of instinct? — petrichor

We could perhaps say that rights are rooted in interests. I.e. I have an interest to keep some things at the exclusion of others, and therefore I'd like property rights.

It would seem that the sense that we have "a right to do as we please" is rooted ultimately in a sense of self-ownership. I'm mine. My body is mine. Not yours. We should be able to do with what is ours as we please. Nobody else's business. Something like that? — petrichor

I think that, again, it's in our interest to do what we please. That is almost tautological.

But isn't this basic sense of mineness itself open to question? And isn't that what entitlement is really reducible to? Basically a feeling of mineness? — petrichor

What kind of question would be subject that basic sense to?

I felt like discussions questioning whether it's right to have children etc. were proliferating in a way that Donald Trump discussions used to be and would be best kept together even if they differed in emphasis. If you want to try to unbreak the egg though, feel free. I have no idea how to unmerge.

If you want to try to unbreak the egg though, feel free. I have no idea how to unmerge. — Baden

It's probably too much of a mess now. Petrichor would need to start another thread. Maybe it would help to make it more general than just the context of antinatalism.

It seems to be a trend lately, by the way, that people will start a bunch of threads that are just slight variations on the same thing, sparked by a discussion in some other thread.

So, for example, we recently had a bunch of different free will threads.

I have no idea how to unmerge. — Baden

Unmerging is always messy. Always.

The discussions were cross-fertilizing anyway, and if Petrichor's slant is the most interesting, that may be the focus from here on in.

It seems to be a trend lately, by the way, that people will start a bunch of threads that are just slight variations on the same thing, sparked by a discussion in some other thread. — Terrapin Station

Yes, which according to the guidelines shouldn't be done because they tend to cross-fertilize and cannibalize each other.

Well, apologies for any inconvenience all. Just trying to keep the place tidy.

It seems to be a trend lately, by the way, that people will start a bunch of threads that are just slight variations on the same thing, sparked by a discussion in some other thread. — Terrapin Station

I decided to start another thread because I wanted to zero in on the entitlement or rights claim being made and the OP in that thread made his intention clear that his thread was about what motivates antinatalists. He was claiming it isn't reason, but rather personality. I was trying to be polite in not going off-topic there. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess. Someone probably would have felt I was out of line turning that thread into a rights discussion.

Yes, which according to the guidelines shouldn't be done because they tend to cross-fertilize and cannibalize each other. — Baden

Now you're going to spark another ethics thread, about cross-fertilization and cannibalism.

As for moral sentiment, is this saying basically that I feel I have a right, and therefore I do? Isn't this problematic? — petrichor

Why? Because people disagree? People disagree regardless, and always will.

What does that even mean, that I "have a right"? It isn't quite the same as saying that I am unconstrained, physically or otherwise. It isn't quite the same as saying that something is legal. — petrichor

No, it's neither of those things. It's not the former because that's simply not what it means, and it's not the latter because that's a different sense. We're talking about the ethical sense, not the legal sense.

What is it exactly? I honestly find it puzzling. I wonder if we know what we are talking about when we speak of rights. — petrichor

I don't see why it's so puzzling. It's just a specific way of conveying typical moral sentiments, such as that you ought to do this or that you ought not to do that. It's like rules. If I have the right to remain silent, then you can't force me to speak. If I have the right to an attorney, then you can't refuse me one. Even if you literally can, the idea is that you can't do so without doing something immoral.

It seems to me that it is primarily rooted in a feeling, maybe something like what a small child feels when screaming, "MINE!" Is it more than this? Is that feeling justified? Is it some kind of instinct? — petrichor

Yeah, that's it. A feeling. Perhaps instinctual in some cases.

It would seem that the sense that we have "a right to do as we please" is rooted ultimately in a sense of self-ownership. I'm mine. My body is mine. Not yours. We should be able to do with what is ours as we please. Nobody else's business. Something like that? — petrichor

Yeah, something like that. See? It's not so puzzling.

But if I look into that feeling in myself, I find that it's basically a sense of frustration at my will being obstructed. This then takes the form in my mind of the idea that my will ought not be obstructed. Is this leap justified? — petrichor

It's justified in a sense. I wouldn't say in an objective sense.

Something like property rights gives us the basic sort of right. No? — petrichor

Yeah, I suppose so, at least on a minimal level. So, for example, I wouldn't go as far as those further to the right of me on the political spectrum with regards to home ownership and private property.

