Yes, I see your point. However, I’m not denying the existence of normative rights, just their “natural” quality. Example: personally I think everyone should have the right to free speech, to minimum interference in their affairs from the outside, and so on. However, I’ve known plenty of people who think people should have a right to guaranteed minimum income, to a free education, free healthcare, etc. All of these are normative rights in the sense that someone believes everyone should be endowed with them, but none of them could be called “natural”, simply because there is no basis for them in nature. They differ from group to group, and even from individual to individual.
I’ll wait while you work this one out.
The basis of an unperverted human exchange is voluntary and non-violent in nature. Therefore that is natural.
For the same reason that atheists deny the existence of God, even though God is a comforting notion and possibly helpful for social cooperation in some cases. Namely, the desire for truth.
If EVERYONE else was a Nazi, then you would have no de facto right and no legal right to life. You would have a normative right as long as you stayed alive and believed that you had the right to do so. Likely as not, in that situation it would not be enough.
but god is not a comforting notion. have you read the bible? that god is angry. or are we talking of a different god.?
furthermore god is not a notion that can comfort people who dont believe in him. so its dis-analogous to the morality question i asked. consider, if other people believe in morality it would lead the disbeliever to receive benefits. (it would seem)
this is vacuous, i would have a right to stay alive just as long as i thought that i did and actually stayed alive?
aside:
whilst i disagree with you on your anti-moral realism stance, you are at least intellectually brave for coming out and declaring unpalatable truths. (.e. you find them true, and others find them unpalatable)
still i have to say. i have rights. individuals have rights. criminals and ‘the society at large’ can go fuck themselves.
From the link: “• Normative rights: the claims that ought to be respected and protected.”
Aaaaaaand we’re back to the extremely ambiguous word “ought.” Why would a scholar interested in elaborating an argument that purports to make fine distinctions use a word like “ought” in a vital sense in a crucial part of the text and just leave it hanging there, completely undefined? I searched the whole article, and Long never once attempts to define - or even refine - the term ought. I find his lack of semantic disambiguation totally unacceptable, given how semantically detailed he gets elsewhere when he picks apart objections with a fine-tooth comb.
ought is atomic, irreducible, you cant define it, any more than you can define ‘is’
can you define ‘is’ ?
Well, if we’re going to get into semantic arguments, then fine. It’s a contract made with a group of people wielding power over you. As I’ve mentioned a number of times already, “society” is a shortcut for talking about groups of people. If we’re talking about decision-making, that means “the group of people who have the power to make and enforce decisions”. They’re the ones who decided that you should not be stolen from or murdered without facing consequences. And since you want exactitude, they weren’t thinking about you when they did it, but themselves and their ability to retain the power that they hold in the current social structure. That doesn’t change the outcome, however - you have rights ONLY because others have decided that you should have them. Lucky for you they also had the power to enforce them, so they’re not only normative, but de-facto and probably legal, too. But I still don’t see how they would be “natural”.
longrob@auburn.edu
Ask him.
Why do they have the power and not I?
It is clearly true that believers find God to be comforting, regardless of the angry God in the bible.
It seems the morality question is analogous to me. Other people believing in God may lead the non-believer to receive benefits if they are for example non-violent (obviously not guaranteed, any more than it would be true for the case of objective morality). That is what we’re talking about right – objective morality – not just any morality? Otherwise I misunderstood.
Well, I don’t think you can change things reasonably if you don’t recognize the actual state of things. Just because I find something true, doesn’t mean I think it’s palatable. I have my ideas of what should be, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to kid myself about what is. However, I’m not trying to take away your ability to believe in whatever you want - that’s entirely up to you, AFAIK.
I may well do that, but as long as we’re talking here, how do you (and anyone else who agree with Long) define it?
the ranks of libertarian moral nihilists seem to be on a rising trend, anyone else notice this and find it curious?
How do I define ought?
All that I notice is the incredibly ridiculous amount of strawmans that you and Anarchist Cain and Juan have created.
Does moral nihilism = denying objective morality? That doesn’t follow.
Because life’s not fair, and because total equality is not achievable from a practical point of view. Doesn’t mean you can’t try to change things for the better, though. (Just thought I’d add that, seeing as I must be coming across as a complete downer).