Humanism is Nonsense

[Blowtus]

if the 'human construction' of rights have no foundation to be defended from, is it not fit to use the language of rights and say 'since we can't defend the notion that you have no right to torture others, essentially you do have a right to torture others'?

I do not think so. Speaking of an allowance (rights) implys there is some corresponding disallowance. Why would it make sense, to suggest we have a 'right to torture others' any more than it makes sense to suggest we have a 'right to not be tortured'?

how would you suggest it be phrased in a world that still loves to talk about rights? To speak of having 'no rights' sounds as if you have no rights because someone else has rights which oppress you having any right to something, and surely if no one has rights which others don't have it means we all have rights, in other words, we would never say 'you have no right to xyz' so speaking of 'no rights' instead of infinite rights seems just confusing.

How would I suggest it be phrased? How about 'rights are a human invention with no validity outside of that which humans choose to give'? Perhaps it is needless quibbling, but it did seem to me you were somewhat contradicting yourself with the 'rights are bullshit, we should have the right to do anything'-esque approach

Now I apologise if I'm being a bit slow here but I am still stuck on the apparent distinction you can make between rights and laws - you take issue with more than just the wording 'human rights' yes? On the one hand you seem to suggest that you will support laws (applications of societal force that reduce the rights of the individual, for the supposed benefit of a majority of individuals) that you think are worthwhile, (of benefit to you) but then go on to suggest that we should have infinite rights? I can't see the line in the sand you seem to be able to draw...

If it *is* actually just an issue with the wording, then I guess I'll tend to agree. Talk of 'fundamental human rights' and the like is really just using an 'everyone thinks so, thus you're blatantly wrong and inherantly evil if you think otherwise' argument as a foundation, rather than actually making a substantiated point.

 

[Cythraul]

All I ask is that humans be given the right to treat the homo sapian as he has the right to treat all other animals, in other words, this delusion of 'rights' vanishing. I make no request for an end to liberty or law, merely the delusion that there is something that by way of being human is deserved, as if we have no right to die or be killed. (no one who speaks of our 'self-evident' rights bothers to say from whence they came)

I don't quite follow you. You are claiming that you make no request for an end to liberty or law, yet you want humans to be given the right to treat other humans in the same way they treat other animals? On one reading, this almost looks contradictory. On another reading I interpret you as requesting that we rid ourselves of the metaphysical category of rights. Well, we can go ahead and do that but why does it really matter if this can be done while not ridding ourselves of liberty and law (actual rights)? What would we be doing beyond merely changing the way we talk about things? What difference does any of this make to the world? Why should I care? The whole reason I cared in the first place was because you seemed to be suggesting that we actually drop our restrictions on people. At this point I don't think I really care anymore.

Anyway, I can't get past the following seeming inconsistency in your view. You seem to be suggesting that we ought give up the notion of human rights, you even seem to think that we ought to give up the notion of normativity in general. You keep employing all these oughts but I thought normativity was supposed to be in question here.

our pretense war is "just" but terrorism is "wrong" for one.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. I really do not see how that is supposed to follow.

well of course it's invoked by people who speak of human rights, but that doesn't say anything about our actually having human rights.

I never claimed that it did.

Equality is never better. It's why we've throughout history never wanted equality, we want control and power because it makes the world a better place for us.

We've never wanted equality because equality is never better? Well, I never wanted vegetables when I was a youngster but that was not because it was better that I did not eat vegetables.

gays and blacks and children and women, before they were seen as equal the world was a much better place... for us.

So what? Believe it or not but I actually give an inkling of a shit for people outside of my own race and sexual preference class.

but again, I'm not saying much would change, keep law and liberty, just because we drop the pretense that governments have no right to torture suspected whoevers doesn't mean we would allow them to do it (since we ourselves would fear being regarded as such suspects) and in a national army like the US military, (rather than the peoples army like in China) the government wouldn't even have the force to sustain such oppression because even these people would not want such a thing to occur. Apply the notion in a thousand situations and the world doesn't change, it merely drops a baseless delusion.

Ok, but once again I am finding myself caring less and less whether or not we do what you want all of us to do. What is the point of, e.g. getting rid of the notion of God if we still act as if there is a God?

what are your concerns? I've been thinking/writing about this for a fair amount of time now, I'm sure I can address them.

Well, I thought your view had some really harsh consequences. I don't know what to think anymore though. Eliminating rapists and similar folks does not seem to me like a terribly unjust thing to do so that's why it's not such a huge concern for me.

