I don't understand the meaning of this statement that you describe as a moral principle.
<<Perhaps that's because, as I said, I don't really know what you're looking for>>
No, that isn't why I didn't understand it. The failure is entirely mine, I assure you.
What is your share of happiness?
<<As much as I can get without taking it at the expense of someone else. The quantity of happiness in the world is not finite>>
Well, isn't that the whole point? You don't exist in a vacuum. Every interaction you have with others influences that balance. To relate this to my attempt to understand what you mean by "getting your fair share", I refer to the idea of food, as it is a commodity that is easy to appreciate as both a needed...and a desired thing.
What is your fair share when you pass me on the street eating your sandwich, and you continue to eat it because it makes you happy--but it increases my unhappiness.
The point I am trying to get at (amongst several) is: If you are the only arbiter of fairness then, from your belief that your policy is moral, it follows that what makes a policy moral is your say-so (for you), and my say-so (for me)..and so on. This denies the meaning of morality, which involves relationship. Nothing is immoral to one on a deserted island, unless there is a God present.
The person who claims the right declares it, and the entity with the power accedes to it. Or the entity with the power offers it and the person with the right takes what is offered.
This is absolutely wrong. You have not consented to your "rights"; No more than the slave owners did. And how do you justify the statement: "and the person with the right takes what is offered"? If your "right" is merely a social contract, how does it exist prior to the agreement, or to the acquiescence of the recognition as your quote implies?
Leaving this, and other tiny stumbles aside, your post makes it clear that you basically belive that "rights" is simply based on the say-so of the biggest feet and the longest bat. I wanted to know this, not because I wished to criticize you--but because I wanted to understand you.
Your words make it clear that your concept of "rights" does not necessitate any contingency upon morals, universality, or rationality. These may exist by happenstance, but they are not intrinsic to your "agreement" conception. Your "right" exists only to the point where I knock you down and steal your sandwich--then it becomes my "right"--until your friends kick my teeth out--then it is your "right"--until my government forces you to buy me sandwiches for life--then it is my "right" again.
It is this denial of reason and freedom as having fundamental moral value, which has diluted arguments as regards the RIGHT to abort. Abortion "rights" activists have tossed out and flushed fundamental ideas of RIGHTS, and therefore have removed their only legitimate argument to support their position. They argue that the embryo is not life. But it is. They argue that it is not human. But it is. Any scientist will tell you, it is human. The skin I scratch off my foot is human; The hair that falls off in my shower is human. These things are not arguments against abortion. They are embarassing statements. The ONLY argument against abortion is the argument from RIGHTS. A person has the RIGHT to think and to act...REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANY POWER STRUCTURE DECLARES FOR ITSELF OR FOR YOU. RIGHTS precede organizations and Governments. "Rights" are imposed by organizations and Governments. RIGHTS are the natural result of free thought and independent existence.
Lest I be misunderstood: I do not support abortion--carte blanche. I support the RIGHT to abortion. I do not say abortion is either moral or immoral. It is both. That is another subject, and a larger one. Abortion is a RIGHT. To view it as a "right" makes it subject--not to morality or to reason--but merely to the whim of the organization carrying the biggest cowpie--and who they owe their allegiance to. Might is "right".
To deny the freedom of the will is to make morality impossible.
---- J. A. Fronde
RIGHTS are moral principles. They don't rely on religious dogma. They rely on science and logic. But even science is contentious and subject to the subjective imperfections of people. Schopenhauer said it succinctly: "To preach morality is easy, to give it a foundation is hard."
Kant says that the philosophy of ethics derives from the foundation of freedom. I term this an ultimate right--the right to be free. Freedom is the natural and the logical foundation of ethics.
In the first place it is the natural state of thought. Human beings sustain their life through thought--in particular, through reason. There is a biological imperative to exist--to live. As most all of us understand--this drive to live is intrinsic, innate, and natural.
Human beings pursue the imperative of living by acting; They perform actions that sanction that goal; Actions like eating, resting, planning, and loving.
Actions are derived from thinking.
Thinking is free; And it is autonomous--an act of freedom. Because thinking is free and autonomous--the act of thinking, and all acts derived therefrom, are the responsibility of the thinker.
