Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Interim Readings
>
Declaration of the Rights of Man
Roger wrote: "Is there a natural right to own property? This is a little less of an automatic "Yes" than life and liberty. Locke thought there was, arguing that when you make anything you mix something of yourse..."In "On Duties", the upcoming group read, Cicero writes the following:
Private property has been endowed not by nature, but by long-standing occupancy in the case of those who settled long ago on empty land; or by victory in the case of those who gained it in war; or by law or bargain or contract or lot.
I don't think one can logically derive right to property from right to life. Locke describes property right, but does not prove it.
One of my earliest memories was from when I was so very young (not sure when, but this is one of my earliest memories) and our family had gone to visit another family. Driving home in the darkening evening, my mother peered over at me and noticed I was holding a doll..that was not my own. Ha! Truly I had no concept that taking it was wrong..I just liked it (and actually don't think I gave it much thought). This memory remains as I was so stunned by my mother's reaction and realization I had done something wrong. She made us turn around and return the doll! It is a learning process, it seems. However, I do think there is an innate sense of "fairness", albeit some people are more empathetic than others and this may be a matter of genes or a matter of experience or more likely a mixture of both. Also people develop a system to accord this respect and provision of fairness (and humanity), both to make society run better and also recognizing also that what goes around, comes around. It appears that when there are firm divisions/classes that run well within a class itself (or there is no perceived "come around") as divided from others that this may break down : when a group self identifies itself as separate by wealth, culture, religion, geography or otherwise; then these concepts may become obscured. Also involved can be a sense of threat from the others (e.g. others taking away one's own chances/ reducing one's owns benefits) that can override the relative mutual benefit that could arise from cooperation by fairness. These competing factors tend to color determinations of "rights" and/or laws in a society / evidenced today ("otherness") and historically....
Roger wrote: "In the ancient world, stealing was not considered wrong per se, and piracy was a perfectly respectable profession, if you could get away with it. Even murder was OK if it was confined to outsiders."Some tribes (Scythians if I remember correctly) pride themselves on a predatory lifestyle. They don't cultivate the land, but raid those who do. For them, robbery is a more honourable form of labor.
John wrote: ".... Only three outcomes exist for this scenario. First, both can consume until they die, second, person one kills person two, or third, person two kills person one. ..."I would think choice one is "moral", because neither person's right to life is violated.
Patrice wrote: "if we have a right to our lives then we have a right to our property.when someone steals a car they are stealing the many hours of a persons life that they traded for that car. .."
But, the person was already living his life during the many hours when he worked for his car, so the other didn't and couldn't steal his life by stealing his car.
You could say that you are violating your own right to life by not protecting it but you could also choose not to eat and allow the other to live. While this is a choice that you have it is one that can't really be forced upon you externally.While I have not yet worked out a cogent argument for why but there is certainly the sense that from an individual's perspective, their right to life supersedes that of another. All other things being equal, if only two choices exist, one in which I die and one in which another dies there is nothing right or wrong about choosing to live. I see that as a neutral choice morally speaking.
John wrote: "You could say that you are violating your own right to life by not protecting it but you could also choose not to eat and allow the other to live. While this is a choice that you have it is one tha..."Then there are those who lay down their own lives to save others. On the surface, it seems like an equal exchange, a neutral choice as you put it, but morally speaking, people admire the radically altruistic.
The subject of "rights" seems to be an existential one, does it not? I am reading of much angst in reviewing the terms, "natural" and "self-evident". Do those terms represent real things or not?The base assumption is that humans are social creatures, and as Socrates/Plato attempted to prove and Cicero sums up, as social creatures, we require justice in the conservation of organized society, with rendering to every man his due, and with the faithful discharge of obligations assumed. Rights seem to be the pathway from morals to justice.
Maybe some rights are referred to as "self-evident" because we realize the hypocrisy of a desire to claim a right for ourselves that we seek to deny to others without a reasonable justification. This works on the level of a single individual human as they decide for themselves, as well as for subsets of humans and ultimately to the set of all humans, as they form a consensus.
It is difficult to clearly see a right, as an entitlement, that is derived from nature. Maybe the most base of these so called self-evident rights are simply claimed to be from nature (or in some cases Nature - capital N) to lend some extra authority to them in the same way divine authority is sought for morals interpreted from religious sources.
