Can You Define Natural Rights as a Meaningful Concept?

[Amanojack]

@Zavoi

@AJ

What if she simply says, “Don’t do that”? That is not an ethical statement, but it does seem to make Bob’s further advances immoral.

“Don’t do that” is an ethical statement. It’s equivalent to saying “You should not do that” or “It is objectively bad for you to do that” (although, again, nobody actually talks like that).

So she would be logically contradicting herself if she said, “It’s not objectively bad for you to do that, but still don’t do it”?

[adam_knott]

@Zavoi

@AJ

What if she simply says, “Don’t do that”? That is not an ethical statement, but it does seem to make Bob’s further advances immoral.

“Don’t do that” is an ethical statement. It’s equivalent to saying “You should not do that” or “It is objectively bad for you to do that” (although, again, nobody actually talks like that).

Zavoi:

What if A says first, “I don’t like that (or this),” and secondly, “if you (B) do this, then I will take action.” ?

Then, A expresses his displeasure, and puts forth two options: B may cease doing what he is doing or what he planned to do, or, B may continue, and possibly face the consequences A implies.

Here, in my opinion, A doesn’t necessarily make a statement about what is “objectively” good or bad. He says he doesn’t like something, and if something continues, he will take action. This refers to A’s preferences or likes and dislikes, and his planned actions to address his dislikes.

[zefreak]

Zavoi, you ought to clean your room. Is this a moral statement?

[Juan]

Wow. Broken record zefreak is yet again at it.

[Stephen_Forde]

@ the OP

Law is a set of norms (rules, modes of action) which define a person’s jurisdiction (who may and may not decide what is to be done) over property.

Natural in this case, means what is grounded in the nature of things. The core idea of the natural law tradition is that law can not be created (is not an artificial institution, is not man-made, is not the result of mere declaration, ect). It is already in existence and only needs to be discovered. Because natural law is the result of human nature, it couldn’t be undone if one wanted to undo it.

Ought (Should) - In a legal context, it refers to an enforceable obligation. It is a norm which one governs, constrains, or forms an individual’s actions.

Right/Wrong (Just/Unjust) - Giving each man his due vs. not giving each man his due.

Objective Value - Objective and subjective are properties of observations. If you have two individuals who observe the same object and give an account of their observation, to the extent that their accounts agree, their accounts are objective. To the extent that they disagree, they are subjective. Another word for obective could be inter-subjective. Other labels for this type of distinction could be absolute (holding in all cases) and conditional (holding only in some cases depending on conditions)

Man’s nature - The characteristics of human beings which substantially differentiate him from other animals. IMO, the key characteristics are his reason and his action.

This is just my rough attempt to define the concepts you bring up, hastily thrown together in 15 minutes.

[Juan]

Objective Value - Objective and subjective are properties of observations. If you have two individuals who observe the same object and give an account of their observation, to the extent that their accounts agree, their accounts are objective. To the extent that they disagree, they are subjective. Another word for obective could be inter-subjective.

Totally wrong. You and your friend might agree that pigs fly. That doesn’t make it an objective fact.

[Stephen_Forde]

@Juan

Objective Value - Objective and subjective are properties of observations. If you have two individuals who observe the same object and give an account of their observation, to the extent that their accounts agree, their accounts are objective. To the extent that they disagree, they are subjective. Another word for obective could be inter-subjective.

Totally wrong. You and your friend might agree that pigs fly. That doesn’t make it an objective fact.

I guess I could have said true accounts. If two people gave true accounts of an observation…

[Amanojack]

@Stephen Forde

If two people gave true accounts of an observation…

Objectively true or subjectively true? I think we’re back to the starting point.

[wilderness]

@AJ

@Stephen Forde

If two people gave true accounts of an observation…

Objectively true or subjectively true? I think we’re back to the starting point.

No. You think “we’re back to the starting point”. Whoever ‘we are’, I assume you and Stephen. Did you ask Stephen this or are you deciding this for him? Is that what being subjective is all about?

[zefreak]

@Juan

Wow. Broken record zefreak is yet again at it.

What, you mean posting?

[twistedbydsign99]

@zefreak

Zavoi, you ought to clean your room. Is this a moral statement?

Moral statement, yes. Moral truth… perhaps?

[liberty_student]

Welcome back Zefreak!!! [:D]

[twistedbydsign99]

Natural law, are those laws that can be derived logically from what objectively is.

[Amanojack]

@twistedbydsign99

Natural law, are those laws that can be derived logically from what objectively is.

You mean laws like, “If you do X action, consequence Y will logically follow as a result?” Sounds like a good thing to me.

[twistedbydsign99]

@AJ

You mean laws like, “If you do X action, consequence Y will logically follow as a result?” Sounds like a good thing to me.

Its a neutral thing, I only half answered your question.

1. Derivation of something logical requires a deriver, an interpreter

2. The answer I gave doesn’t satisfy your requirement of “meaningful” because this again requires an interpreter

Absent the interpreter aka objective, you are left with logical derivation.

[Stephen_Forde]

@AJ

@Stephen Forde

If two people gave true accounts of an observation…

Objectively true or subjectively true? I think we’re back to the starting point.

Let me try this:

Obj => necessarily true for everyone

Sub => Necessarily true for at least one person

[Juan]

Alternatively…

Obj => necessarily true for everyone

Objective means related to objects external to the subject/observer. Objects that have their own nature and are what they are - not what the observer may mistakenly believe about them.

Sub => Necessarily true for at least one person

Subjective means experienced by a subject/observer.

[Jon_Irenicus]

I think he is confusing inter-subjective for objective, the latter relating the mind to the external world as you said.

[Stephen_Forde]

@Juan

Alternatively…

Obj => necessarily true for everyone

Objective means related to objects external to the subject/observer. Objects that have their own nature and are what they are - not what the observer may mistakenly believe about them.

Sub => Necessarily true for at least one person

Subjective means experienced by a subject/observer.

But this is not without problems. We only know of external reality only through experience. So given your definitions, everything would be subjective. Also, how would you know if anything was really objective? (I think that some things are necessarily universally inter-subjective, but I’m not sure if that would be the same thing)

@Jon

I think he is confusing inter-subjective for objective, the latter relating the mind to the external world as you said.

I don’t see how inter-subjective and objective are necessarily mutually exclusive.

[Jon_Irenicus]

Because you’re butchering the word if you think that mere agreement at the subjective level suffices to give rise to anything reminiscent of objectivity, i.e. mind-indepence. Inter-subjectivity can be a hint that one is in grasp of some objective truth but is not the same thing.