 

[Cythraul]

oh dear oh dear oh dear. The fact is a sociopath can't relate to his victim. I know I don't want someone to steal my ipod, but if an ipod is sitting on the desk and no one is around you're damn right I'm going to steal it, despite my empathy. all actions are on 'an equal moral footing,' you just don't realise, to quote Dick Sutphen "you've been brainwashed since birth to worry about what other people think."

So are defending yourself against the charge of sociopath or are you not? You would somehow feel some guilt for stealing someone's ipod yet you'd steal it anyway? I'm still not sure if I'd feel safe running into you in a dark alley

I don't believe that people ought not rape others.

I believe in a society full of people who hate rapists you ought not rape if (qualifier here) you're likely to get caught. If you can drug her and kill her and dispose of the body and have a good alibi then there is no 'ought not'

What? What is your position? Is it ok with you for somebody to rape another person if they can get away with it? How is there no 'ought not' if one can drug their victim, kill them, dispose of the body, and have a good alibi? I don't see how that's supposed to affect the status of any normative claims.

You seem to be suggesting that society ought to be such that the people in the society hate rapists. Why? What else does this amount to other than your thinking that rape ought not to occur and that in a society composed of such individuals rape will be punished and likely deterred? Am I not following you correctly?

 

[Seditious]

I do not think so. Speaking of an allowance (rights) implys there is some corresponding disallowance. Why would it make sense, to suggest we have a 'right to torture others' any more than it makes sense to suggest we have a 'right to not be tortured'?

Because it isn't that we have a duty to do either, just that we can---as you say, capabilities. The 'corresponding disallowance' is in your right to stop someone torturing you. They have a right to do it, but you don't have a duty to allow people to unimpeded pursue their rights.

In a world of rights talk it would be difficult to explain to people they have the right to do anything by saying 'you have no rights.' Essentially, I think, it's saying you have no duties.

How would I suggest it be phrased? How about 'rights are a human invention with no validity outside of that which humans choose to give'? Perhaps it is needless quibbling, but it did seem to me you were somewhat contradicting yourself with the 'rights are bullshit, we should have the right to do anything'-esque approach :.

It may be poor wording, but I assure you there is no contradiction. I'm speaking of rights in the Natural Law sense of the word. The rights of today are bullshit, baseless, for really they're not rights but threats, just as the rights of Jews in Nazi Germany were baseless bullshit, it's merely power, not actual 'rights' in any Natural Law validation of the word.

If 'rights are a human invention with no validity outside of that which humans choose to give' then what are we to say of our infinite possibility and freedom---in a world of rights talk to speak of capabilities isn't enough because 'rights' today are those things which interupt capabilities, they would say 'sure you have capabilities, but ones you have no right to' so the only way to get through to them is to battle them for the right to use their own word.

you take issue with more than just the wording 'human rights' yes?

yes, I take issue with the idea that all humans by virtue of being human actaully 'have' these 'human rights' we've invented recently. I believe if 10 people were on an island and everyone else on Earth was dead, there would be no such thing as a right not to kill or be raped or be enslaved or what have you. The idea of human rights isn't philosophically supported anywhere.

On the one hand you seem to suggest that you will support laws (applications of societal force that reduce the rights of the individual, for the supposed benefit of a majority of individuals) that you think are worthwhile, (of benefit to you) but then go on to suggest that we should have infinite rights? I can't see the line in the sand you seem to be able to draw...

Laws, to me, are nothing but the voice of the power majority (be it 'the majority' of the populus, or the minority of the people who have the power). Everyone has the right to do what they wish... which includes saying 'we don't want people stealing our food' and if the power majority own farms, and people steal their food, well good, skin the thieves alive for all I care, they have the right to. Of course, if the majority of the people own farms, and a minority have all the power and decide to steal all their food off the people, they have the right to, and while the majority have 'the right' to stop them, they're not going to because they don't have the power to. Everyone having the right to do as they choose, law is but the counteract which can be expected. If you're not going to stop me from stealing your ipod I'll do it, if you are, I wont, even though I have the right to do it, its up to you if you use your right to stop me... and if the whole society hates thieves and I'm likely to face a life I don't like if I steal your ipod, though I have the right to, if I'm smart, I wont.

In today's world I'm supposed to think I don't have the right to do that, that Hilter didn't have the right to do what he did, that if the conspiracy theorist are right and 'globalists' enslave and exterminate most of mankind, that they 'dont have the right' to do it.