We also often add authority to our rights by tying them to our morals, which like art, are human creations and inventions, ostensibly for our benefit, because we cannot decide a priori what our morals are and what rights spring from them. Since this appears to be the case, humans must declare them for themselves. Otherwise the confusion would have been cleared up when man first appeared and moral progress would not have been needed, or possible.
Nemo wrote: "Giving people access to food and shelter is not the same thing as giving them access to the fruits of other people's labor."If they are unable to work, it is. How else are they to get food and shelter if not through the fruits of somebody else's labor? How else is a baby to get food and shelter?
John wrote: "I have not yet read Locke's work but I will have to put in on my list.."
Or vote for it next time it comes up as a nomination! [g]
John wrote: "Nor do I think that there is a dilemma in regards to the death of other creatures to continue our survival. "Is it any less moral for us to kill other creatures to continue our survival than it is for the lion to kill the wildebeest or the bear to kill the salmon?
Nemo wrote: "I don't think one can logically derive right to property from right to life. Locke describes property right, but does not prove it."
The problem is that without a right to property there is no right to life. In order to live, I have to have property -- at a minimum, food and some sort of shelter. And if I am going to do more than just gather (eating as I go, because I can't put it in a basket without owning a basket), I need property. If I'm to grow crops, I need land and some tools. If I'm going to hunt, I need something more than my bare hands -- whether a line and fishhook, or a spear, or whatever. All these things are property. And if I am to eat anything other than raw food, I need wood to make a fire and something to make the fire with -- that is, I need property.
Lions may be able to survive without any property, though in fact they are quite definitive in protecting their dens and their hunting grounds. But for humans, without property there is no life.
Everyman wrote: "The problem is that without a right to property there is no right to life. In order to live, I have to have property..."No you don't. :) You can have food, shelter and all the tools necessary for survival, without having private ownership of any of them,
Everyman wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Giving people access to food and shelter is not the same thing as giving them access to the fruits of other people's labor."If they are unable to work, it is. ..."
But you were talking about the "right to get fed even if you had the ability to work for your food but chose not to".
I don't see any significant differences between pre- and post- Enlightenment societies with regard to their treatment of children on the one hand or loafers on the other.
Suppose that there exists a planet on which two people live. Each person consumes resources at the rate of 1 unit per day. However, the planet can only renew its resources at the rate of 1.5 units per day and no method exists to make this better. The ethically correct thing to do is to draw lots for survival.
David wrote: "The subject of "rights" seems to be an existential one, does it not? I am reading of much angst in reviewing the terms, "natural" and "self-evident". Do those terms represent real things or not?T..."
If rights are just a social construct, then Aztecs and Mongols can be just as righteous as Quakers and Pueblo Indians by adhering to their murderous mores. I imagine hardly any of us would be willing to accept that.
Everyman wrote: "And if I have a natural right to life, how come tigers, vipers, and many viruses won't respect it? If it's a natural right, shouldn't nature respect it?..."I asked the same rhetorical question myself. But I don't think this is an insurmountable challenge: If the "right of life" is given by "nature", then nature can take it back anytime, just as society can take back any rights it bestows on man.
Natural rights are not given by nature. They are given by the Creator (says the Declaration), who created us such that we have such rights by our nature. It looks like there are two meanings of "nature" here: (1) The whole created order; and (2) The type of being possessed by each creature.
Nemo wrote: "Everyman wrote: "The problem is that without a right to property there is no right to life. In order to live, I have to have property..."No you don't. :) You can have food, shelter and all the to..."
When you put the food in your mouth, you have made it private property.
Roger wrote: "If rights are just a social construct, then Aztecs and Mongols can be just as righteous as Quakers and Pueblo Indians by adhering to their murderous mores. I imagine hardly any of us would be willing to accept that.."
Why not? After all, European societies have been willing to accept hanging people for stealing a few pennies worth of bread. And they accepted keelhauling and flogging around the fleet for insulting a superior officer. And the United States accepted enslaving and buying and selling people. The right to property included the right to own other people as property, to sell them, to pass them in your will. And the morality of the Crusades was to slaughter people who had different religious beliefs (heck, the English whipped and imprisoned people for following Quakerism, as did Massachusetts).
