Posted on 10/17/2003 4:04:27 PM PDT by TXLibertarian
A man named Jesus Christ walked the earth, and either his disciples who walked with him for three years were lying (in which case they spent their entire lives in poverty, as social outcasts, scorned, sick, persecuted and eventually martyred for something they knew to be a lie), or they were mistaken and somehow missed the fact that the tomb had a body, and entered into a mass group psychosis leading them to have conversations with the risen Christ and produce reams of wonderfully logical, rational and fulfilling Bible verses over a period of decades, and organize churches all the while being irretrievably insane. Or they are telling the truth. The great god krksjhflas can claim none of these things. You cannot say definitively that God does not exist. Christians, however, have the Word, real world evidence, the evidence of the radical change in mind and heart that accompanies the Christian conversion and, more importantly, the evidence of the Holy Spirit which speaks to all who believe. No atheist can live consistently with his or her claimed presuppositions without becoming nihilists or winding up in a mental institution. Very, very few people live day to day as if there is no such thing as higher truth. Everyone dislikes having their rights violated, knows right from wrong, and does want to be persecuted, despite the fact that rights lose all meaning without God. This is because God has implanted himself in everyone, but we must search to hear Him speak. So again I wish you all of God's blessings and will pray for you. Be well. Perhaps we will talk again.
Me, I see two apples, I bring into view two more apples, and then I see four apples. I abstract out the apples, and it still works quite nicely. To you this somehow leads to a contradiction without reference to action by god. I don't see the contradiction. But at least you have made it clear that you cannot make sense of anything, even simple arithmetic, without appealing to god. I am very sorry for you. It does nicely explain why you might accuse everyone from school math teachers to biologists of being dreaded atheists as they dare attempt to give kids explanations of common phenomena that give no mention of a deity. They should answer all kids' questions with a simple, "because god makes it so."
Sorry, I do not believe that my wife has an absolute right to...
You clearly choose not to or simply do not understand what I have written in multiplicate. You continue to wish to speak past what I have struggled to convey to you. Why don't you advance the debate and stop speaking in such terms? Are you incapable or just thoughtless? I don't know, but until you respond to the extensive writings I have already posted to you, there is no point in continuing. Repetition gets monotonous.
Besides, here is the kicker - toddlers cannot be "peacefully persuaded."
Fact #3 remains something that is not entirely consistent at all times.
And there you go again and again. You cannot claim to disagree with my points until you attempt to understand my points. You can start with an understanding of simple English grammar then go back and read FACT#3. If you really care about a thoughtful debate, go back and read what I wrote, give it at least a minute's thought, and kindly respond to it. It is not at all complicated. Until then I'll leave you to your repetitious monologues. I'm getting a headache from banging my head against the walls you have put up.
In any case, you wish to determine human rights by observing that human beings have values that others will alter their behavior to avoid conflicting. That is not workable in every circumstance in my opinion, if you want rights to be the same for everyone. Here are my reasons:
1. Sometimes violent or tyrannical people do not alter their behavior with others. Therefore by your construct the right to live is not universal. I will not assert that human beings have a right to life in America but not in Sudan, where I observe the government acting in violation of the values of the populace.
2. In some circumstances people do not exhibit values because they are unable to - an infant cannot stop someone from taking his or her life. In fact they wouldn't even try. Therefore you could not observe an infant valuing his or her life.
A comatose human, or a vegetable, cannot attempt to stop you from stealing his possessions or taking his life. He would make no sign that he values anything at all.
3. Just because I observe a value in someone else and try to avoid it does not make it a "right."
Which brings me to my opinion on what rights are - gifts from God that, if human beings attempt to take without due process, result in temporal or eternal sanctions.
If something does not meet this criteria it is not a right but a preference.
For the above reasons, we need an eternal standard that does not change. People are made in the image of God, and have rights whether they are comatose, infants, subject to those who do not recognize their right to live, or whatever.
I have given this matter true thought. And, as I said in my last message, I do wish you well. God bless.
I take you at your word.
I have said that your fact #3, that human beings can be peacefully persuaded, is true. ...I cannot say that it is true in every circumstance. I am sorry if that offends you.
