Surely Bush and Obama thought they, if we go by their words, were and are being empathetic in their warring escapades and military empire around the world. They both were being empathetic and thus doing what is good for the people in their wire-tapping, gitmo, universal health care, abortion issues, racial issues, cap-n-trade global change issues, and all the other un-Constitutional and anti-natural rights issues for it’s all because they are here to help the people - they are being empathetic and desire to merely help. Can’t you people get it? They are here to help you - lol - [:P]
“God helps those who help themselves” ~Benjamin Franklin
The most scariest phrase in the world: “we’re from the government and we’re here to help.”
Seems more a problem of having a monopoly of force than of the sense of empathy itself. Also, they can lie.
Going back to the context, my full quote was, “If the person’s sense of empathy really is severely offended by every single act of coercion - even in the wild - then logically that person may indeed wish that they could put lions on trial, although they may see the practical infeasibility of that.”
If Bush and Obama are truly motivated by their sense of empathy to do those things, then they are not being illogical. But they can of course lie, and what is a good idea for one person is not necessarily good for another. For Bush and Obama, personally, those actions were their attempts to gain the most personal benefit (in the broadest sense) out of the situation they felt they were in. Those actions were not to the world’s benefit, sure, but that doesn’t change that fact.
I am not advocating that we let leaders justify their actions by empathy, and I am saying that people do justify certain actions and beliefs by their sense of empathy, and I am advocating that we have no leaders.
In other words, I’m not stating anything novel or shocking here, just pointing out that people forget that every action anyone ever does cannot but be that very action that they deem at that moment to be most likely to bring them the greatest personal benefit (in the broadest sense, including indirectly, spiritually, etc.). Even the deontologist follows deontology so as to gain the greatest personal benefit, so he is only interested in consequences in the very broadest sense. People are forgetting that quite often.
And to solely premise a person’s actions by empathy alone is misguided not only in teaching but in demonstration is the point.
You assume “People are forgetting…”.
And with all these preferences for achieving the “greatest personal benefit” what’s the best and universal way, thus, unbiased way for this to happen for each individual - natural rights.
In the previous thread, Daniel asked AJ: “Are you saying that rights are based on “feelings”?”
If rights aren’t based on feelings, they are based on judgments of facts, which are questions of what “is”. Rights are by definition issues of “ought”. I have yet to see a single argument successfully address David Hume’s point that it makes no sense to derive completely objective conclusions of “ought” from completely objective premises of “is”.
I see rights based on feelings and based on judgments of fact. I don’t see how these are inseparable. Rights are intellectually sensible and thus abstracted and defined universally from nature, so, this doesn’t detach morals/oughts from feelings of empathy in any Cartesian manner, which from what I understand this manner likes “gaps”, such as is/ought gap, etc… I don’t see gaps. From what I’m gathering neither did Aristotle, Aquinas, and subsequently others (though I know not if all) natural right proponents. So I have yet to understand what you are saying as I’ve been stating and trying to inquire about this when it comes up. [:)]
I don’t see how I implied that.
All right. “Apparently people are forgetting…” is all I mean to say.
That is exactly what I wanted to hear. That is a statement that people can actually debate on.
I didn’t say you implied it. That’s why I started a new thread. I did built off of what you stated when it came to empathy in the other thread, but I wanted to vet this concept stimulated by what you said, but not about what you said in particular more that what you said had me think of this. understand?[:)]
forgetting what?
Well I’ve said that same combination of words over a thousand times now since I’ve been on this forum and I may have said those exact words mirroring that sentence various times too cause I can only define natural rights and pursuit of happiness in so many creative ways.[:D]
I reason that the answer is that “ought” logically implies a purpose, even though by convention (and for certain social reasons) that purpose is often unstated and even deliberately hidden*.
“Ought…in order to.”
The purpose could be absolutely anything, including “in order to get right with God,” “in order to get the approval of one’s parents,” or “in order to get other psychic/material/indirect/emotional/metaphysical/religious benefits.” Therefore, a conclusion of “ought” can only be completely objective if the stated purpose for that “ought” is completely objective.
*This is what confuses people to no end. One reason for the obfuscation is probably that there is good reason to hide the purpose of a moral imperative if you want no one to question it. People also dislike this fact because it can be easily twisted to convince people to do bad things, such as via the greatest happiness principle, but that is no reason to abandon logic.
With that out of the way, Hume’s challenge is easy enough:
Completely objective premise of “is”: Stealing is an act that deprives others of their property.
Completely objective conclusion of “ought”: I ought not steal. (Possible implied purposes/benefits: “in order to avoid revenge,” “to help society work better,” “to avoid getting arrested,” “to not feel guilty,” “to maintain my personal integrity, which I value,” “to not disappoint my parents,” etc. Note that insofar as each implied purpose is true, “I ought not steal” is a completely objective conclusion.)
False dichotomy, not to mention that of course rights are based on judgments of facts, and reason.
Actually Hume has NO argument proving that, only an unfounded assertion.
You are free to explain Hume’s (non)argument in your own words, instead of invoking his ‘authority’.
Fair enough, I think[;)]
Wait, you quoted me partially and now you’re asking me what you snipped out? Anyway, I think we’re resolved now.
lol
I was really asking due to I didn’t know, but I’m glad you said this is “resolved now” for my questions weren’t pertinent, thank goodness - [:D][Y]