pg 49
ok. So circular proof has two different meanings. simply trying to be accurate. i was hoping you could show me where begging the question and circular proof have been used in the same way. I knew it had to be since Robin Smith noted how in modern times the two terms have been used “interchangeably”, but as he notes Aristotle meant something different and then explains the difference.
thanks
No problem. But if you read the book, David Fischer doesn’t completely conflate begging-the-question and circular proof, he says that they are related. Which fits well within Prior Analytics and your citation of Robin Smith.
Regardless, in this case [human rights] it’s still a fallacy. [:P]
of course you know i disagree on that point by my taking of an axiom.
as for what you said previously in your post that’s interesting Fischer doesn’t completely conflate the two. i think the relation is one of direction. I’m interpreting begs the question as being dialectical; whereas the circular proof I introduced to this thread is a demonstration.
Concerning this paragraph, I agree with the first statement. Obligations demand more then one party. For how can you be obligated to yourself? That seems like a bizarre thought. However, I disagree with the concept that a governmental institution must be founded in order to protect said rights. Obviously polycentric legal systems have been discussed here ad nauseum, so do we really need to continue into it again?
In that case “polycentric legal systems” would be just governmental institutions by another name. But I agree we should keep the discussions to the relevant threads relating to the issue.
It is obvious that “rights” (and subsequently obligations connected to them) do necessitate agreement between parties or one (or more) party proclaiming and forcing this onto others. Hence universal human rights do not exist by the virtue of just being humans. That’s not something people are born with like the instinct to take a breath or urge to eat.
It is logically inferred by human action.
Dogs cannot post here. => You are not a dog.
I’m not convinced that natural rights is tied to ones humanity. A criminal performing restitution does not have the right to property like other people have.
“The second is that there is an effective government mechanism for protecting the object of the proposed right.”
I basically agree with this part. But to me, this doesn’t show that human rights don’t exist but that they are so important that they must be protected. Whether by a government agency or a non-government agency.
The first question for a notion in contention is always, “Is it well-defined?” Then, once you have a definition, you answer the question based on that. Usually, as with rights, there are multiple definitions.
Long has been kind enough to supply a clarifying trichotomy (paraphrasing):
- Legal rights: the rights that the law organization or government in power announces it will enforce
- Normative rights: the rights that should be enforced [however “should” is defined]
- De facto rights: the rights that actually are enforced
Can you define the word “define” ? Can you define “contention” ? Can you define “notion” Can you define “always” ?
Government is defined as a monopolistic institution that controls legal services in a given geographical local. A polycentric legal order by its very nature is the opposite of such an institution, therefore it is not ‘government.’
Well perhaps you can redefine or define what actually allows us to have rights excluding rational deduction which is find only in human beings.
Ultimately rights are noninterference agreements. There is no guaranteed enforcement. Having a right to your life does not mean you cannot easily be murdered.
Rights are compelling not because the rights fairies will protect you. It is merely a recognition that although you must shield against the elements, kill pests, run from predators, etc., there is likely one interesting aspect of your environment that gives you a potential alternative to force–people. With people it is often possible to affect their behavior through agreement. It is not a guarantee that you can do so. And if you cannot, they are nothing different than the rest of the world that you must face with force.
“Human rights” is merely the recognition that there are certain values that humans characteristically hold, and therefore certain things (liberties) they characteristically do not want anything, including other people, to negatively interfere with. Scarcity, biology, mortality, rationality, pain, pleasure, and other facts of human nature help explain many of these things, but ultimately a person can choose to act in a way that reflects just about any ordering of any values.
“Natural rights” in the context of large interacting groups of humans (societies) is just some nonconflicting universally applicable set of human rights.
So, human rights do not exist–unless human values, human choice, human influence on the world, interhuman interactions, and interhuman effective communication exist. In that case, human rights necessarily exist.
Thats a state, government could be any body of power (legitimate or otherwise).
You’ve completely conflated the distinctions between rights and liberties. Rights require a bearer of obligation, liberty doesn’t.
That’s like saying I’ve conflated the distinction between a giver and a receiver. I didn’t.
Rights require the unilateral desire for liberties in one entity, as well as the persuasion of one or more other entities who recognize those desires. Liberties for one party are the self-imposed obligations in another. Liberties and rights come into existence together defining the two separate human ends of a rights relationship. The existence of liberties implies the existence of rights, and visa versa, much like the existence of a giver implies the existence of a receiver.
Then everyone is government because everyone in some form has a body of power. You’ve turned the definition into something so applicable that it is useless.
Bravo! Finally, people are starting to use terminology that actually makes sense. Every right has a corresponding obligation. Liberties are those elements of the set of actions that are permissible because they do not harm anyone (and of course, the burden of proof is on those who claim harm is being done). Take notice!
I’ve turned the definition into… the definition, sorry.
“A government is the body within an organization that has authority to make and the power to enforce laws, regulations, or rules.”
I don’t know whether everyone is within an organisation. (Don’t care either way though)