Not offends but stupifies. I admit my frustration shows. You and I clearly speak a different language. How someone can think that a fact is both true and not true is beyond me. I did give these points some consideration, and have not, depite our discussions on it, felt the need to amend them, though I would do so if necessary. Furthermore, it wasn't by accident that I labelled them as "facts". If it isn't true in all circumstances, then simply say that IT ISN'T TRUE. Tell me that it cannot be a fact, and then kindly tell me why. If on the otherhand, you merely want to point out the fact that humans (not to mention trees, frogs, tornados, sand, etc.) are also observed to NOT respond to peaceful persuasion, then just say so. I would have thought that it was obvious, but point out the obvious if you wish. I couldn't possibly disagree. It does not however, as I have tried at length to explain, contradict FACT#3. I think on such obvious points of contention as FACT#3, we can expect some precision in our language.
In any case, you wish to determine human rights by observing that human beings have values that others will alter their behavior to avoid conflicting. That is not workable in every circumstance
It is not my wish, but my, and I'm quite sure your, observation that this does occur. I have no emotional attachment other than to say if it isn't true, there is some grand illusionist at work trying to fool me. You say it doesn't occur in EVERY human interaction? You say human conflict does actually happen? Well, you could knock me over with a feather.
My point again is that rights are relevant to WHEN IT DOES HAPPEN, NOT WHEN IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. I further say, that if it NEVER happened, then there would be no concept of rights at all. The fact that humans, or rams, or boulders can knock each other around is only relevant in that, against a sea of examples of Newton's second law (yes including humans as well), there is a glimmer of light, in the form of FACT#3, that shows a different mechanism. From that glimmer, we develop the notion of rights.
if you want rights to be the same for everyone
The laws of nature are utterly indifferent.
...human beings have a right to...
Maybe I've been too impatient. I admit that you do use the term "rights" in a common way. I also use it that way in casual conversation. But behind such usage I try to understand the mechanisms. You might say that houses came from god as well, but will god look askance at you for investigating the more mundane details of house construction? You might say that god gives you life, but should we burn surgeons for trying to understand the mundane mechanisms of circulation, tissue repair, and infection? If not, then why would you think that you oppose god by trying to gain an understanding of the facts underlying the real world manifestation of rights? Trust me, god will not strike you down for using the intellect that he gave you.
I recognize that you gave several more examples of humans not responding to persuasion, and humans not holding values, or even holding a thought. I will say that, again, rights are relevant only from FACTS 1-3. One cannot ever choose to respond to another's values if one is never conscious. These are, again, cold hard facts. It is not a matter of liking them, only recognizing and understanding them.
Now if you have a vision of how people OUGHT to choose to behave rather than simply how, by way of their nature, they do behave, then we get into a discussion of values. I'm not saying values are trivial or always irrational. Having strong values myself, I'm certainly not saying all values are equal. I'm simply pointing out that when you talk about how dear you hold something, how much something means to you, or how much you disapprove of something, then you are speaking of your values.
It is important to distinguish values from observations. Observations help us to understand how the world must work regardless of human opinion. On the other hand, understanding values helps us understand how people make decisions and choose to live, whether as blood thirsty warmongers, or devout Christian monks, or any of a seemingly endless other options.
An example of this distinction is the innocent newborn baby. It cannot have ever made any decisions respecting anyone else's values. If the world consisted of only that baby and one other human, a normal adult, then rights have no relevence in that world because all decisions are unilateral, and no amount of persuasion can have any effect on the baby. There is no conflict of values since there is only one valuer (see FACT#2). What does matter greatly, however, is the immense value that people place in babies. Rights then may come into play between a person who values the baby, and a person who does not (and sadly, there are such people).
Perhaps part of the confusion between rights and values comes from the fact that not only rights are uniquely human, but so is the capacity to judge, and therefore morality. Rights and morality (a manifestation of values) are not the same, but of course, as is observed in FACTS1-3, the manifestation of rights is dependent upon values.
I see I've written too much, and I don't expect you will read it. But there it is, and I'm too tired to delete any of it.
If the world consisted of only that baby and one other human, a normal adult, then rights have no relevence in that world because all decisions are unilateral, and no amount of persuasion can have any effect on the baby.
Here is where you and I disagree. Whether we can observe that the baby has any values that someone can avoid conflicting with really makes no difference in the Christian moral construct, which I believe to be the right one. I believe that God extends rights to infants, or other non-responsive persons, even though they do not have discernable value expressions in every case. In other words, that baby expresses no overt value to his life. But the Christian worldview says that he has the right to live anyway, because he was created by God and bears his image, and ultimately if someone takes the baby's life they are accountable to God.