It would seem that we are dealing with the basic idea of libertarianism, which is that the only justifiable role of the state is to protect liberty, and that my freedom ends where the other person's nose begins. Yes? — petrichor

No, not quite. I'm of the opposite stance in significant respects, in that I'm in favour of a big state in relation to important issues, like tax and various regulations, just not on a range of social matters which I consider to be none of the states business.

But isn't this basic sense of mineness itself open to question? And isn't that what entitlement is really reducible to? Basically a feeling of mineness? — petrichor

It's ultimately individualist, yes.

He was framing it in terms of whether it's true or false, whether it's the case, that we have such and such right, where he clearly wasn't talking about what present laws are in a given locale. — Terrapin Station

If we have rights in an ethical and subjective sense, then why wouldn't it be true or the case that we have rights (in accordance with the aforementioned interpretation)? Your query or objection or whatever your point is still doesn't make sense to me.

And?

Er, I guess to an uber-conformist that's a bad thing?

Too bad everyone wasn't jumping off a bridge in your neighborhood. — Terrapin Station

An uber-conformist. :lol:

Only when it's sensible or obvious. I'm much less of a conformist when it's more of an open matter. Some matters are simply closed. Like, I wouldn't jump off a bridge, unless I was really suicidal, because that's dumb, even if everyone else was jumping off. You've got it backwards. Lot's of people agree on the sensible and obvious stuff, because they themselves are sensible and find those things obvious.

Why? Because people disagree? People disagree regardless, and always will. — S

When a person claims that people have a right to X, they are making a universal claim. And they are saying that I should respect their right. But if the claim to the right is justified only by a feeling the person has, and different people have different such feelings, isn't there a conflict here between the universality of the rights claim and the non-universality of the moral sentiment it is supposedly justified by?

If we have rights in an ethical and subjective sense, then why wouldn't it be true or the case that we have rights (in accordance with the aforementioned interpretation)? Your query or objection or whatever your point is still doesn't make sense to me. — S

Having rights in a subjective sense simply amounts to an individual feeling strongly enough about a moral stance that he/she feels it should be inviolable in principle no matter what.

Different people can feel that way about different stances.

He wasn't asking there are individuals that feel that way about each side of antinatalism--obviously there are.

Probably the only precise definition of right is in legal terms. Outside of legal terms, it's probably sufficient to ask what we should do. — Echarmion

It would seem that the claim that I have a right to X is often understood as being something like a claim that my doing X isn't illegal under the present government. I'm allowed to do X, in other words. But really, when people speak of their rights, they seem to be trying to express something more than that. And it seems they often want to change laws to make them more consistent with the rights they feel people have. So the rights would seem to be thought prior to legality.

We could perhaps say that rights are rooted in interests. I.e. I have an interest to keep some things at the exclusion of others, and therefore I'd like property rights. — Echarmion

But to say that I have an interest in something or another seems different from saying that my interests ought not be obstructed. And the rights claim seems to be along the lines of the latter rather than the former.

A rapist could say that he has an interest in satisfying his sexual needs. But most wouldn't agree that he therefore has a right to satisfy them.

When a person claims that people have a right to X, they are making a universal claim. And they are saying that I should respect their right. But if the claim to the right is justified only by a feeling the person has, and different people have different such feelings, isn't there a conflict here between the universality of the rights claim and the non-universality of the moral sentiment it is supposedly justified by? — petrichor

No, why would there be? I suppose that you could say that there's a conflict more broadly, in that a consequence of the variation of feelings means that naturally people won't always agree over the matter, and might get into arguments about it. But that would have no bearing on anything, as far as I can discern.

This reply of yours seems to basically make the quite common error in ethics of thinking that universal morality implies uniformity in feelings or belief, when to me it quite clearly doesn't. It's a non sequitur.

Some rights seem to be mostly a matter of legal convention. "You have a right to an attorney..."

The claim that people have a right to reproduce wouldn't seem to be an example of this though. If our government were to pass laws against having children without a license, people would argue against such laws and base their objection on their claim of rights.

It would seem that the claim that I have a right to X is often understood as being something like a claim that my doing X isn't illegal under the present government. I'm allowed to do X, in other words. But really, when people speak of their rights, they seem to be trying to express something more than that. And it seems they often want to change laws to make them more consistent with the rights they feel people have. So the rights would seem to be thought prior to legality. — petrichor

This is true, but I think this can be rephrased as thinking that you should have certain rights. I.e. it's a question of what the laws should look like, and therefore ultimately about what people should do.