Were Mayan ethics or morality really that much worse than these?
Everyman wrote: "Roger wrote: "If rights are just a social construct, then Aztecs and Mongols can be just as righteous as Quakers and Pueblo Indians by adhering to their murderous mores. I imagine hardly any of us..."
By citing these examples, Everyman, you're implying that they are not morally acceptable to you, which is exactly Roger's point, if I'm not mistaken.
Everyman wrote: ".When you put the food in your mouth, you have made it private property."The food I eat is not my private property any more than the air I breathe in and out is private property.
Nemo wrote: "By citing these examples, Everyman, you're implying that they are not morally acceptable to you, which is exactly Roger's point, if I'm not mistaken. "They were morally acceptable to those societies. Even if they aren't to me, who is to say that I'm more right than they were? Moral acceptability is a social construct.
Nemo wrote: "The food I eat is not my private property."Then whose is it? Who can demand that you give it back to them half eaten?
Roger wrote: If rights are just a social construct, then Aztecs and Mongols can be just as righteous as Quakers and Pueblo Indians by adhering to their murderous mores. I imagine hardly any of us would be willing to accept that. "1. Yes, exactly. It ultimately depends who is doing the judging.
2. If Lucretius was judging he might write again: tantum religio potuit suadere malorum. (So potent was religion in persuading to evil deeds), which Voltaire predicted would last as long as the world.
3. These disagreeable morals are consistent with a modern view of humanity finding its way by inventing and creating morals and rights, ostensibly for our benefit, and making some bad choices along the way.
Everyman wrote: "They were morally acceptable to those societies. Even if they aren't to me, who is to say that I'm more right than they were? Moral acceptability is a social construct.."We've had this type of discussion before, and I don't think we can persuade each other either way. Differences of opinion on something doesn't prove that the thing itself is a mere social construct.
"Some men think the earth is round, others think it flat.
It is a matter capable of question.
But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round?
And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it?"
Nemo wrote: "The food I eat is not my private property any more than the air I breathe in and out is private property."I hope this is not dropping a spoiler too soon, but I believe Cicero has something to say about private property by noting there is no such thing as private property in nature. However, it is a part and parcel of justice that common property (air) should be used for the community and the use of private property (land, gardens, farms, and the food it produces) by its owner should be respected. It comes about through use and time, by annexation, by law, treaty, contract, or chance.
Roger wrote: "Natural rights are not given by nature. They are given by the Creator (says the Declaration), who created us such that we have such rights by our nature..."Thanks for the clarification, Roger.
There may be some formulation of "natural right" that is logically defensible, but I don't think Locke's formulation is, and the Declaration is too vague to be subjected to logical proof -- it was probably deliberate.
Apart from conflating being and right, Locke did the idea of natural law a disservice by taking "right" out of the context of law and justice, and separating it from obligation.
Patrice wrote: "Jefferson said the declaration was meant to be an expression of the American mind. I think it is. ..."Does the American mind believe in a Creator?
Everyman wrote: "Nemo wrote: "By citing these examples, Everyman, you're implying that they are not morally acceptable to you, which is exactly Roger's point, if I'm not mistaken. "They were morally acceptable to..."
So your own personal distaste for human sacrifices of captives by the tens of thousands, or for the conquest and extermination of peoples to gain grazing land, is just a personal quirk, the result of an idiosyncratic upbringing, like a preference for wearing trousers rather than a kilt? Maybe then the best thing to do is to overcome this upbringing, liberate yourself from its shackles, and boldly create a new personal moral code.
Patrice wrote: "definitely and much more so in 1776!"What percentage of Americans believed in a Creator in 1776?
David wrote: "Nemo wrote: "The food I eat is not my private property any more than the air I breathe in and out is private property."I hope this is not dropping a spoiler too soon, but I believe Cicero has som..."
Yes, I already quoted Cicero's description of property in msg185.
It seems to me inconsistent, if not ironic, that people claim that rights are nothing but social constructs -- and therefore my construct is just as valid as yours, and yet at the same time vehemently insist that all should acknowledge the right to property.
I'm not denying property right (even if only a social construct). I'm simply arguing that right to property cannot be logically proven from right to life, as commonly understood.