Talk of 'fundamental human rights' and the like is really just using an 'everyone thinks so, thus you're blatantly wrong and inherantly evil if you think otherwise' argument as a foundation, rather than actually making a substantiated point.

of course. With Kant's second formulation, sure that may hold in today's world because none of us want to be ends/slaves, but that most of us agree about it, and thus there is such an international force willing to stop anyone from doing such a thing, does nothing to suggest people have a duty not to do such a thing because humans have 'human rights'. That Humanity Formula is not based on anything from which people can be persuaded to agree by reason, it is merely something a lot of people will agree to because they like the outcome of it.

 

[Seditious]

I interpret you as requesting that we rid ourselves of the metaphysical category of rights. Well, we can go ahead and do that but why does it really matter if this can be done while not ridding ourselves of liberty and law (actual rights)? What would we be doing beyond merely changing the way we talk about things?

The fundamental difference is in perception, and secondly, in the dominance of pluralistic morality.

To no longer say 'the rapist is evil and going to hell' to no longer say 'he had no right to do that' to no longer say 'we must not use mass destruction strategies in war' and 'we don't have the right to torture terror suspects.'

The whole reason I cared in the first place was because you seemed to be suggesting that we actually drop our restrictions on people. At this point I don't think I really care anymore..

we drop our moral restrictions on people, because ethics is bullshit.

why should you care? you shouldn't, besides smoking marajuana all the inequalities in place today probably serve you quite well. you shouldn't care any more than a white man in slave-era America should have cared about the plight of the slaves.

Anyway, I can't get past the following seeming inconsistency in your view. You seem to be suggesting that we ought give up the notion of human rights, you even seem to think that we ought to give up the notion of normativity in general. You keep employing all these oughts but I thought normativity was supposed to be in question here.

eh?

I don't think I said we ought to give up our inequalities/rights talk, just that it's hypocritical and baseless and can't be supported. I don't think Hitler ought have given up his shit with the Jews either, even though it was all baseless and he could give no philosophical support for it either.

So what? Believe it or not but I actually give an inkling of a shit for people outside of my own race and sexual preference class.
.

Yet you're happy to cut off the idea of people having the right to do as they please at some point
first the largest outcasts were accepted, women, then a smaller group, blacks, then an even smaller group, gays... we still have our perceptual inequalities, we just keep letting in the biggest opposed groups through time.

Ok, but once again I am finding myself caring less and less whether or not we do what you want all of us to do. What is the point of, e.g. getting rid of the notion of God if we still act as if there is a God?
.

what are you on about here?

Well, I thought your view had some really harsh consequences. I don't know what to think anymore though. Eliminating rapists and similar folks does not seem to me like a terribly unjust thing to do so that's why it's not such a huge concern for me.

eliminating anyone doesn't seem like a terribly unjust thing to me. what's unjust to me is thinking some people deserve not to be eliminated any more than any others.

 

[Seditious]

So are defending yourself against the charge of sociopath or are you not?

I am.

You would somehow feel some guilt for stealing someone's ipod yet you'd steal it anyway?

guilt is a delusion I should not have. If I was raised a vegan and made to pity living meat I would hope to be free of that manipulation so I can eat the meat if I need to eat meat to survive well.

I'm still not sure if I'd feel safe running into you in a dark alley

you shouldn't be sure. Depending on how much a lion or mouse you are I'm not sure if I'd feel safe to do something to you in a dark alley...

Where you lose the delusion of morality and focus on self-interest it's not easy to predict people's behavior.

What? What is your position? Is it ok with you for somebody to rape another person if they can get away with it?

Yes. It's also ok to kill a rapist if you can get away with it. That's what having the right to do anything supposes.

How is there no 'ought not' if one can drug their victim, kill them, dispose of the body, and have a good alibi? I don't see how that's supposed to affect the status of any normative claims.

Because, 'if raping her is what he wants, why ought he not rape her if he can get away with it?'

Where is your premise to suggest he 'ought' to anything other than what he wants to do? I'm fully with Spinoza on this one, the only ground to compell someone to do anything rationally is by appealing to their own self-interest. The alternative is to brainwash them into thinking compassionately, which is the pathology I oppose.

You seem to be suggesting that society ought to be such that the people in the society hate rapists. Why?

not at all. I'm not sure how you misunderstand me.

If anything I suggest societies are 'likely' to be such that the people hate rapists... why? because people don't like being raped and don't like living in fear that they or others they like will be raped.

Am I not following you correctly?

evidently.

 

[Norsemaiden]

in the state of nature man will have sex with many women he isn't married too, and maybe who aren't even willing, or of adult age....

I'd like to know which Christians support man in this form of behavior.

Monogamy exists in some species in Nature. In mankind, I would say that the monogamy of the ancient Germanics was in their nature and not a product of law or artificially imposed custom. Similarly there are cultures where men continue to have "sex with many women he isn't married too, and maybe who aren't even willing, or of adult age....".