Of course by the construct you have set up that is illogical. But that is the difference between our positions: I believe rights to be eternal, to come from a supernatural source that gives the mark of the deity to every human being He creates. In this sense, rights are not dependent on human observation or situation.
My point again is that rights are relevant to WHEN IT DOES HAPPEN, NOT WHEN IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. I further say, that if it NEVER happened, then there would be no concept of rights at all...One cannot ever choose to respond to another's values if one is never conscious. These are, again, cold hard facts. It is not a matter of liking them, only recognizing and understanding them.
I believe you are speaking here that rights are present when, again, observation can be made that values are present and are respected by others. This is another perfect place to express our differences. This is a relativistic view of human rights - that is, relative to human observation. The Christian viewpoint makes rights relative not to human observation, but rather dependent upon God's real work in each human life, as I explained above.
One more analogy (and I'll try to make this the last one!) Let's say I observe a bully in a schoolyard. He values some other child's milk money, and takes it. No one stands in his way because they are all afraid. The Christian worldview says those children still have a right to their milk money, even if they do express an observable value in favor of it. I do not believe that your construct could affirm it. Correct me if I'm wrong.
At last I think I have a handle on where we both stand. This is good. Look forward to your response.
... In FR, no one can hear your screams ...
You use "relativistic" here in a very unique way. You actually use it in a sentence so that it means exactly the opposite of what it usually means. Very clever. You use it differently than those who speak of "moral relativism" which refers to values disconnected from the objective (i.e. observable) world. You instead use it in the way a subjectivist uses it, who denies the absolute truth of the external world as it is made known to us through our observations. At any rate, in all the common uses of the term "relativistic", my description of the origins of rights is precisely the opposite. If you are not to base your view on the world you observe, than you must be creating it fiat within your mind. That would make you a subjectivist.
...I observe a bully in a schoolyard. He values some other child's milk money, and takes it. No one stands in his way because they are all afraid. ...those children still have a right to their milk money, even if they do [not] express an observable value in favor of it. I do not believe that your construct could affirm it. Correct me if I'm wrong.
At last I think I have a handle on where we both stand.
You don't, and I still can hardly believe it. Will a light bulb eventually go on, or will the spinning wheel just keep goin' 'round?
That you say someone doesn't "express an observable" value in something does not mean that that person doesn't hold a value. But more to the point, it has no bearing on the observation that I, you, and most of mankind has had of FACTS1-3 as properties of the human species.
You keep missing the obvious point which is that I am not asking you to believe some strange notion, some disconnected concoction of my imagination, or byzantine intellectual theory. I am merely pointing out (in FACTS 1-3) what you know to be true directly from your repeated observations of it. Once you tell me, and mean it, that FACTS1-3 are true, that you have seen it over and over again, OR if you can show me that they are not true, then we will have made a connection.
Once that is accomplished we can move on to FACT4, which unlike FACTS1-3, may not be blatantly obvious. Only then will we be able to see how, with or without certainty of belief in an absolute god-given moral truth, the workings of rights, exactly as they exist today, came to be.
No, it means that if human rights is dependent on human observation, our concept of rights could change with what we observe, thus making it relative. God, on the other hand, does not change, therefore a theocentric view of human rights can be applied to all people and at all times.
That you say someone doesn't "express an observable" value in something does not mean that that person doesn't hold a value.
Really? Then how do you know they have this value if you can't observe them expressing it? In this case, how can you say they have any rights at all? The Christian can say that human beings have rights whether they express values or not. But you cannot. Your entire system is set up on human observation, which is finite. That is where we differ.
Your comments made me think of a few other things you said.
You said, speaking of my various analogies in which human beings have no conscious thought or express no conscious values, "I recognize that you gave several more examples of humans not responding to persuasion, and humans not holding values, or even holding a thought. I will say that, again, rights are relevant only from FACTS 1-3. One cannot ever choose to respond to another's values if one is never conscious."
This is where you and I differ. I believe a comatose man, though he expresses no discernible values at all, has the same rights as you and I. I believe this because his rights come from an eternal source - from God. You don't believe this because your idea of human rights stems entirely from the finite - what we can observe here.
