An Amoralist's Philosophical Standpoint

[Socrates]

If you define "rights" as whatever a person or thing is physically capable of doing, then I have the right to beat my neighbor Bob to death and rape his wife provided I am physically capable of doing so. And you can't even argue that the "rights" of Bob or his wife are being violated if they are physically incapable of resisting me.

That's the law of the jungle in action, and is observed in nature all the time among the beasts. Might makes right.

But as everyone is obviously bound by physical laws and incapable of transgressing them, and I'd presume even you would find the action described in this scenario reprehensible, it is obvious that "rights" in your odd definition have no bearing on what anyone ought and ought not do, and thereby it is pointless to argue about them regarding ethics and human law.

All human laws in your atheistic "amoralist" philosophy must have no basis other than what particular persons find desirable or undesirable, and that - without a moral framework - is completely subjective. Your opinion cannot be considered objectively any better than mine or anyone else's. Obviously what we find desirable is very different from what you find desirable, and there's nothing left to settle the matter but agree to disagree (or else have a bloody fight to the death to settle the matter by the "amoral law of nature.")

[stevil]

Thanks for your input Socrates, but I won't respond to your concerns until the premises are fully understood by the participants of this thread and I have presented the reasoning behind my stated conclusion[size=5][b][i]"sometimes reasonable, never unquestionable"[/i][/b][/size] and once I have seen that people understand what I mean by this conclusion.

[Ice_nine]

Stevil, I believe I understand your premises, but I still find them to be problematic not only in their application, but in their foundation.

And I dabble into linguistics so I understand at the very least that language is a living thing. While there may be a theistic bias within the English language, it does not help to use a word with little or no regard to how the word is commonly understood. I will also add that many non-theists talk about rights, morality, and ethics therefore showing us that these words do not *need* to have a theistic undertone to retain their common meaning.

It's funny that you say Existence Itself could be the law-maker. You know what Aquinas called Existence Itself? Take a guess

[stevil]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1326415317' post='2367977']
While there may be a theistic bias within the English language, it does not help to use a word with little or no regard to how the word is commonly understood.
[/quote]
It can be confusing so I entirely understand your objection. But unfortunately "rights" is such a commonly used term that I am forced to use it.
I recognise that "rights" is a loaded term, it merges "allowed" with "ethical" and hence means "ethically allowed" in normal everyday use.
I don't subscribe to "ethics" as I feel it implies an objective moral code, so any sentence including the terms "rights" or "ethics" or "moral" or "immoral" are nonsensical to me.

[quote]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics"][b]Ethics[/b][/url], also known as [b]moral philosophy[/b], is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending [b]concepts of right and wrong behavior[/b].
[/quote]

So I have somewhat of a dilema.

For example, I might state that I desire to euthanise myself.
A Christian might tell me that I do not have the "right" to perform that action. This Christian most likely realises that I do not accept their moral code but they use the word "right" anyway because it is socially accepted as being a commonly understood phrase.

Use of the word "right" hides its underlying meaning and hides the contention with regards to each individual's perception of what rights are. When two devout Catholics talk about "rights" they are talking the same language and are exactly aligned with what they are talking about. When a devout Catholic and an Atheist talk about "rights" they are not speaking the same language, their respective list of actions that could be described as "rights" are different.

It would be better if the Christian stated "It is unethical for you to perform the act of euthanasia", I deem this to be equivalent to "You don't have the right to perform the act of euthanasia".

Now I hope that you can see that an amoralist would consider "You don't have the right to perform the act of euthanasia" to be a nonsensical phrase because an amoralist doesn't think any action is moral or immoral. So how can I respond to the Christian's statement? I can't say yes I do have the right because I would also consider that to be nonsensical. But this is not to admit that I don't have the right although the Christian would take it to mean this.
I could respond and say that I am allowed to do anything? But what does this statement mean? Are we saying "legally allowed", "ethically allowed", "physically allowed"?
It then becomes very difficult to have a conversation between a Christian and an amoral Atheist in such a way that both sides fully understand each other.

I find that if I redefine the term "rights" then this is valid providing that I develop a "glossary of terms" and clearly define what I mean by this in regards to the conversation. This is a common practice in my line of work where both parties need to be absolutely clear on the meaning of a word in context of the conversation/document but that word is ambiguous withing the English language.

I feel for the purposes of this thread all participants are clear on what is meant by "Physical Rights"

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1326415317' post='2367977']
I will also add that many non-theists talk about rights, morality, and ethics therefore showing us that these words do not *need* to have a theistic undertone to retain their common meaning.
[/quote]
I am speaking from my amoral atheist perspective. I am personally unsure how an Atheist whom subscribes to morality can make their worldview logically consistent, this is one of the reasons why I am currently sitting as an amoralist.

Theists put much thought and effort into getting their worldview philosophically consistent, theists are a coordinated group. Atheists are not. It is up to the individual, if they can be bothered, to go down this path. The Atheist worldview does not stand on philosophy, simply a disbelief of any god theories.