 

[Seditious]

Monogamy exists in some species in Nature. In mankind, I would say that the monogamy of the ancient Germanics was in their nature and not a product of law or artificially imposed custom. Similarly there are cultures where men continue to have "sex with many women he isn't married too, and maybe who aren't even willing, or of adult age....".

ok let me rephrase... men who can't find a mate (women have standards right?) may have sex with women he isn't monogamous with (or married in particular to this Christian point I was addressing), or even who aren't willing.

 

[Cythraul]

we drop our moral restrictions on people, because ethics is bullshit.

why should you care? you shouldn't, besides smoking marajuana all the inequalities in place today probably serve you quite well. you shouldn't care any more than a white man in slave-era America should have cared about the plight of the slaves.

Why should I care? Because I have moral principles that I believe are important. You're telling me I shouldn't care yet you're trying to argue against moral normativity? Could you be any more inconsistent?

eh?

I don't think I said we ought to give up our inequalities/rights talk, just that it's hypocritical and baseless and can't be supported.

What? Then why the hell are you arguing against it? So you think such talk is baseless? Great. Is this anything more than an inconsequential mental exercise for you?

Yet you're happy to cut off the idea of people having the right to do as they please at some point

Umm, yes? Just because I believe in some rights and a general notion of rights it does not commit me to the belief that the right to do whatever the hell you want should be granted. Explain to me how I ought to be committed to that.

first the largest outcasts were accepted, women, then a smaller group, blacks, then an even smaller group, gays... we still have our perceptual inequalities, we just keep letting in the biggest opposed groups through time.

What is your point?

what are you on about here?

You seemed to suggest in a previous post that we get rid of the notion of rights and yet continue to act as if people really do have rights, e.g. not giving up actual liberty and law. If that's your position then I do not care about it and the whole debate is just a waste of time if you ask me.

eliminating anyone doesn't seem like a terribly unjust thing to me. what's unjust to me is thinking some people deserve not to be eliminated any more than any others.

What is your reasoning behind this? As far as I'm concerned, you're not even allowed to employ the notion of justice, given your general position on these sorts of matters.

 

[Cythraul]

Where is your premise to suggest he 'ought' to anything other than what he wants to do? I'm fully with Spinoza on this one, the only ground to compell someone to do anything rationally is by appealing to their own self-interest. The alternative is to brainwash them into thinking compassionately, which is the pathology I oppose.

Why are you opposed to such "brainwashing"? Is this some moral principle you hold which says that people ought not to be "brainwashed" in such a way?

not at all. I'm not sure how you misunderstand me.

If anything I suggest societies are 'likely' to be such that the people hate rapists... why? because people don't like being raped and don't like living in fear that they or others they like will be raped.

You said that you believe in a society that hates rapists. This could mean either of the following: 1) You believe that there are societies which hate rapists or 2) You believe in such a society in the sense that you believe there should be such a society. If you meant the first one then so what? It's entirely obvious that there are such societies. We live in one.

So societies are likely to be that way? I don't see what your point is here. What is this supposed to prove?

 

[Seditious]

Why should I care? Because I have moral principles that I believe are important. You're telling me I shouldn't care yet you're trying to argue against moral normativity? Could you be any more inconsistent?.

oh, I thought you meant care about what I'm proposing. You shouldn't care about that any more than Hitler should care I think his jewkilling is a bad idea (were I alive back then). But sure, care that I think your 'moral principles' are a joke. sure.

What? Then why the hell are you arguing against it? So you think such talk is baseless? Great. Is this anything more than an inconsequential mental exercise for you?

the same reason I'd argue against Christianity, maybe The Crusades would never have happened if people didn't have the moral delusion about being 'sinners'.

Umm, yes? Just because I believe in some rights and a general notion of rights it does not commit me to the belief that the right to do whatever the hell you want should be granted. Explain to me how I ought to be committed to that.

You ought not, any more than I ought be commited to your 'rights'

What is your point?

you care about some people, but you draw the line somewhere. that line used to be further away, it is progressive getting closer, I don't know why you'd think you're right in keeping it where it is as if it's some self evident right to do so.

You seemed to suggest in a previous post that we get rid of the notion of rights and yet continue to act as if people really do have rights, e.g. not giving up actual liberty and law. If that's your position then I do not care about it and the whole debate is just a waste of time if you ask me.

well, you're short-sighted if you ask me.

What is your reasoning behind this? As far as I'm concerned, you're not even allowed to employ the notion of justice, given your general position on these sorts of matters.

nor are you, given yours, as far as I'm concerned.