You also said, speaking of your definition of rights as being where others avoid conflicting with another's values, "My point again is that rights are relevant to WHEN IT DOES HAPPEN, NOT WHEN IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. I further say, that if it NEVER happened, then there would be no concept of rights at all."
And again we disagree - I think rights are present whether values are expressed or not. Even if no one on earth recognized anyone else's right to life, then the right to life would still be present inGod's eternal law.
Regarding newborn babies, you said, "What does matter greatly, however, is the immense value that people place in babies. Rights then may come into play between a person who values the baby, and a person who does not (and sadly, there are such people).
So a baby only has rights because someone else imputes it to them? So if no one values the baby then it is okay to violate his/her rights? Sorry, that does not begin to hold up in my opinion. In an abortion clinic no one values the baby. Not the mother and certainly not the doctor. Yet that baby has a right to live. When a teenage mother gives birth and drops the baby in the dumpster, no one imputes values to the baby because no one cares. Yet that baby has the right to live. Again, rights do not depend on anyone but God. So the baby has rights, even if they can't express them, even if no one is there to "impute" it to them.
Only then will we be able to see how, with or without certainty of belief in an absolute god-given moral truth, the workings of rights, exactly as they exist today, came to be.
There is no absolute moral truth without God. I think I've shown, repeatedly, that your construct of human rights does not give rights to all people in all circumstances. If you are prepared to accept that this is true, then fine.
YOU: No, it means that if human rights is dependent on human observation, our concept of rights could change with what we observe, thus making it relative.
What, in anything that I have written, could possibly make you think that? Look, if you are denying the validity of our senses, like all subjectivists must, then just say so. If instead you believe there exists a world independent of all human thought that is absolutely the same for every human and every thing, then understand that observation is the mechanism by which we learn of that world.
So ONCE AGAIN (as if you'll pay attention this time), the FACTS that I presented I labelled as "facts" because, they are from the absolutely true for everything world that you and I can mutually agree to because indeed, through our window to the world, our observations, we see that they are true. If instead I've been hallucinating FACTS1-3, then please tell me.
Finally, as an aside, ALL of EVERYONE's concepts of EVERYTHING are dependent upon observation. Had you been born and raised in an isolation chamber, you would not even have a concept of god. This is the reverse of the REAL (vs. your) relativist's view that instead states that the external world is dependent upon the human mind.
Then how do you know they have this value if you can't observe them expressing it? In this case, how can you say they have any rights at all?
I probably don't know anything about any number of things that I have not observed. As I've said for going on 30 times now, AMONG ALL MY OBSERVATIONS IS INCLUDED FACTS1-3. And I didn't say that anything has rights. I am telling you that every manifestion of rights that you or I have observed are explained by the simple FACTS1-3.
Your entire system is set up on human observation, which is finite.
Again you say this and I cannot extract any meaning from it. What is a finite observation? What is an infinite observation? What does being finite or infinite have to do with respecting a person's rights?
I believe a comatose man, though he expresses no discernible values at all, has the same rights as you and I. I believe this because his rights come from an eternal source - from God. You don't
I didn't say he wouldn't have the same rights as you or I. I said that rights are only relevant from FACTS1-3. When you understand the origins of rights (FACTS1-3), then you see that things have to have the capacity for a rights relationship. That doesn't mean that something without the capacity for rights is unimportant or unloved or unwanted or unequal or unworthy. That confusion comes from your inability to separate values from observed fact, which is the nature of a subjectivist.
So a baby only has rights because someone else imputes it to them? So if no one values the baby then it is okay to violate his/her rights?
The answers to your questions are OF COURSE NO AND HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY GET THAT FROM WHAT I WROTE?
Maybe you are trying for a discussion, but I find it extremely hard to believe. The very language you use is intended to speak past everything I've tried to add to the debate. All I know for sure is (1) that you appear to have no idea what I've been writing about, and (2) what I've been writing about is exquisitely simple. I can try to once again direct you toward a way of thinking that will allow us to debate our respective views, but I can't think of a way of doing it differently that I have already tried. I'm sorry this has all been a waste of time.
Because you said this, "What does matter greatly, however, is the immense value that people place in babies. Rights then may come into play between a person who values the baby, and a person who does not (and sadly, there are such people)."
In the above statement you put the onus for rights on those who care for babies rather than babies themselves. I pointed out the inconsistency of that position through my abortion clinic analogy. Surely you can see, from the above statement you made, why I might take your statement the way I did.