[BigJon16]

"Philosophy: unintelligible answers to insoluble problems." -- Henry Adams.

[Amppax]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1326420052' post='2368077']
It can be confusing so I entirely understand your objection. But unfortunately "rights" is such a commonly used term that I am forced to use it.
I recognise that "rights" is a loaded term, it merges "allowed" with "ethical" and hence means "ethically allowed" in normal everyday use.
[/quote]

How about the word "ability?" That appears to me to be what you mean. People have the ability to do anything that is physically possible.

[brianthephysicist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1326390682' post='2367695']
The bolded bit is the key point. There are no guarantees that you will be able to make functional music, it may be a chaotic mess, therefore rules might be desired.
BTW: There are many famous music composers that learned by ear rather than by theory.
[/quote]

Yes, you are correct, that some people learn by ear rather than by theory. hmmm... Well, the thing that comes to mind is that when I get a new video game, I pop it in and start playing, while when my brother gets a new video game, he reads the manual, then plays. He is given the set of rules by someone else, whereas I learn how to play by trial and error. It's perfectly reasonable to learn by trial and error, but when I'm learning this by trial and error, I'm essentially writing my own rules. I'm learning that this button sequence has a desirable effect, whereas another button sequence is undesirable or I'm learning that in this situation, this item is useful, whereas in other situations, it has a negative impact on me. After a few hours of playing, we each have a set of 'rules' (often slightly different sets, similar to how different musicians would come up with different rules for their own music) that we follow in order to do well in the game.






I'm still having trouble with the premises and the whole idea of physical rights. You somewhat addressed it when you mentioned being 'allowed' to do something and Socrates also somewhat addressed it as well with his example of being able to do something to another person. Like, if I have the physical capacity to overwhelm a person and kill that person, then I have a 'right' to do so. As long as I restrain myself from doing so, he has the right to eat, sleep, breathe, read a book, wear a clown suit , etc., basically the right to live. But if I exercise my 'right' to kill him, then I have infringed on all of his rights. A law against me murdering him may be an infringement of my 'right' to kill, but it creates the opportunity for him to exercise his rights. I guess I still don't understand your second premise because I can see how certain laws might be purely restrictive, but I can see how other laws restrict in order to create.






Semi-unrelated, please stop using the constraint of matter not being able to move faster than the speed of light, the scientist in me twitches every time I read that. Even ignoring the recent results at cern, relativity is still technically only considered a Theory (yes with a capital T) and not yet a law. The first couple times you used it, I let it slide because it's just nitpicking and it does get the point across very smoothly, but if this conversation is going to be as long as I think it is, then repeated use of it will drive me insane lol. There are plenty of other physical laws that you can use.

[stevil]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1326421782' post='2368114']
How about the word "ability?" That appears to me to be what you mean. People have the ability to do anything that is physically possible.
[/quote]
I want to show how rules restrict and I also want to be consistent with regards to terminology.
E.g. the rules of Legal Law restrict <something> and hence create Legal Rights. Legal Rights are a subset of the <something> which has been constrained by the addition of the Legal Laws.

If I use the term "ability" then how does this work? Do I then term Physical ability rather than Physical Rights? This kind of makes sense.
What about Legal Rights, do I then call it Legal ability? Who uses the term Legal ability? This sounds odd and would take much thought to understand.

[brianthephysicist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1326423139' post='2368150']
I want to show how rules restrict and I also want to be consistent with regards to terminology.
E.g. the rules of Legal Law restrict <something> and hence create Legal Rights. Legal Rights are a subset of the <something> which has been constrained by the addition of the Legal Laws.

If I use the term "ability" then how does this work? Do I then term Physical ability rather than Physical Rights? This kind of makes sense.
What about Legal Rights, do I then call it Legal ability? Who uses the term Legal ability? This sounds odd and would take much thought to understand.
[/quote]

I think the term ability works better. It gives rise to phrases like "I'm legally able to do <something>"

[Amppax]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1326423139' post='2368150']
I want to show how rules restrict and I also want to be consistent with regards to terminology.
E.g. the rules of Legal Law restrict <something> and hence create Legal Rights. Legal Rights are a subset of the <something> which has been constrained by the addition of the Legal Laws.

If I use the term "ability" then how does this work? Do I then term Physical ability rather than Physical Rights? This kind of makes sense.
What about Legal Rights, do I then call it Legal ability? Who uses the term Legal ability? This sounds odd and would take much thought to understand.
[/quote]

I think that it is more consistent with what you actually mean. I believe that you are trying to fit a square peg in a round whole redefining rights like you are. I've been reading this thread, and even though I'm fairly certain I understand where you are coming from, I still have trouble because I have to change my entire perception of the word. Whereas if you used ability, I would understand that you are describing the capacity to act, which seems to be what you are trying to describe by using the word rights.

And I agree with Brian, I don't think that it is to hard to understand the legal ability to do something. And I think it is more consistent with your actual meaning.