Why are you opposed to such "brainwashing"? Is this some moral principle you hold which says that people ought not to be "brainwashed" in such a way?

Stop right there. Where did I say I am opposed to that? Where? Did I say it or are you trying to assume inconsistencies again?

I just think we ought accept that that is what it is, I never said 'we ought not do it' and I never would.

You said that you believe in a society that hates rapists. This could mean either of the following: 1) You believe that there are societies which hate rapists or 2) You believe in such a society in the sense that you believe there should be such a society. If you meant the first one then so what? It's entirely obvious that there are such societies. We live in one.

lol I don't know if I said 'I believe in societies hating rapists' as if promoting that they should do it lmao. but of course I meant the former.

So societies are likely to be that way? I don't see what your point is here. What is this supposed to prove?

Well it has been a while since I posted that reply to you, so I can understand your forgetting.

You asked "Is it ok with you for somebody to rape another person if they can get away with it?"

I said yes, and then I corrected your misunderstandings.

 

[Έρεβος]

I request a pause- Talk of "rights" (or moral "obligation") is highly ambiguous. What is the ontological standing of "right(s)"? What is this sort of mechanism, pact, guarantee, its functionality/relationality? What "grants" them, enables them, sustains them? It seems to me that the liberal tradition (including, ironically, our present day "analytic" thought) is a most obscure ontotheology.

A further request- Lets not fall back on the murky, almost seedy, notions of "reason" and "rationality" which, not coincidentally, always find themselves hitched to and in the service of the conceptual schemata put forth as argument. "Reason" seems to be, absent the gods, the most universal justification that is the engine, the drive, for all argument systems- that magical operation the whole thing turns on.

As another has said, we must evaluate our notions of the human. I contend that the analytic of Dasein in conjunction with a careful anthropology (science in general, but not as we know it today) is an important step in confronting our existence, but not in order to put forth another system of "under-standing" (another metaphysics).

"Rights" and other notions of "humanism" are foreign to such thinking.

I love you Justin. <3

 

[Norsemaiden]

I love you Justin. <3

Yes that was probably my favourite post by Justin

 

[infoterror]

Monogamy exists in some species in Nature. In mankind, I would say that the monogamy of the ancient Germanics was in their nature and not a product of law or artificially imposed custom. Similarly there are cultures where men continue to have "sex with many women he isn't married too, and maybe who aren't even willing, or of adult age....".

It probably has a lot to do with intelligence. Smarter creatures are less fascinated by the physical, or the idea of randomly spreading DNA. They'd rather use a high investment strategy, which also maximizes romantic experience.

 

[Justin S.]

To: The poster formerly known as amoogle, and Norsemaiden,

The spreading of love and kindness is most appropriate for this thread. My heart is warmed twofold, by praise and the attack.

(my absolutely needless and silly hyperbolic way of saying I haven't overlooked your comments)

 

[infoterror]

Humanism, or the idea of treating humans well, is anthrocentric but its real problem is that it limits our thinking to only human issues. Since those issues must be shared in common, they become assessed in terms of the material, and shortly thereafter we do ourselves in.

 

[cryosteel]

I never said I have a problem with that. I only have a problem with any other "method of survival" being judged immoral.

We find ourselves off track when morality of methods outweigh the merit of goals. Inaction is immoral when moral taboo on available methods creates inaction toward a meritous goal or necessity. Judging methods before goals and ignoring the consequences of inaction seems typical in public society's failings. We do have two exceptions to this rule in modern times:

Commercial
The means (method) of making profit (goal) is less subject to moral judgement than other civil society affairs. Profit and the promise of employing X number of generic bipeds is usually considered more important than the eventual consequences of the activity. This gets us our ecocide, pollution and cancers (immoral). Moral profit/employment now is greater than immoral destruction later. Let the unborn pay the price in the future. We won't be around when they judge us anyways.

Military
Commanders in battle may have to make tactical decisions that put innocent bystanders in harm's way. For example, the enemy may choose to dig in among civilian dwellings. The commander may choose to have the dwellings bombed to rubble before the enemy is in position. An enemy dug in with plenty of cover will result in many more casualties and a much lengthier battle. This is where the goal of area denial is deemed more important than the means of attaining the objective.

 

[Seditious]

We find ourselves off track when morality of methods outweigh the merit of goals.

Utilitarianism?

Commercial
The means (method) of making profit (goal) is less subject to moral judgement than other civil society affairs.

tell that to the alcohol and cigarette companies who aren't allowed to sponsor events or advertise on TV.