You seem very exercised that I haven't acknowledged your Unalterable Facts 1-4 in awhile. I'll explain again why I think your system of observing values that lead to rights are, at best, incomplete.
Fact 1: humans act to preserve and advance their values. Fact 2: human values (and therefore actions) can and do conflict. Fact 3: humans, among all things we observe in our environment, are uniquely controllable through peaceful persuasion. Fact 4: rights, as they are practically manifested in this world, stem from the truth of facts 1 and 2 and the personal recognition of fact 3.
Rights for an individual are those individual's values for which another individual is willing to alter his behavior in order to avoid conflict.
Given the way you are describing it, I acknowledge the correctness of Facts 1 and 2. Regarding Fact #3, human beings can be peacefully persuaded to respect the values of others. But often they will not be. As I pointed out, the direct evidence for this is the fact that police forces, armies, and other means of violent coercion are often needed to persuade people not to infringe on the values of others. So they can be peacefully persuaded but often choose not to be.
Again, one more hypothetical. If every single human being on planet earth refused to recognize the right of Jews to live, the Christian worldview would still say that these people have the right to live, even if no one on earth acknowledged the value they attached to life.
I have already pointed out at great length that your construct cannot account for those who cannot communicate their values in an observable way (the comatose man or the baby).
Thus your system cannot account for human rights for all people at all times. Rather it bases itself on judgment relative to the finite observational capacity of a human being.
YOU: So a baby only has rights because someone else imputes it to them? So if no one values the baby then it is okay to violate his/her rights?
And I am dumbfounded that you think your response follows from my statement. Especially in light of how I actually repeatedly characterized the origin of rights. Whether something is "okay" or not comes down to values. It is a VALUE STATEMENT. That too is a fact. That is what the words mean.
I pointed out the inconsistency
Now I'm convinced that you don't even know what the word "inconsistency" means.
Regarding Fact #3, human beings can be peacefully persuaded to respect the values of others. But often they will not be.
Now you are simply proving your own persistent rudeness or stubbern inability to understand English. FACT#3, as any English speaking person can tell you, is unaffected by how "often they will not be" unless you can tell me that it is NEVER. And obviously I wasted all my time explaining that to you. Thanks for not reading my posts.
your construct cannot account for those who cannot communicate their values in an observable way
How would you know, since you obviously haven't a clue as to what my "construct" is? It turns out that you are WRONG but we will never get the point of discussing that because you insist on arguing against some strange mental creation of your own.
Thus your system cannot account for human rights for all people at all times.
Just the opposite is true. Again, as I have explained at length.
Rather it bases itself on judgment relative to the finite observational capacity of a human being.
And your view bases itself on your judgement of god's will and your finite observational capacity of everything. Since you do not possess ANY infinite observational capacity, whatever that is supposed to mean.
If you wish to make sense, try to gain an understanding of "values", "judgement", "observation", "objective world", "subjectivism", "relativism", and "infinity". Your ignorance on these concepts is crippling your ability to communicate.
I don't know what you can possibly get out of this. It is a dead thread, so no one else is reading it. Your responses have little to do with my posts, so are are not communicating with me. You are giving the equivalent of diary entries on a public bulletin board, rudely under the presumption of a dialogue.
Very well. It is not "never" true. If you want to make #3 an accurate statement, then say that "human beings are usually controllable through peaceful persuasion."
But then, of course, if people are not peacefully persuaded to avoid conflicting with another's values, you have no way to conclude that it is even a "right", because you don't observe others seeking not to conflict with it.
One last point. If some people conflict with another's observed values, and some like you choose not to, how do you know who is right?
Your system really isn't consistent, because it doesn't address the "why" question. Consider a very hypothetical conversation.
You might say, "Hey, I observe that Sudanese Christians value their lives. That is a value that I and many others would not conflict with. Therefore I observe that they have a right to life. Based on these principles I condemn the actions of that tyrannical government."
The tyrant answers, "Why shouldn't I seek to conflict with these people's values? Why shouldn't I do what I wish? Why should I care what values they claim to have?"
Are the tyrant's observable values inherently better or worse than yours? How can you tell which is the observation worth respecting? After all, it is a value that can be observed.
Your system is incomplete because it seeks to prove through observation alone what inherently involves moral values. Your system does not include God, who is the only one that can define right from wrong, and enforce negative sanctions on those that violate His law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.