Nemo wrote: "It seems to me inconsistent, if not ironic, that people claim that rights are nothing but social constructs -- and therefore my construct is just as valid as yours, and yet at the same time vehemently insist that all should acknowledge the right to property."They are all social constructs, aren't they? That would make them consistent in that regard, right? Are there any rights that are not social constructs? I can only think the world was here first and it doesn't owe anybody anything.
Are you claiming that all rights are equal because as social constructs they are equally valid, or that despite the fact they are not, we have found some we can generally agree to sanction or oppose?
Patrice wrote: "roger, i think people understood ownership in the ancient world. piracy may have been seen as natural spoils of conquest. what other support would they have when on campaign? but when achilles had..."
The ancients were certainly annoyed when they lost property, but the point is that they felt no moral obligation to respect others' property (except within their own tribe, where you had to get along with people). Achilles himself owned Briseis because he looted her city, murdered her husband, and took her. When Odysseus started home from Troy, the first thing he did was stop and try to loot a city with which he had no quarrel, just because he thought he could.
David wrote: "They are all social constructs, aren't they?.."David, you wrote that humans have rights "by virtue of being born into this world". I take it to mean that human rights are no more social constructs than human beings are. For if rights are social constructs, then they can be granted to things that don't exist in the world. Do I understand you correctly, or do you have something else in mind?
Patrice wrote: "even dogs understand territory. when my dog would get a bone she would go to great lengths to hide it, sure that someone would want to take her treasure. ."I think it is quite possible that we're projecting our own perspectives on animals, and trying to interpret animal behaviour in a way such that they agree with our point of view, when in reality, we're just begging the question. But of course, animals can't talk, and they can't tell us that we're misrepresenting them.
Nemo wrote: "David, you wrote that humans have rights "by virtue of being born into this world". I I take it to mean that human rights are no more social constructs than human beings are. For if rights are social constructs, then they can be granted to things that don't exist in the world."1. Humans are real.
2. All rights are social constructs, generally agreed upon and intended for some benefit and are manifested in laws and mores of a social group per the concerns of the conservation of organized society. . .(justice). Again, can we think of any rights that are not social constructs?
3. Some humans generally agree and declare it just to grant certain rights to everyone as a starting set of baseline rights, simply for being here in the world.
I don't know how it was reasoned that we could apply social constructs to non-existent things. I suppose we can declare anything we want and grant unicorns certain rights, but I don't know why or how, or how to enforce them, or what good it would do if we could.
I missed your response to my question: Are you claiming that all rights are equal because as social constructs they are equally valid, or that despite the fact they are not [equal] we have found some we can generally agree to sanction or oppose?
David wrote: " Humans are real.2. All rights are social constructs, generally agreed upon and intended for some benefit ..."
Are "benefits" real or social constructs as well?
Nemo wrote: "Are "benefits" real or social constructs as well?"Real, for the most part. Some may be mental, as in peace of mind but even that could be said to have physical benefits. Why do you ask? And why have you avoided my questions for a second time?
1. Are there any rights that are not social constructs?
2. Are you claiming that all rights are equal because as social constructs they are equally valid, or that despite the fact they are not [equal] we have found some we can generally agree to sanction or oppose?
David wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Are "benefits" real or social constructs as well?"Real, for the most part. Some may be mental, as in peace of mind but even that could be said to have physical benefits. Why do you ask?."
I ask because I'm trying to make answer in words that make sense to you.
Those "rights" from which benefits can be derived are not mere social constructs, but are real and valid, to the extent that the benefits are real and valid. Other "rights" are not valid. Whether people sanction or oppose them is irrelevant.
The benefits are made real as the manifestations and outcomes of human agency. They are concrete and often measurable. Rights are social constructs, or ideas, in the human mind, are not concrete, and thus have no agency on their own. I guess I am not sure of the sense in which you are calling rights "real".
David wrote: "The benefits are made real as the manifestations and outcomes of human agency. They are concrete and often measurable. Rights are social constructs, or ideas, in the human mind, are not concrete, a..."What is measurable is quantifiable. Benefit means good thing, and goodness is not quantifiable -- someone has to do the judging. Goodness/benefit is as much an idea in the human mind as "right". If the former is real, so is the latter.