The freedom to exist is the freedom to act is the freedom to think. All people have the right to live--and therefore to act so as to further that existence. Freedom to act entails that one is not restricted by the use of force directed from another. Thus, we cannot have the RIGHT to freedom of action without granting it to others. This involves the moral.
Whererelationship is involved--morality is an inherent question. It is all about freedom. All moral principles derive from the consideration of freedom. This is what Kant said--and he was right (wink, smile :)).
The freedom and independence of thought produces independent and free action. It is the FREEDOM of these thoughts and actions that invoke responsibility. And it is responsibility that justifies accountability.
Our acts ought to be free acts because free acts are the natural state of thought>action>life. Free acts are the requirement of ultimate value--the sanctity of ones life.
We know empirically that life is ultimate value. It is prima facie. People often interfere in the lives of others, but when others are on their deathbed--well...who will take their place??
So this is where "moral" comes in. What ought to be followed in order to protect that value: The value that freedom is a necessary condition for promoting existence? The answer is that we ought to act such that our actions do not compromise the same freedom to exist in others of our own kind. This principle--to respect and to honour the freedom of others--is a moral principle, because it concerns issues of value. All people ought to be free to act in their own survival interests in any manner which does not compromise the exact same right in all others.
The moral principle I have just cited is a fundamental right. Fundamental because it rests on sufficiently reliable rational and empirical evidence. Rights are defined as:
1 : qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval
2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled b (1) : the interest that one has in a piece of property -- often used in plural <mineral rights> (2) plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature <film rights of the novel>
3 : something that one may properly claim as due
4 : the cause of truth or justice
In referring to the bolded parts of the definition (the meaning that is of concern to me), I will use the word, RIGHT. In referring to rights as contracts, agreements, or whims, I shall use the word, "right". Your way of understanding rights is the "rights" meaning.
Unfortunately, "rights" are not required to have the particular attributes of RIGHTS. Reason is not a requirement for "rights"; Universality is not a requirement for "rights"; Rational validity is not a requirement for "rights"; Morality is not a requirement for "rights" ("rights" can be both moral and immoral); And "rights", when applied politically, generally do not require consent, but, rather, are imposed by political process.
I must take a second to speak to the issue of absolute versus relative. Of course, everything can only be relative to the imperfect mind. By definition, non ultimate human beings can ONLY claim a relative understanding of anything--so there isn't any other choice. For this reason, I find the relativeness of all statements to be the least significant aspect of them. All statements--all truths--are qualified by relativeness. This does not prevent us, for all practical purposes, from pursuing the interests of science, technology, philosophy and art with the most erstwhile efforts...and the most pragmatic results. We don't need to know ABSOLUTELY if a dozen eggs is a dozen eggs: We only need to consider it as being the most probable wooing of truth--with regard to any competing claims.
Similarly, none of my arguments for moral principles resting on fundamental truths need fail by reason of the (relative) fact that nothing can ever be known by imperfect minds as being ABSOLUTELY fundamental.
The only time I find it necessary or salutary to focus attention on this matter of absolute versus relative, is when one is discussing those very subjects in a philosophical context, or when one needs to remind those who are unaware, that their thoughts are not perfect, and therefore they can never claim to absolutely know anything--including whether "absolutely" has existence beyond the conceptual. Therefore, I do not consider arguments of the imperfection (relativeness) of reason to be relevant or plausible to the consideration of how a spark plug works, how a plane flies, or is this really MY nose. O, gee! Was that YOUR orgasm?!
You know as well as I why these boards are jammed with combative people, almost viciously (at times) defending or promoting arguments around contentious issues such as abortion. You know as I know, that the "rights" imposed by Government do not need to commend themselves to reason, nor to morality. These "rights" are imposed by the organization that gains sufficient power from accumulating the most votes. The only thing that justifies these kinds of "rights"--in the end--is MIGHT. And that is why people say, "Oh, I'm so scared that Gore will get in!", or, "I'm terrified of Bush!". They know that "rights" are imposed without consent, and that they do not need to be justified by either reason or morality. There are not even referenda to give the illusion of consent.
No person or Government can take away RIGHTS. RIGHTS are not granted; They are not removed. Their existence rests on reason. Our exercise of thought acknowledges our respect for reason. It is a fundamental attribute of the human condition. Slaves had the RIGHT to live as humans, in spite of the fact that MIGHT was arrayed against them to secure the "rights" that were imposed to transgress their liberty, and to prevent their pursuit of fundamental human values.