But to say that I have an interest in something or another seems different from saying that my interests ought not be obstructed. And the rights claim seems to be along the lines of the latter rather than the former.

A rapist could say that he has an interest in satisfying his sexual needs. But most wouldn't agree that he therefore has a right to satisfy them. — petrichor

I am not saying interests are the same as rights. I just think that interests are what causes people to conceive of rights. You have interests, you want them fulfilled. You realize other people also have interests. You therefore come up with the idea of rights, which give special protection to some of these interests.

No, why would there be? I suppose that you could say that there's a conflict more broadly, in that a consequence of the variation of feelings means that naturally people won't always agree over the matter, and might get into arguments about it. But that would have no bearing on anything, as far as I can discern. — S

What if you claim to have right X, and you base it on a feeling that you alone have, this feeling being shared by nobody else at all?

Having right in a subjective sense simply amounts to an individual feeling strongly enough about a moral stance that he/she feels it should be inviolable in principle no matter what.

Different people can feel that way about different stances.

He wasn't asking there are individuals that feel that way about each side of antinatalism--obviously there are. — Terrapin Station

I think the answer's obvious either way. It's obvious that there are ethical rights in the subjective sense, and it's obvious that there's no basis for ethical rights in the objective sense. Rights stem from us, are a product of us, and are dependent on us. There's no objective means of acsertaining ethical rights: that's a delusion.

Suppose we find an example of a historical culture in which men feel that their wives and children belong to them, and that therefore, they have a right to kill them if they see fit. Suppose this feeling is strong. Suppose the adult women even agree with it. Clearly, in our culture, most of us disagree with them. Who is right? How do we decide?

Some rights seem to be mostly a matter of legal convention. "You have a right to an attorney..." — petrichor

Right, ethical rights can coincide with legal rights. They're not mutually exclusive. And it's no coincidence that they often coincide like that.

The claim that people have a right to reproduce wouldn't seem to be an example of this though. If our government were to pass laws against having children without a license, people would argue against such laws and base their objection on their claim of rights. — petrichor

There's no such law disallowing it or requiring a licence. And?

What if you claim to have right X, and you base it on a feeling that you alone have, this feeling being shared by nobody else at all? — petrichor

What of it? I already agreed with Hanover on basically the same point. In practical terms, obviously that would be a problem. Would it mean I'm wrong? No, not necessarily. Wrong relative to their feelings on the matter? Sure.

Suppose we find an example of a historical culture in which men feel that their wives and children belong to them, and that therefore, they have a right to kill them if they see fit. Suppose this feeling is strong. Suppose the adult women even agree with it. Clearly, in our culture, most of us disagree with them. Who is right? How do we decide? — petrichor

There isn't an objective right or wrong when it comes to ethics/rights.

How we decide is that we intuit how we feel about it (not just a shallow or "surface" or off-the-cuff feeling, but intuiting how one feels about it "deep down," or "in one's core.")

Suppose we find an example of a historical culture in which men feel that their wives and children belong to them, and that therefore, they have a right to kill them if they see fit. Suppose this feeling is strong. Suppose the adult women even agree with it. Clearly, in our culture, most of us disagree with them. Who is right? How do we decide? — petrichor

We decide how we usually do, by consulting our respective conscience. I say it's wrong.

Anyone else feel like this is spending too much time going over the basics... stuff we already know? I don't feel like I have been proven wrong over my initial criticism. So much for the Socratic approach...

A feeling, especially if it is not shared by everyone, seems a poor justification for a universal claim and a restriction of behavior that you want to impose on everyone. If you are making the claim that everyone ought to abide by this claim, you seem to necessarily be making some sort of objective claim.

If you disagree with the men who believe they have a right to kill their wives, is it nothing more than your feeling against theirs? When you say they are wrong, aren't you making an objective claim about what is right or wrong for everyone?

Anyone feel that this is spending too much time going over the basics... stuff we already know? — S

You are welcome to cease reading and participating.

You are welcome to cease reading and participating. — petrichor

Do you know how many discussions, and how much time I've spent, reading and participating against my own best interest? I only have so much self-control. I'm an impulsive hedonist at heart. I do what I want at the time.