So because property rights can be violated means we should have no property rights?
Mathematical ‘truths’ also do not ‘exist’ in ‘physical reality’. Why do you attach ‘truth’ values to mathematics but not ‘morality’? For more detail, refer to this post.
Subjective morality is not non-morality.
I see. And thanks for the compliment!
No, you have property rights because the consensus of people around you is not to take away everything you own and chase you out of town. But there’s nothing inherent, “natural”, about your property rights, or any rights, as best as I can see.
Apparently, all statements are moral value statements. The amoralist doesn’t exist! (Except when talking about math?)
I wasn’t talking about “morality”. I was talking about whether there is a system of “natural law” with attached rights that could be demonstrated to actually exist.
Natural law concerns morality [:P]
So I have rights because people are not trangressing them?
Amoralists can exist, they just cannot engage in indepth moral anaylsis without contradicting their values. It would be like an atheist speculating with a theologian on the powers of God.
And saying morals don’t exist can hardly be considered an in-depth moral analysis. But I don’t see why an atheist cannot speculate* about god, speculating about doesn’t mean believing in. I can speculate about the Easter bunny and how he delivers those baskets, I don’t believe in it though.
- Speculate as in discuss in a casual way
Speculating is establishing the existence of something or at least giving creedence that it could exist.
By establishing action within the Easter Bunny you are establishing that it is an existing entity. How can you ascertain how the Easter bunny does ANYTHING if you don’t even believe he exists in the first place?
Why? Prove it.
Talking about something is not the same as establishing action within it.
Thats what fantasizing or dreaming is, people can still share such ideas.
So when people speak about the Easter Bunny, or the bogey man, or anything made up, they are implicitly saying they think it may actually exist.
I did with my second response.
Existence is action.
Then we are no longer in the world of reason, logic or reality.
Look, you just proved what you asked me to prove.
Therefore one cannot be an atheist and speculate on God. They could be agnostic, but that is not the same as an atheist.
No, it has nothing to do with transgressing or not transgressing some preexisting rights, which I still argue you dont’ have and never had. You have your current rights because people around you have formed a consensus that they (notice, it’s not about you personally) are better off if they band together and guarantee to protect each other’s lives and property. You’re rights are incidental to you living in the society (i.e. group of people) that you live in.
So rights are derived from some mystifying social contract?
Not mystifying, very practical-minded. But yes. Now notice I’m not saying you personally concluded this contract, even by lack of dissent, but that doesn’t change the fact that if it wasn’t for that consensus, anybody could come and rob you with impunity if they were stronger than you. Therefore, your rights are a purely social convention.
if everyone in society wanted me dead because i was jewish and they were nazi’s, i would not have a right to my life? because there was no ‘consensus’ that i have a right to my life presumably…
oy vey.
or rather, of course i have a right to life.. i am a reasoning embodied being. i am a moral agent. i have a right to life. and fuck society.
An atheist cannot speculate on the existence of God? Or does that not count as part of your claim?
Then explain to me this because it seems like a common problem of yours. If individuals have no rights before this social contract…then what gives them rights after the contract?