RIGHTS are simply the recognition by the (imperfect) reason, of the fundamental nature of human existence, which is, as Spinoza put it, to live in accordance with its own nature. Being human is to live as a human. The nature of a human is firstly, to live; Secondly, to live free; And thirdly, to live well.
"Rights" are not fundamental or universal, and they do not require any correspondence with truth or reality. As the old saying alludes, they are often merely MIGHT. The "right " to own slaves and the "right" to be free are contradictory terms. When two premises exclude by contradiction, they cannot both be true.
This is the problem with "rights": They are either legal or political. They are not justified by logic or morality, but by power. They are often a political strategy to promote the interests of a special interest group, or a national agenda. The "right" to smoke--the "right" not to smoke--"rights" :) Well, you gotta laugh, don't you?! :)
I'm sorry. I prefer to rely on RIGHTS which are universal and moral, and which commend themselves to reason. I understand the reality of society, rules, laws, contracts, and agreements; But when "rights" are imposed that are unreasonable, immoral, or unwanted--individuals and groups ought to have something to fall back on as argument in defence of their nature--the self evident RIGHTS to life and freedom. These RIGHTS precede Government, and justify whatever retaliatory force is necessary for their defence.
I feel really sorry for people that are unable to comprehend the distinction here, and the absolute responsibility that resides in each individual to understand that they have a right to live, to live free, and to live to their nature--even when others are being given the "right" to tyrannize them, enslave them, bury them in the sand...and stone them to death.
"Rights" are political. Those nations that have the power (such as the U.S.) May now justify military intervention in sovereign nations because the United Nations (read U.S. And Russia, in those years) imposed certain "rights" upon the human race as a cold war political strategy to protect and extend their political power and authority beyond their own borders.
The right to freedom is self evident; And that freedom is a universal attribute of human nature--a nature that involves being, thought, and action...this is also universal.
I have tried to get you to wrap your head around my idea. This was your method of expressing either your puzzlement or your disapproval of my comments. My hope is not that you change any of your opinions. You have the freedom to think whatever thoughts you wish. This is your natural and prima facie RIGHT. I do hope, however, that I have met the goal previously stated. If I wish to be understood, it is my responsibility to be make my ideas visible. If I am still invisible, then the failure is all mine, as also the disappointment.
A comment from Cassirer--
Newton warns us not to confound abstract space--the true mathematical space--with the space of our sense experience. Common People, he says, think of space time, and motion according to no other principle than the relations these concepts bear to sensible objects. But we must abandon this principle if we wish to achieve any real scientific or philosophic truth: in philosophy we have to abstract from our sense data. This Newtonian view became the stumbling block for all the systems of sensationalism. Berkeley concentrated all his critical attacks on this point. He maintained that Newton's "true mathematical space " was in fact no more than imaginary space, a fiction of the human mind. And if we admit the general principles of Berkeley's theory of knowledge we can scarcely refute this view. We must admit that abstract space has no counterpart and no foundation in any physical or psychological reality. The points and lines of the geometer are neither physical nor psychological objects; they are nothing but symbols for abstract relations. If we ascribe "truth' to these relations, then the sense of the term truth will henceforth require redefinition. For we are concerned in the case of abstract space not with the truth of things but with the truth of propositions and judgements.
I don't know of a more fitting way to end this than by this quote from Albert Schweitzer:
"Is there, however, any sense in ploughing for the thousand and second time a field which has already been ploughed a thousand and one times? Has not everything which can be said about ethics already been said by Lao-tse, Confucius, the Buddha, and Zarathustra; by Amos and Isaiah; by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle; by Epicurus and the Stoics; by Jesus and Paul; by the thinkers of the Renaissance, of the "Aufklarung," and of Rationalism; by Locke, Shaftesbury, and Hume; by Spinoza and Kant; by Fichte and Hegel; by Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and others? Is there any possibility of getting beyond all these contradictory convictions of the past to new beliefs which will have a stronger and more lasting influence? Can the ethical kernel of the thoughts of all these men be collected into an idea of the ethical, which will unite all the energies to which they appeal? We must hope so, if we are not to despair of the fate of the human race." |