As I said to Everyman earlier, I've never thought of "right" as "entitlement", as if nature or society owes us anything. I think of "right" in the context of justice, that it is just and fair to treat people, animals and even things in nature in certain ways, to give each his due. (If this is not human agency, I don't know what is.)
Fair enough. although one could make the case that rights are entitlements that society owes to itself for its own well being.
Nemo wrote: ""Some men think the earth is round, others think it flat... "
You are conflating scientific reality which is outside of human thought with moral precepts which are necessarily dependent on human thought.
The earth was round (approximately) before the first human came into existence. It is a fact of nature, not of man.
The moral code of the Mayans did not exist until the Mayans came into existence. It is a fact of man, not of nature.
It is a logical fallacy to try to compare the two.
Nemo wrote: "the Declaration is too vague to be subjected to logical proof -- it was probably deliberate.."It can't be subjected to logical proof because logical proof has to start with some agreed postulates, and we don't have agreed postulates to work from here.
Logic only works AFTER you have made some agreed assumptions. As you well know; one of your typical forms of argument is to deny, either explicitly or implicitly, all postulates, and therefore to deny all logical conclusions. It works beautifully as a matter of logic and argumentation, but it isn't very helpful in trying to develop an understanding of truth.
Logical proof must start somewhere. It cannot be function in an intellectual void. It seems to me pointless to object that something lacks logical proof when it seems, at least to me, that it is proposing postulates rather than drawing conclusions. (The Declaration of Independence is, in my opinion, better drawn in that it starts proposing postulates but then does proceed to draw logical conclusions from those postulates.)
One can raise questions or objections with a legitimate focus on working cooperatively toward a developing understanding of human truths, or one can raise questions or objections for the principal purpose of winning points. One can seldom do both successfully.
Roger wrote: "The ancients were certainly annoyed when they lost property, but the point is that they felt no moral obligation to respect others' property (except within their own tribe, where you had to get along with people). Achilles himself owned Briseis because he looted her city, murdered her husband, and took her."That's a very nice explanation of the difference in beliefs about property rights between that ancient society and our modern one.
Nemo wrote: "Patrice wrote: "definitely and much more so in 1776!"What percentage of Americans believed in a Creator in 1776?"
Actually believed, or asserted belief? There is a huge difference.
But given the relative recency of the Salem Witchcraft Trials and of the hanging of Mary Dyer in Boston, I would say a significant percentage did at least assert belief.
Roger wrote: "So your own personal distaste for human sacrifices of captives by the tens of thousands, or for the conquest and extermination of peoples to gain grazing land, is just a personal quirk, the result of an idiosyncratic upbringing, like a preference for wearing trousers rather than a kilt?."Well, actually, yes. Well, more than a personal quirk, but yes, the result of my upbringing. If I had been brought up a Mayan, I almost certainly would have approved of the sacrifices of thousands of captives. And so, I strongly expect, would you. If one is never exposed to the concept that killing captives is wrong, it would be a rare person who would independently develop and assert that idea in the face of absolute public belief to the contrary.
Likewise, if I had been brought up in a cannibal society, I would almost certainly have enjoyed my meal of roast leg of insurance salesman and not have questioned the morality of the feast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjAHw...
Everyman wrote: "You are conflating scientific reality which is outside of human thought with moral precepts which are necessarily dependent on human thought..."Reality may be independent of human thought, but our understanding of reality is not. Scientific theories are necessarily dependent on human thought, just as moral precepts are.
We cannot know whether the earth is round or flat, unless we come into existence and investigate into the matter. There were/are different theories about the earth, but it doesn't mean that the earth is a mere fantasy of the mind.
We cannot develop moral understanding unless we come into existence and investigate into matters of morality and justice. There are different opinions about morality, but it doesn't mean that morality is a mere fantasy of the mind.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
Second Treatise of Government (other topics)Second Treatise of Government (other topics)
Mulieris Dignitatem: Apostolic Letter Of The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II On The Dignity & Vocation Of Women On The Occasion Of The Marian Year (other topics)
Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution (other topics)
This is where I think the idea of a tribe comes into play. Rights as we define them really only make sense within a society where we have agreed to cooperate. Just as in a survival situation my right to life, from my perspective, trumps your right to life, my tribe's right to exist trumps your tribe's right to exist.