[stevil]

[quote name='brianthephysicist' timestamp='1326422186' post='2368121']
After a few hours of playing, we each have a set of 'rules' (often slightly different sets, similar to how different musicians would come up with different rules for their own music) that we follow in order to do well in the game.
[/quote]
You are both playing by the same rules. The computer game provides the rules. Your perception of those rules might be different but you cannot change the rules of the game.

[quote name='brianthephysicist' timestamp='1326422186' post='2368121']
I'm still having trouble with the premises and the whole idea of physical rights.
[/quote]
Rights can and often do conflict.
If a person A murders person B then person A has exercised their own right to murder but person B has had their right to live infringed upon.

This introduces the concept of legal law and the dilema of trying to workout which rights are to be protected and which rights are to be infringed upon. How can we do this without invoking a morality code?

[quote name='brianthephysicist' timestamp='1326422186' post='2368121']
I guess I still don't understand your second premise because I can see how certain laws might be purely restrictive, but I can see how other laws restrict in order to create.
[/quote]
Laws aren't creating rights, they are restricting only.

[quote name='brianthephysicist' timestamp='1326422186' post='2368121']
please stop using the constraint of matter not being able to move faster than the speed of light, the scientist in me twitches every time I read that. Even ignoring the recent results at cern, relativity is still technically only considered a Theory
[/quote]
The best humans can achieve is simply theories and models of how the universe operates. Our models aren't the rules, but they are hopefully close to what the actual rules are. The latest Cern experiment is quite exciting with regards to an observed speed faster than the speed of light, but the jury is very much out on that one.

I don't want to argue about this point, hopefully people understand that our Universe does contain constraints with regards to what is physically possible.

[stevil]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1326423900' post='2368169']
And I agree with Brian, I don't think that it is to hard to understand the legal ability to do something. And I think it is more consistent with your actual meaning.
[/quote]
OK I will give it a try.

[stevil]

[b][size=6]From here on in:[/size][/b]
- Physical Law describes the rules that constrain our ability to perform Physical actions
- Physical actions describe all that we can physically perform within the confines of Physical Law
- Legal Law describes the rules that constrain our ability to perform actions legally within our society
- Legal actions describes all that we can physically perform within the confines of Legal Law

"Rights" will be deemed meaningless, and as such a phrase containing the term e.g. "You don't have the right to perform that action" will also be deemed meaningless.

[Kia ora]

[quote name='brianthephysicist' timestamp='1326422186' post='2368121']

Semi-unrelated, please stop using the constraint of matter not being able to move faster than the speed of light, the scientist in me twitches every time I read that. Even ignoring the recent results at cern, relativity is still technically only considered a Theory (yes with a capital T) and not yet a law. The first couple times you used it, I let it slide because it's just nitpicking and it does get the point across very smoothly, but if this conversation is going to be as long as I think it is, then repeated use of it will drive me insane lol. There are plenty of other physical laws that you can use.
[/quote]
As a physicist, you know that the theory of special relativity or general relativity is one of the best supported theories in science. And that laws are observations, theories are explanations. Theories aren't inferior to laws.

[brianthephysicist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1326423935' post='2368170']
You are both playing by the same rules. The computer game provides the rules. Your perception of those rules might be different but you cannot change the rules of the game.
[/quote]
I'm sorry if that's what it sounded like I was talking about, but you missed the point. There are rules provided by the game like you can only jump a maximum of 3ft, you can only use an item once every 10 minutes, etc., but what I'm talking about is the set of rules that I play by. For example, I might develop the rule for myself that a one-on-one situation calls for such-and-such move because it deals more damage but it leaves myself exposed to attack from behind, so when multiple opponents are near, use some other move that's weaker but more protected. My bro on the other hand, might develop a technique in which using such-and-such move when multiple opponents are near is still safe. We are each confronted with a constraint, or rule, of the game, but we each develop our own rule for this type of situation in order to do well.




[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1326423935' post='2368170']
Rights can and often do conflict.
If a person A murders person B then person A has exercised their own right to murder but person B has had their right to live infringed upon.

This introduces the concept of legal law and the dilema of trying to workout which rights are to be protected and which rights are to be infringed upon. [b]How can we do this without invoking a morality code?[/b]
[/quote]
we can't.




[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1326423935' post='2368170']
Laws aren't creating rights, they are restricting only.
[/quote]
You missed the whole point of both my music and my video game analogies. The idea is that while yes, there are some rules that are purely restrictive, there are some rules that restrict in order to create. If there was no law against murder I probably wouldn't be here today because I was a jerk for a long time. The law against murder created the opportunity for me to have this discussion with you.




[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1326423935' post='2368170']
The best humans can achieve is simply theories and models of how the universe operates. Our models aren't the rules, but they are hopefully close to what the actual rules are. The latest Cern experiment is quite exciting with regards to an observed speed faster than the speed of light, but the jury is very much out on that one.

I don't want to argue about this point, hopefully people understand that our Universe does contain constraints with regards to what is physically possible.
[/quote]
I agree we shouldn't be arguing about this point, it just made me twitch every time I saw it is all.

Edited January 13, 2012 by brianthephysicist